Palin Interview, Day 1

Sarah Palin's first interview since being named to the Republican ticket -- which would be LOL funny if it was not so sad -- began yesterday with ABC's Charles Gibson. This part covered two topics, foreign affairs and energy policy. On neither point did Palin shine and McCain should feel the heat for his poor choice as a result.

Regarding foreign policy, she gave two disastrous answers. First, she didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was. Second, her reasoning as to Georgia joining NATO was, at best, unsupported by the realities of the situation.

It was clear both from her reaction and her response that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. After Gibson "defined" it for her, she gave some pat, soft-around-the-edges response that really said little. But here is the kicker, the definition Gibson gave of the doctrine wasn't quite correct in its strict terminology. Gibson defined the doctrine as the US having the right to preemptive action against a foreign power -- or within the borders of a foreign power -- when the US knows it is about to be attacked. This isn't correct, however. The Bush Doctrine makes clear that the US has the right to wage preemptive WAR on a foreign nation to protect its interests. The former has long been recognized by the US and other countries. The latter is a vast expansion in US policy of the proper role of the military. Had Palin known what the doctrine was, she surely would have caught Gibson's misstatement. Hell, I did and I'm just some shmoe sitting in his living room watching it on TV.

"Is this really that important?" you might be asking. Absolutely. First, the Bush Doctrine is the cornerstone of American foreign policy under the Bush Administration. It is the doctrine under which Palin's own son went to war yesterday, under which 4,000-plus Americans have been sent to die in Iraq, and under which tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. It's a big deal.

It also tells us a lot about Palin herself. Foreign affairs, and the war in Iraq specifically, have been so off of her radar as to be unaware of a policy point of this magnitude. This is unforgivable as a state governor. It is unconsciounable as a candidate for vice president. What is more, in spite of this lack of interest and lack of knowledge, she still feels like she can adequately make pronouncements on these issues. This is fine for some drunk schmuck in a bar who can do no harm playing arm chair general. It isn't okay for someone to act thusly when they are one heartbeat away from the presidency.

For a great article as to why this issue of the Bush Doctrine matters, see James Fallows' piece today at The Atlantic web site. To paraphrase one of Fallows' observations: Palin not knowing about the Bush Doctrine is like a fan of the NFL not knowing anything about the New England Patriots of the past decade.

Regarding her ideas on NATO and Georgia, at the very least it can certainly be said that she does not know how the process of joining NATO works. Here, she said that Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO immediately. This means, and she admitted as much, that our reciprocal obligations under the treaty would be valid right now. In essence, the US would be obligated to defend Georgia against Russia militarily -- e.g. war -- right now. Does anyone seriously think we should go to war with Russia over Georgia? Does anyone think that we could do this given the pitiful state of our military after Bush's bog-down in Iraq? What is more, Palin doesn't seem to understand that, logistically speaking, these countries simply cannot join NATO immediately.

There's a bit more on Georgia and Ukraine and NATO. What Obama and Biden favor is for NATO to offer these two countries accession to the "Membership Action Plan" (or MAP), a process set up in the late 1990s to help aspirant countries prepare for possible membership in the Alliance. MAP isn't a promise of membership, and the last members to join NATO were in MAP for nearly a decade. It would take at least as long for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO, not least since one of the criterion for membership is that there are no territorial disputes involving the country that is requesting membership... A lot of mumbo jumbo on NATO accession procedures, this. But here's the kicker: What Palin said is that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members now. Not even Bush is arguing that. (He, too, favors MAP.) McCain was with Bush on this until recently and, I assume, if asked still is. Palin didn't know the distinction, and is suggesting that these countries get into NATO tomorrow. She may not realize that this is a decision that NATO members need to make collectively, all 27 of them, which won't happen, given that MAP was denied the countries just a few months ago...

As an aside on the topic of foreign policy, Palin was asked if she'd ever met a foreign head of state.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.

She may be correct when looking back over the course of hundreds of years, when travel was much different than it is today. In the modern era, however, every vice presidential candidate for either major ticket over the past 32 years had met with a foreign head of state prior to becoming a candidate... until Palin.

On the front of energy policy, here she seemed to reverse course -- or at least soften her stance -- on global warming. Previously, Palin had maintained that the phenomenon was entirely environmentally created... that it was purely a cyclical effect. Man, in other words, has nothing to do with it in her mind. Last night, she told Gibson that regardless of why it is happening, steps should be taken against it. Gibson pressed her that the destinction did matter in terms of approaching a solution, but she stuck to her line. This leaves open the door that it could be man made -- or increased in its severity by man -- thereby being a change in her stance. This is pure politics and certainly not the major, fully-discrediting gaff of her foreign policy coverage above.

The interview will continue tonight on ABC World News Tonight and then on 20/20 thereafter.

12 September 2008