The London Telegraph reports:
“Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said NATO may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear program, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.”
“Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party, and Washington think tanks say Mrs. Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organized by the right-of-center Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.”
Yep. Palin would actually honor our treaties with other nations and fulfill our promises to the world. It’s kind of wonderful to have some running for office who actually means what they say, says what they mean, and is willing to make sure what is said isn’t just empty words.
Of course it also scares the crap out of the Left who are very comfortable not doing such things – and I freely admit that butting heads with Russia should scare people. Sometimes though, you have to do scary things because they’re the right things to do.
I was not aware we had a treaty with other nations in the world that superseded our constitution. It doesn’t just scare the Left, it scares Old Conservatives like myself who do not think imperialism is a good idea.
With that said, please continue to comment. I am interested in interacting with your thoughts.
Here’s how I see it – Palin was asked if she thought the US should intervene if a NATO member was attacked by Russia. This question was predicated on the postulate that Ukraine and Georgia were given NATO membership.
Palin responded in the affirmative. When further questioned if this meant military intervention – i.e. war with Russia – she responded “Perhaps.”
That is undeniably the correct and honorable answer if we are to uphold our treaties. I don’t see how that can be construed as Imperialism or a violation of our Constitution.
Now, the questions of whether or not NATO should continue to exist and whether it should expand its membership are quite different, as is the question of what NATO’s role should be.
I think your final answer expressing your skepticism answers the question. Then, what business is there for us to shed American blood for battles fought elsewhere. This is not the intention of the American founders. Further, I do not believe Georgia should have invaded South Ossetia. As Raimondo writes:
“NATO is no longer a defensive alliance against a threat that evaporated in 1989; it is a League of Democracies, as McCain and his fellow neocons would put it, and membership in the club is a reward for democratic virtue. Of course, after Saakashvili closed down the opposition’s television station and called out his thugs to beat up demonstrators in the streets of Tbilisi, the definition of “democratic” had to be stretched to the breaking point to mean having a “pro-American” foreign policy rather than an internal structure that allows meaningful and vigorous dissent. But that’s a minor detail, one that Sarah can safely leave to her neocon handlers, as they whisper talking points into her earpiece.”
What does that have to do with honoring a treaty that was postulated with being in place as part of the question?
Do you honestly believe that we should just ignore our treaties with other governments? That was the gist of Gibson’s question? Would Palin advocate adhering to the NATO treaty or ignoring it?
For myself, I believe that the US should honor its treaties, so I liked Palin’s answer. That doesn’t mean I think that those treaties shouldn’t be revisited and the alliance’s worth and function questioned.
But that wasn’t what Palin was asked…
You see, we are operating from different worldviews here. First, even if NATO were legitimate, and I do not think it is, then the premise for being part of NATO cannot include Saakashvili (see Raimondo’s quote above) in light of their preemptive attack on South Ossetia. So, you cannot honor a treaty that is by nature anti-democratic. What Palin will honor is the US’s commitment to all regimes that will oppose America’s interest. So Palin’s “perhaps” is very frightening in light of a disastrous war. It means in essence, that she foresees US’s intervention for many years to come. That frightens me.