Now that I'm over my initial irritation over the ridiculous entitlement-riddled excuse Palin gives for why she never made it out of the country until this year, on to actual substance.
Here's a portion of the interview:
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …
Palin: It's dangerous.
Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?
Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.
First problem: You just sat down with Henry Kissinger, a foreign policy icon, and you didn't manage to pick up on his position that we need to engage in talks with our enemies, without preconditions? Were you just not paying attention? Or are you just that clueless?
Second problem: Yours/McCain's position on this in the first place. Let me set something straight, that the Neoconservative contingency of the Republican party seems to be real confused about: Diplomacy is not compromise. Diplomacy is not appeasement. Diplomacy isn't necessarily even negotiation. Diplomacy is about communication. It has an entire spectrum of uses, and one of those is, quite simply, just learning about the other player.
America is a pretty open book. It's easy to get here, we are quite transparent with our exuberance for media attention. Our leaders regularly talk to the press, and regularly answer to the people (well, for the most part). That information is all available to nations such as Iran. Iran, however, is not so transparent. It is more difficult to truly evaluate the motives and actions of other nations and the people who lead those nations, when you don't have communication with them. We need to talk to Iran, not because we expect that Ahmadinejad is going to suddenly see the error of his crazy, racist ways, and suddenly embrace Israel, but because we need to more accurately assess what comes out of Tehran, including his crazy, racist blathering. Sitting down and talking with him is a good way to do that. I'm not saying Bush should have been inviting his good buddy Ahmadi out to the ranch, but sitting down with the man and figuring out what makes him tick would have been incredibly useful. (So are embassies packed full of spooks posing as State employees, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, Ahmadinejad doesn't give enough of a crap about America that just talking to us is enough of a carrot to, I dunno, suspend their nuclear program. But talking is important, nonetheless.
Anyway, next segment:
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.
Way to go, SP. You just took a position that even Bush wouldn't take. Whoops.
Also, not second-guess the Israelis? Since when are they masters of strategy? They haven't exactly proven that they make the best decisions. [i.e. The recent Israel-Lebanon conflict] It was a bad move strategically. It certainly upset the Lebanese who were either pro-Israel, or at the very least neutral. Also, just by surviving the conflict, it was a victory for Hezbollah. Not a great move, really.
I don't think being pro-Israel means that you give them free reign to start blowing shit up, (and supply them with the weapons to do it.) Granted, Israel hasn't survived this long in hostile territory by playing nice. But still, let's not encourage them to blow up the Middle East. I'd like to visit there someday. I'd like it to not be glass.
Anyway, counting down the minutes until tonight's debate. Yay!!!