Sarah Palin has a few favorite words which she sprinkles over her "verbiage" in order to link ideas that have nothing to do with each other:
even
also
seek to
Alaska
America
The United States
tapped
blink
ushered into
ramp up
So what does Sarah's "verbiage" in her interview with Katie Couric show us about her views on foreign affairs?
Sarah's most insightful "verbiage" was tapped when Couric was seeking to question her statement that we shouldn't ever "second guess" Israel.
We don't have to second guess what they're 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 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 in Israel, and her friends, her allies, including the United States -- in my world, those are the good guys.
So there you have it, also, America. It's even the "good guy vs. bad guy" politics in the United States. I thought that was just a way of getting kindergartners ushered into politics, but I guess that's how Governor Palin thinks about the world, also.
It's not even so different from W's "evil vs. good" view on the world, I suppose, but even that seems slightly more ramped up than "good guys vs. bad guys."
UPDATE: Watch the video of her answer. Can you make any sense of it?
In the interview, Couric also asks her to explain how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Sarah answers without blinking:
It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace 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'm really just stumped as to what she meant. They (the government?) send Alaskans out to check on the Russians? Really? Or does she mean that the Alaskans are there at the airport when Putin "rears his head"? Or is it that the Alaskans are watching the Russians as they fly over in Alaskan airspace, making sure they don't do any "bad guy" Russian stuff?
When Couric asks her to "specifically" say how her administration would spread democracy around the world, Sarah answers that they would "specifically" do a lot of broad, general, unspecific things for lots of people all over the world:
Couric: What lessons have you learned from Iraq, and how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?
Sarah: Specifically we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also, it's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic ideals around the world.
Silly me, I was thinking the goal was JUST to keep people safe. I was being so small-minded. I didn't realize that the real goal was to bring democracy to the world. Well, at least we know now that Sarah Palin has no problem being a "nation builder"
Of course, if the "good guy, bad guy" philosophy doesn't work for you, then you can fall back on Kissinger. Sarah and Kissinger are good friends. They just had a chat recently. She knows he'd never agree with that naive and dangerous Barack Obama ("bad guy"):
Couric: Kissinger is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the US should negotiate with them?
Sarah: 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 without preconditions being met, that's beyond naive, and it's beyond bad judgment, it's dangerous.
Couric: So you're saying that Henry Kissinger is naive? For supporting that?
Sarah: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met."
Couric (in the news broadcast at the end of the airing of the interview): Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview. He told us he supports talks, if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high level Iranian officials, without preconditions.
Uh oh . . . wait, so is Kissinger a good guy or bad guy now? It's so confusing!