Paraphrasing Rosa Brooks:

Q: If Russia attackes a NATO country we have to go to war with Russia, right?

Palin: Perhaps so.

Q: Oh. My. God. NOW you are contemplating War With Russia You Insane Warmonger!!!

______________________________­_____________

I don't get you guys. give me some good info on Palin. Yhe exchenge you quotes from seemed to be a straight question regarding our duties to any NATO country: if attacked we must defend them, whether by Russia or by anyone else.

Whether being in NATO and being obligated to go to war for our NATO partners is a GOOD thing is another question altogether. But Palin, by your account, was not asked that.

Rather than accusing her of being a warmonger for correctly reciting our treaty obligations, could you give us what she actually said?

Look, girls, I know Palin is threatening to you as a woman (your husbands dreaming about her) and as a Republican, but help us make an informed decision here. So far I see a lot of dust being kicked up, but not a lot of substance. What did she actually say about the desirability of starting a war with Russia. And no fudging and pretending with careful deletions, now.

Here is her quote as released by ABC <link>

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

This just shows the intelectual dishonest of Rosa Brooks. She purposefully took statements from the interview to make her point rather than making her point based on the statements. Palin, although you might disagree with her, had her statements mangled and their meaning stripped. Not a responsible tactic for Brooks, who beleives her position should be take seriously.

I would hope that points could be made on her actual positions and statements, but it appears that the tact is to misrepresent the truth to suit the outdated, unnecessary, out of touch classical feminist position. It is a shame you have to lie to be relevant.

Thanks for posting the quote from Palin, it looks much more reasonable than what Rosa quoted out of context.

Very shameful reporting.

I was going to post that WE wouldn't go to war with Russia if Georgia or Ukraine joined NATO, NATO would be obligated to defend them, of which we are a member.

Something that Palin seems to grasp but Rosa doesn't. No wonder this wasn't on NPR this morning, LOL.

The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries

And how about this part? makes her sound pretty sane, doesn't it?

Dear Christ! The statements don't look reasonable in context or out of context. She looks like a woman out of her depth. This is where foreign policy gets tricky. Yes, technically if a NATO country is attacked then we must defend them. War with Russia, however, is not an option unless you want, ya know, the world to go boom. So you have to be able to balance the two positions without saying anything at all. You definitely don't say anything about war with Russia. Jesus.

Cornhog:

Dear Christ! The statements don't look reasonable in context or out of context. She looks like a woman out of her depth. This is where foreign policy gets tricky. Yes, technically if a NATO country is attacked then we must defend them. War with Russia, however, is not an option unless you want, ya know, the world to go boom. So you have to be able to balance the two positions without saying anything at all. You definitely don't say anything about war with Russia. Jesus.

Today Russia said they are willing to go to war with us if NATO gets involved. <link>

guess you're a better politician than Putin

You left out the part where Palin uncategorically insisted that Georgia should be part of NATO. That's where she went off the rails.

You don't seem to get it do you? The Putin statement is a RESPONSE TO PALIN.

Its a way for Putin to play Palin off of GWB so as to manipulate GWB. He's essentially backed GWB into one of the followign choices:

1. Repudiate McCain'Palin's Foreign Policy initiatives in Georgia as 'dangerously naive'
2. Fight the EU on getting Georgia into NATO and go to war with Russia
3. Back off of the insistance on Georgia being part of NATO

Obviously GWB wants McCain to win so #1 is not an option. Palin screwed up #2, and that leaves #3.

IOW Palin JUST DEMONSTRATED why she isn't qualified to even be VPOTUS. She doesn't know how to be diplomatic, how to shut up when she doesn't know what she is talking about, or even how to anticipate the consequences of her words on the World Stage.

And no, we are not better politicians than Putin. We are just smarter than Palin.

Degsme,

I've posted in detail on the other thread, and am not going to retype it all here.

But as an added bonus you do know that Obama has said he hopes NATO welcomes Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO, right?

So when you criticize Palin, you are also criticizing Obama for the same thing?

...and unlike Palin I'm willing to admit that at my present state (a 25 year old with a crappy post-college job) that I am not ready to be president.

It's not the admitting Georgia into NATO part that's a problem, it's insinuating that we would go to war if we have to. She should have said something like,

"Of course if Georgia became a part of NATO we would support our allies. But, while all options would be on the table, we would work closely with the international community, our allies and Russia to bring the conflict to a peaceful resolution for all parties. A war is in no one's best interest."

That's just kinda off the top of my head. A real foreign policy expert could probably say something much, much better. The point being, however, that Palin should be able to do better than a random internet poster.

Do you think you're ready to be VICE President?

Or aren't you competent enough to dedicate libraries?

No because Obama and McCain both have been more circumspect in what they said and how they said it. Furthermore, GWB could care less if Obama loses face.

But what Palin did was to commit McCain to a much harder line than what he has been publically saying - he may BELIEVE the harder line, but he's been wise enough to give himself outs.

Palin just closed the door on those "outs" and wrapped up GWB and handed him to Putin on a platter.

Clearly you don't get how politics on the world stage are played. Context is everything. Nuances are critical. And like Palin, you are clueless to them if you think that Palin's position is the same as McCain's and Obama's.

Cornhog:

It's not the admitting Georgia into NATO part that's a problem, it's insinuating that we would go to war if we have to. She should have said something like,

"Of course if Georgia became a part of NATO we would support our allies. But, while all options would be on the table, we would work closely with the international community, our allies and Russia to bring the conflict to a peaceful resolution for all parties. A war is in no one's best interest."

That's just kinda off the top of my head. A real foreign policy expert could probably say something much, much better. The point being, however, that Palin should be able to do better than a random internet poster.

If you read the transcript, she basically said that it would likely call for sanctions, and didn't even think a "cold war" scenario would be necessary.

If you think she said "yeah, we'd go to war", you obviously haven't read any more than what Rosa quoted.