×
From a March 2007 interview:
ABM: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?Palin: 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.So in March 2007, Sarah Palin wasn't paying enough attention to Iraq in order to have a particular opinion on the surge, or whether the administration's definition of "success" constituted a viable exit strategy. Meanwhile, McCain's whole campaign is predicated on the primacy of Iraq and the War on Terror -- the "transcendantal" nature of the threat that should overwhelm most all other considerations Which gets to the weird thing about the Palin pick. Everything I find on her suggests she's an admirable politician. In the same interview, she talks about vetoing a bill that would block the state from giving benefits to same-sex couples because the bill was unconstitutional, even if she agreed with it. But in March 2007, she couldn't even summon up an informed opinion on Iraq. McCain's choice of her casts doubt on the sincerity of the central message of his candidacy. If he's not going to take national security experience and knowledge seriously in his pick of a vice president, how can we be expected to believe he takes it seriously at all?
