Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Foreign policy questions for Sarah Palin, and suggested responses
FP Passport blogger Rebecca Frankel proposes twenty foreign policy questions for Sarah Palin, who is apparently boning up on the issues with the help of Joe Lieberman and other advisors. The proposed questions are set forth below, and I have taken the liberty of supplying the answers that I would give. Note that my answers are not necessarily the best for somebody trying to win an election so I certainly hope that Governor Palin runs them through the campaign team before using them, but I suspect they are the answers that most national security Republicans would wish to hear. My proposed answers are offset and in italics.
1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?The attacks of September 11, 2001 were hardly the first attacks of al Qaeda's war against the United States. That war began literally in 1996, when al Qaeda declared war upon us. Its geopolitical roots, however, date from our long failure to respond to radical Islamist aggression, whether Sunni or Shiite. That failure, which dates from the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and Hezbollah's attacks on us in Lebanon in 1983, established over a period of two decades and presidencies of both parties that the United States would flee from radical Islamist aggression. We needed to send a different signal, that attacking the United States is extremely perilous. If I had been in charge in 1979, I would have retaliated. If I had been President in 1983 when Hezbollah slaughtered our Marines in Lebanon, I would have retaliated (as the French did). If I had been President in 1993, I would have retaliated for Mogadishu and the first attacks on the World Trade Center; in 1996 I would have responded to Khobar Towers instead of waiting for even more proof that Iran was behind the mass murder there; in 1998 I would have responded comprehensively to the destruction of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, even at the risk of casualties to Americans; and in 2000 I would not have rejected retaliation for the attack on the USS Cole because I was afraid of offending Yassir Arafat. So we had to hit back hard and comprehensively at some point or radical Islamists would have continued to attack us. It is a great tragedy that no president chose to change the rules until then.
2. Is Iraq a democracy?Manifestly. It is not a perfect democracy and it is not a secular Western democracy, but it is not a monarchy, oligarchy, fascist dictatorship, military dictatorship, or "Peoples republic." It is an ethnically and religiously diverse country that has been through enormous political and social stress, and it is a democracy.
3. What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
They are different branches of Islam that diverged over a succession crisis early in that religion's history. Most Muslims are Sunnis, but Shiites are a majority in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon, to name three countries of great geopolitical significance to the United States. Sunnis and Shiites have a long tradition of conflict, but that has not prevented radicals from both branches from cooperating in their war against the United States. The Iranians have supported Sunni terrorists in Iraq, and the 9/11 Commission noted that there was evidence that the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996 was a "joint venture" between Hezbollah, which is Shiite, and al Qaeda, which is Sunni.
4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?
It is not the job of the United States to impose peace on Israel and the Palestinian Arabs; peace is something that can only be achieved between the two. That said, we would prefer peace that does not involve one conquering the other, either militarily or through subversion. That will probably require two states, and some international intervention to push along the final negotiations. My opinions about Jerusalem are immaterial, in that no government of Israel, which is a democracy, can give up Jerusalem and survive the wrath of its people. I would, however, encourage both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to consider creative solutions to the administration of Jerusalem that respect the interests of all faiths.
5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?
France has long played a role in the Middle East, including particularly in Syria and Lebanon, both of which were under its control in the years following World War I. As a result, it has great expertise in dealing with the people in that region. France is an ally of the United States, and the interests of our countries are closely aligned. Whether the United States should "negotiate" with vicious leaders like Assad is impossible to answer in the abstract. When would we negotiate, and over what? What would be the means of negotiation? We should not negotiate simply to say that we will "negotiate with anybody", but neither should we avoid all contact with foreign governments just because they do do bad things. Context is everything.
6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?
Hu Jintao and Pratibha Patil. Have you asked such contemptuous questions of the Democrats?
7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Yes, although I wish there were a better choice. It does run the risk of undermining the non-proliferation regime that has limited the spread of nuclear weapons. However, India achieved nuclear weapons years ago, and pretending otherwise is unrealistic. This agreement has many advantages, among them allowing India to increase the power produced in its economy without burning fossil fuels. It also cements our relationship with the largest country on the Indian Ocean, geopolitically the most important body of water in the world.
8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?
We have two simultaneous objectives that are not perfectly consistent. They are reducing our dependence on oil from abroad, including especially countries that do not always have America's best interests in mind, and evolving the economy toward sources of energy that do not damage the environment. In addition to permitting the drilling of oil in most places that we do not allow it today, we should break down the legal obstacles -- such as vexatious litigation -- that raise the cost of capital for the large projects that will be necessary to transform our economy. These include the licensing and siting of safe nuclear power plants, the location of wind farms and solar collectors, and the reconstruction of the country's electrical grid. Finally, we should drive capital into alternative energy by creating tax incentives, such as the careful use of accelerated depreciation and the full deductibility of passive losses, that favor those technologies. We need to do everything.
9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?
The harsh reality is that China is an enormously powerful country that does not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. There is very little that we can do to prevent internal oppression, other than to object when we see it, give succor to its victims, and give voice to those Chinese who do speak out for freedom. Finally, American businesses should understand that they do not serve the interests of this country when they tailor their businesses to accomodate or facilitate human rights abuses in China or any other country.
10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?
Pass. It would be unwise for me or any other candidate to answer such a specific question prospectively, and in any event my own response who be highly dependent on the context in which it was posed.
11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.
If by the "last administration" you mean that of Bill Clinton, then its greatest success was the North American Free Trade Agreement and its most critical failure was its unwillingness to signal to Islamist extremists -- through action -- that the United States will not be cowed. If, as I suspect, you actually mean the current administration, then I will say that I believe that history will regard its foreign policy with more favor than most people do today, just as the cover of your magazine this month suggests. That said, its greatest successes are the interdiction and deterrance of any new successful attack by Islamist extremists within the United States and the vastly closer relationship that we now have with India, the largest democracy in the world and the indispensable ally in the war on Islamic extremism. The administration's most critical failure was probably taking too long to adopt to new facts on the ground in Iraq. It at least appears that a great strategic victory in 2003 was put at risk because we did not understand the true nature of the various enemies we faced once we occupied the country. Fortunately, President Bush found his general in David Petraeus. If we stay the course, victory in Iraq will be ours.
12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?
It is rarely what one expects it to be. Nobody knew in 1988 that the next decade would be spent managing the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If I were to speculate, though, I would suggest the rising tension in the Indian Ocean, which will be both the center of the war on Islamist terrorism and the vital sea lane through which the world's oil supply must travel.
13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?
HIV/AIDS is enormously devestating, especially in Africa. We need to build on the great leadership of the Bush administration in that continent. The critical point is not whether the United States advocates any particular solution, but that it uses its leadership to build a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS. All solutions should be on the table, but the United States need not take the lead in every case.
14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?
In peacetime, 20% or less. In time of war, as circumstances require.
15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?
That is a ridiculous question, and you are not being intellectually honest in asking it. Nobody, not even the advocates of more domestic drilling, believe that it will allow us to achieve energy independence on its own. That is not the point, and you know it. More domestic drilling will, however, increase our energy security and probably, setting everything else equal, lower prices at the margin for many years while our economy makes the adjustment to new sources of energy. The United States is absolutely capable of moving to new technologies, but our people need time. New drilling will allow it to happen more gradually and less traumatically.
16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?
I am not an academic foreign policy expert and would not know where to begin among the thousands of such books published every year. I would be delighted, however, to take down your suggestions. Moreover, I respectfully submit that this is another ridiculous question. I am not running for president, but if I were I would say that an executive has failed in his or her most important job -- the development of a good team -- if he or she knows the top books written by specialists in the many fields under a president's purview. That is what the team is for, and if you in your capacity as a leader assert superior expertise over the people who you have hired to do the job, you will demotivate them and get poor results.
17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?
I would not dream of insulting the fourth, fifth, and sixth great friends by naming the top three. More relevantly, "friendship" is a simplistic concept when speaking of heads of state. The leader of a foreign country has to look out for the interests of his or her country, not ours. Even a great "friend" will not abandon his country or, most of the time, his political career in service of that friendship. It is our job to align our interests as well as we can with those of other great powers that can help us.
18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?
The United States was not a world power until roughly the Theodore Roosevelt administration, so you are really asking us to look at roughly 100 years of experience. In that time you would have to choose between Franklin Roosevelt, who recognized before the Republican Congress that Germany was a great threat to the United States, Harry Truman, who understood (first) that Communism needed to be contained and (second) that atomic weapons were not just another munition, and Ronald Reagan, who understood that Communism could be beaten and then set about doing it.
19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?
Not you. Fortunately, John McCain has deep experience in foreign policy, and he has built a great bi-partisan team. As has already been reported, I have been spending time learning from Joe Lieberman, who was of course the Democratic nominee for this very job in 2000.
20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?
Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada. Canada is our most important trading partner, is vital to our quest for energy security, and is our ally on this continent. There is no security for us if there is no security for Canada, and she should be our partner in everything.
That is what I would say, more or less.
44 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Sep 10, 12:55:00 AM:
I didn't read all your questions or all your answers but, after the first several, I had to wonder about how Doofus Joe Biden would answer them. He has focused for 30+ years on learning what he needed to know to maximize his revenue. Beyond those golden limits, he is, as I said, a doofus!!
ENSURE THAT ANY INTERVIEW OF PALIN IS MATCHED BY AN INTERVIEW OF BIDEN. Palin is an American hero, Biden is a wealthy American thief!
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 01:29:00 AM:
From your blog to Palin's ears...
By 
Unknown, at
Wed Sep 10, 04:24:00 AM:
What about the antagonsitic quesiton "Who's the Foreign Minister of England?"
My answer would be - "How would I know?".
By Unknown, at
Wed Sep 10, 05:51:00 AM:
Well if the question is:
"Who's the Foreign Minister of England?" the answer is, of course:
"Ain't no such person. Would you be meaning the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom?"
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 06:22:00 AM:
Gee
Obama has 300 people to advise him on this, and the media expect the candidates to be able to spout this stuff off like it's all they think about.
I recall Albore's care phonetic pronounciation of some guy's mistress' boyfriend's mistress, or some kooky thing. And I thought, who gives a flying f*$$ that you know that, man?
Now, I'm impressed at the answers TH provides, and would expect nothing less from him. But really, Palin is going to get the full spectrum of questions, ranging from her lipstick choices (how do you pretty up a pig anyway) to how to achieve 'world peace' (she was a pageant contestant), to how to field dress game.
She can't be prepared for all questions, so I hope she's got some good zingers to say "I'll get back to you, or honestly, I have no idea, let's wait for facts and circumstances rather than speculate".
JT
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 07:36:00 AM:
Is anyone proposing to ask Obama these questiuons?
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 08:29:00 AM:
By Frank Ch. Eigler, at
Wed Sep 10, 09:59:00 AM:
"Foreign Minister of England"?
Trick question - the EU is trying to take over that job.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 10:18:00 AM:
Yes, but... I'm all for clever and amusing retorts, but before she goes on the attack again, Palin needs to do something soft and sensitive. I don't know what that might be but we don't want her to become a vicious harpy.
Biden couldn't answer these questions even with a commie interviwer with a giant clock. Biden simply talks too much. His selection by Hussein is proof that Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word "change."
I'd like to see Obama answer these same question. I believe he is lazy and lacks mental disciple. Listen to him speak (not read from a teleprompter). He babbles. He has few facts at his command (he does make some things up). 300 advisers are not going to be able to coach him out of his mental laziness. Palin, on the other hand, seems to be the polar opposite.
By John Butler, at
Wed Sep 10, 11:16:00 AM:
very impressive, I love your intellect and view point
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 11:28:00 AM:
One small quibble - FDR was dealing Democratic majorities in both houses. Isolationism was a defacto Democratic policy of which the Neutrality Act was the most toxic result.
The 'New Deal' Historians have rewritten history. The Democrats were in charge, the Democrats were responsible, the Democrats should take the blame for failure to deal responsible with the rise of Hitler.
By Brian, at
Wed Sep 10, 11:58:00 AM:
Hope this isn't triple posting, but the Khobar reference is a bit off. From the Report:
"In June 1996, an enormous truck bomb detonated in the Khobar Towers
residential complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that housed U.S.Air Force personnel.
Nineteen Americans were killed, and 372 were wounded.The operation
was carried out principally, perhaps exclusively, by Saudi Hezbollah, an
organization that had received support from the government of Iran.While the
evidence of Iranian involvement is strong, there are also signs that al Qaeda
played some role, as yet unknown."
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Sep 10, 01:04:00 PM:
*DF Stamp of approval*
Aside, viscious = vicious.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Sep 10, 01:12:00 PM:
Brian, thanks for the quote from the 9/11 Commission report. I should not have put the term "joint venture" in quotation marks -- I was going from memory on that factoid.
That said, I have spoken to terrorism experts who regard Khobar Towers as, essentially, an al Qaeda/Hezbollah joint venture.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Sep 10, 01:15:00 PM:
Thanks, Dawnfire82. That and other typos have been corrected.
By herb, at
Wed Sep 10, 02:18:00 PM:
In re asking these questions of Biden:
What are you trying to do? choke down the internet? You couldnt get all the answers on one webpage.
By Hey, at
Wed Sep 10, 02:48:00 PM:
Also, while Patil is the President of India, she is not the leader. She's just the head of state. Manmohan Singh is the Indian Prime Minister and the one to deal with.
If your India answer was correct, then you could just answer Queen Elizabeth for the leader of UK, Canada, Australia, NZ... Not exactly the same thing.
As to the Foreign Secretary... wait 5 minutes. Milliband is fighting hard to oust Gordon Brown as PM, so there's a good chance the position will changepromptly (either through successful removal or retaliatory cabinet shuffle).
All in all, some good answers. Just a little too passive re terrorism and the common mistake of believing that France isn't the mortal enemy of all English speaking peoples.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 09:36:00 PM:
How about we get a chance to vote for you? I don't think I've heard that much common sense coming from a presidential candidate since 1964 (and you know I don't mean LBJ).
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 09:37:00 PM:
With reference to the question on energy independence, "fully fund and enable ARPA-ENERGY."
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 09:58:00 PM:
TH, these are great answers, and you'd make a fine assistant Secretary of State or National Security Advisor staffer.
But...I think you've fallen into the essential leftist intellectual's trap, which is to think that the Vice-Presidency, or Presidency itself, is some technocratic job where the guy best up on the details is going to do a great job. It's not. Our most detail-oriented Presidents (Carter) haven't always been very good, and some of the forest-not-the-trees types (Reagan) have been great Presidents.
I think the key qualities are, first, being a good judge of men, so that you can select staffers and secretaries, the people whose job it is to select the experts who will provide these answers, and be sure that they are loyal, discrete, energetic and honorable. That ensures you get the best and most timely advice and information. Unfortunately, there's no great way to test Gov. Palin on this, except indirectly, by asking how many formerly close associates she's had to disown because they acted in some way wildly contradictory to her initial assessment (and that doesn't argue well for Obama, of course).
Secondly, you need to be really, really good at rapid prioritizing and re-prioritizing. You think your big problem is how to reform education (GWB, circa 9/10/01), and then suddenly you've got a whole different ball game going. How fast and how accurately do you re-prioritize? Again, that's tought to know by merely asking questions, but you can watch how people behave. Gov. Palin's context switch from being Alaskan governor to being McCain's wingman has been impressively rapid and smooth, whatever help she's gotten. That's a plus.
Finally, you need to know your limitations. You can't be thinking you know what you're doing when you don't (Kennedy meets Khrushchev), and you equally can't be helpless and weathervane with the public opinion polls when real leadership is what's needed, e.g. George Bush doubling down with the "surge" in Iraq. I think some of your answers demonstrate that key quality, but, again, this is something tough to prove by oral exam.
In general, this whole exercise reminds me of being in high-school and someone saying oh yeah? if you're so smart, what's the answer to [insert random trivia question here]. Knowledge of facts, no matter how big a pile, is simply not equivalent to having good judgment.
I think the left wants you to believe otherwise, because the accumulation of facts and theories through endless years of book learninge is their strong point, while the acquisition of character and judgment -- the stuff you get from The University of Real Life and the School O' Hard Knocks -- is not.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 10:10:00 PM:
Note that as Canada is currently having a federal election (Oct 14th is our date with the polls), that your last question is possibly incorrect. Specifying the Prime Minister of Canada would be correct, adding the caveat that Harper is currently the PM but that may change before the next US Administration takes office would show an even better understanding of the US's northerly neighbour.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 10:17:00 PM:
You got the wrong ocean as the most defining foreign policy issue. It will be the Arctic Ocean. A lot of oil explorations as well as other natural resources, as well as security will be at stake.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 10:17:00 PM:
Good, but I don't know about your characterization of the Indian Ocean. Good cases could be made for the Med, the Pacific, and the Atlantic.
To take one example, I bellieve the vast majority of the foreign trade of both China and Japan uses the Pacific.
By nick, at
Wed Sep 10, 10:21:00 PM:
1. you did not answer it
2. Is Iraq a democracy?
stupid question
8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If
GOP does not support development of alternative fuels.
11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.
bad answer
12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?
stupid answer
1 nuclear weapons,
2 us standing in world
3 reducing xmuslim extremist impact on world.
13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?
HA - palin cant answer this!
15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?
PALIN said it would be possible
16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?
she reads?? LoL
huntington!
17. Who among the world's
leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?
that was DUMB answer
our allies who cooperate
great britain
japan
austraila
and with whom, we have great bonds
developing Poland for one
germany,
france have been in that category in the past
18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?
FDR world leader , not one who jus interfaced with world leaders
19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?
stupid answer
Bill Clinton
henry kissinger
20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?
BS answer
Jintao
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 11:06:00 PM:
Very interesting to read. A quibble: I think "victory in Iraq will be ours." sounds a bit Dr. Evilish and probably would be better served up more softly. I don't have a great fix beyond maybe "and our great military will have done their job in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will finally have the opportunity to create a modern, free state" or something like that.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 11:11:00 PM:
Given that we're currently fighting and taking casualties on two fronts, it's kind of insulting not to give special mention to the countries sending troops who actually do real fighting alongside us and are taking significant casualties. These are Britain, Canada, and Australia -- read Michael Yon's dispatches if you have any doubts on the matter. And say that when you go to Canada on your first visit, you want to make a point of remembering the Canadians who fought and died in Afghanistan.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 11:41:00 PM:
On the last question, the Canadian Prime Minister is a good choice, but she'd be better off not mentioning a specific name, given that they're having an election on Oct 14th. Harper's probably going to win, but not being aware of the election would be a gaffe.
By , at
Wed Sep 10, 11:51:00 PM:
Let me expand upon what "hey" said regarding the leader of India. Patil is the current president. Singh is the current prime minister. Here is a list of former presidents of India. Here is a list of former prime ministers of India. Guess which list Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi are on?
By , at
Thu Sep 11, 12:14:00 AM:
One more point, just to clarify things. Why is President Bush meeting with Prime Minister Singh when Patil is the real leader (according to Tigerhawk) ?
By , at
Thu Sep 11, 12:54:00 AM:
Nick, I love how you answer these questions with condescending remarks. If you were running for office, I'm sure the populus would love your responses of "That was dumb answer" and "Stupid question."
On number 17, it's interesting to see that 4 out of those 6 countries on your list we have been at war with in America's history. I also think French President Sarkozy would be insulted not to be in the top 3. In fact, the French, though they were against the war in Iraq, have been one of the top allies with America in sharing intelligence and fighting terrorism.
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 01:07:00 AM:
They were NOT answers
you stupid fucking moron
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 01:09:00 AM:
BULLSHIT!
France knows how their UN actions pisses the US off,
at war? what the hell has that to do with anything? NADA!
France has not helped in Iraq and are not really helping in AFGHANISTAN!
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 01:10:00 AM:
god, australia is not even in IRAQ anymore!
By , at
Thu Sep 11, 01:11:00 AM:
Kinda silly exercise, just thinking up questions, researching answers and trying to look smart. You do realise that the office of the President of India is mostly an honorific one? Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of world affairs (as opposed to someone who's spend a few minutes crawling Wikipedia) would know that the leader of India is the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and not Pratibha Patil.
By metrichead, at
Thu Sep 11, 01:17:00 AM:
Excellent, excellent post. Fax it to Palin's office, fast!
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Sep 11, 02:01:00 AM:
Thank you for all the helpful corrections on India's system of governance; I certainly admit I know nothing about it.
Also, good point about not mentioning Stephen Harper by name in light of the upcoming election on October 14.
Carl Pham, I agree with your comment, and tried to get that point in my response to the "top three books" question.
Some of you seem to think I made up these questions. I did not. They were served up by one of the bloggers at FP Passport, the house blog of the journal Foreign Policy.
I stand by my claim that the Indian Ocean will be the most important body of water over the next couple of decades. Too much oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz for it to be otherwise. See that the Chinese are building a deep water port in Pakistan, suitable for a blue water navy.
nick, taking you seriously for a moment, I agree that certain of the proposed answers are dodges. In certain cases they pretty much have to be. Nobody who aspires to the White House should name our "top three" allies, because it is inherently insulting. In other cases, the questions are so open-ended that they allow for a lot of latitude in the response.
By , at
Thu Sep 11, 02:40:00 AM:
Answer #10 needs more backbone:
"It would be very unwise for Mr. Putin, or any other Russian leader, to make such a phone call. It is as much in their interests as ours to cooperate on Iran, and besides, we have other bargaining chips that we can put on the table without selling Georgia down the river. Anyway, Russia should not feel threatened by Georgia joining NATO."
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Sep 11, 09:49:00 AM:
"nick, taking you seriously for a moment"
Goodness, you're a charitable fellow.
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 11:15:00 AM:
"Not threatened by Georgia"
you are a stupid PIG!
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 11:16:00 AM:
"inherently insulting"
like attacking INTO pakistan?
only good thing Bush has done
the conventional diplomatic wisdom
DOES NOT WORK
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 11:17:00 AM:
chritble?
thanks!
of course I see no one showing how they were answers to the questions!
they were COMMENTS!
By Georg Felis, at
Thu Sep 11, 12:15:00 PM:
Great post TH. On the few answers that I thought "I could do better", I tried to write up a bit and decided yours was better. The only thing I could find issue with is taking Nick seriously :)
By , at
Thu Sep 11, 12:27:00 PM:
To Carl Pham: You have the best comment on the thread. Well said! You nail it.
By nick, at
Thu Sep 11, 06:28:00 PM:
JFC
THE GOV already had to suspend one staffer for exceeding his authority
that tells you she cant pick them!
and NO staffer of Obama has been suspended.
instead Fox news employees assault his staffers
