Friday, September 26, 2008

Thinking Is Overrated, Continued

The more I hear Sarah Palin speak, the less funny this becomes, and the more fearful I am that this person may be the leader of the free world at some point:

Here is the transcript:
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

It's not understandable that people would take a statement like "I can see Russia from Alaska" and run with it?

"I don't know, you know...reporters."

Sorry, is there a statement in there?
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

I used to think that perhaps Palin was not knowledgeable, but at least half way intelligent.

I guess we can assume the whole "5 colleges over 6 years to get an undergrad degree" really does indicate something about her:

She's a complete moron.
Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?

Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Oh good. A leader who divides the world into "good guys" and "bad guys". Dear Lord, she is about as naive as Miss Carolina is vapid and stupid.

"Those who would seek to protect the good guys, are the good guys?"

Even a 5th grader would tell you that you can't define a word with the very same word in the definition. I wish Couric would have gone more in depth on who constitutes a "Good guy" or a "Bad guy". Let's have her chop up the world into good guys and bad guys and discuss what the punishment is for countries deemed to be "bad guys". This could have been more fun.

No comments: