Who do you think is current the most mortified by John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his presidential running mate?

The Democrats..?

Barack Obama..?

Nope, if truth be told, the people who’re really having sleepless nights over the prospect of Palin finding herself only a single heartbeat from becoming Commander-in-Chief are Washington DC’s Foreign Policy Analysts.

Before McCain unveiled Palin as his surprise choice for Veep, the pros at the State Department were fairly sanguine about the outcome of this year’s Presidential election. Obama seemed a little short on personal experience, but he’d got some good people he could call on and when he settled on Biden for the number two job, the analysts figured they could relax a little. Sure, they knew that McCain would play the war hero for all it was worth during his campaign, but old soldiers rarely, if ever, turn into belligerent presidents. A President who’s been to war and seen it for themselves, first hand, is one who’ll prefer diplomacy as a first resort and will be the most reluctant when it comes to sending the troops in, because they know better than anyone what’s going to be waiting for them.

A couple of weeks ago, the mood in DC was pretty relaxed and the good folks of Foggy Bottom (yes, seriously!) were looking forward to a return to the days of a more nuanced, subtle and considered approach to foreign policy after eight years starring in Belligerence with Bush in the hot seat.

And then came the announcement and the mood soured…

It’s impossible to emphasise enough how badly Plain has gone down with the people who work on the ‘coalface’ in America’s diplomatic and foreign policy services. It’s not just that in her only recorded public statement on foreign policy issue, in an interview with the Alaska Business Monthly in 2006, she managed to back the President, the Democrat line on troop withdrawals from Iraq and admit that she didn’t know what the hell she was talking about and hadn’t been paying attention…

I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

Its not even that the best defence of her lack of experience that the McCain camp has managed so far has been Cindy McCain’s observation that:

You know, the experience that she comes from is what she’s done in government, and remember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. It’s not as if she doesn’t understand what’s at stake.

By which reasoning, Obama’s having been born in Hawaii makes him the ideal man to deal with China.

No, a lack of experience can be compensated for and who knows, some people even manage to learn a thing or two and gain experience… but when it comes to Palin, the doubts have already set in thanks to the kind of her basic boneheadedness she demonstrates here…

Try this for a short transcript…

Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His worldview?

Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership–and that’s the beauty of American elections and democracy–with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.

Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to pre-emptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.

D’oh!

I think I see the problem here – enunciated has a whole FIVE syllables and I’m guessing she got a bit lost after the first two. Mind you, its hard to imagine Bush ever having ‘enunciated’ anything with five syllabus either. Three? Maybe – there’s always ‘hamburger’ to fall back on.

Watch the video… its an utter train wreck, especially her pathetic attempt to deal with the question of whether she thinks that US is justified in launching sorties over the border into Pakistan without asking the Pakistani government first but pay very close attention to the answer that finally get wrung out of her.

America should do ‘everything necessary’ – the same old line used to justify the use of torture, detention without trial and, for a long period, without even access to legal counsel, kidnapping – or would Palin prefer we said ‘extraordinary rendition’?

On second thought, probably not… that’s nine syllables and she was get stuck in that interview with one, give the choice of ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by Unity

Filed under
Blog

Reader comments

Reactions: Twitter, blogs

1. The New Face For An Old Gang… « Back Towards The Locus

   [...] may have been valid if Palin had only obfuscated a little, but the heights of her incomprehension were awesome to behold: Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush [...]