Palin Calls Afghanistan "Our Neighboring Country"

My last Sarah Palin post for the night: Her gaffe in San Francisco today, calling Afghanistan "our neigboring country."

Three days after a mostly gaffe-free debate performance, the Alaska governor fumbled during a speech in which she praised U.S. soldiers for “fighting terrorism and protecting us and our democratic values”.

“They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan,” she told several hundred supporters at a fundraising event in San Francisco.

In other election news, a new poll by the Denver Post finds McCain and Obama in a dead heat. I don't think Colorado will matter -- it's going to be about turnout in the big states like Florida, Ohio, PA and MI and Obama's massive voter registration drive seems to be working.

I've got very early court in the morning so let's make this an open thread.

< Obama Releases McCain "Keating V" Documentary | Palin's Jane Sixpack Schtick >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bill Kristol: (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:10:43 AM EST
    Go after Wright!!!!!.

    Heh, what an @ss.

    Meanwhile, Krugman: (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:14:21 AM EST
    Sarah Palin going there? (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 05:51:19 AM EST
    Really, after the witch doctor videos have come up, and "Jews for Jesus" stuff?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:24:36 AM EST
    Afghanistan is right next to the former Soviet Union, right?  If someone lives two doors down from you, you'd consider them a neighbor, wouldn't you?

    two doors and (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:55:32 AM EST
    a small maritime border and one reared Putin head

    There are too many ways (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:55:50 AM EST
    that I'm intellectually challenged due to my lack of Alaskan residency for me to count.

    maybe (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:36:18 AM EST
    She can see all nations from Alaska.  It's a feature of the solar winds.

    It's a small world afterall. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:33:14 AM EST

    Does the McCain team.... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:55:59 AM EST
    really think bringing up all this Ayers crap is gonna work for them?

    Lets see....economy in the sh*tter, unpopular bailout, two nearly forgotten occupations...and they wanna refight the 60's?  I'd love some of the dope they're obviously on.

    Those darn jerks at FARK are so mean spirited (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:13:29 AM EST
    What an unbelievable contest they are running.  Very mean spirited.

    Obama = ? Biden = ? McCain = ? Palin = ?... you've seen the meme, here's the thread

    Completely disrespectful!  Shocking!

    (Warning: if laughing hurts too much for you, do not click this link!)

    Everyone is prone to gaffe's (none / 0) (#4)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:18:29 AM EST
    My last Sarah Palin post for the night: Her gaffe in San Francisco today, calling Nebraska "our neigboring country."

    Emphasis added.

    "gaffe's"? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:20:04 AM EST
    Mine and yours and everyone's! (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:20:51 AM EST
    thanks, I fixed it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:20:28 AM EST
    It's a good thing I'm not running for VP.

    Maybe she has information ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:40:28 AM EST
    ... that Bin Laden is actually operating out of a cave in Omaha.  Anyway, when those Afghanistanians come into our airspace, over that narrow but mountainous border, who is going to keep an eye on them?  It has to be the Alaskiaks or nobody!

    Smiling (none / 0) (#37)
    by Finis Terrae on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    Gaffes happen.

    Actually, calling Nebraska (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:21:35 AM EST
    a neighboring country would be just as much of a gaffe.

    On the part of palin... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Thanin on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:23:19 AM EST
    Im not sure if it was a gaffe or a belief.

    Oh, and Colorado will be a decisive state (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:27:22 AM EST
    if the race tightens again.

    Angels 5. Boston 4. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:29:57 AM EST
    We may see a freeway series yet.  

    Great game (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:35:11 AM EST
    I'm not sure who I'm rooting for in the playoffs any more since the Cubs got eliminated (and I'm only marginally a Cubs supporter, anyway).  I kinda like the Phillies, but I think the moral imperative is to cheer for the Dodgers just to stick it to Steinbrenner.  Joe Torre was always such a class act as Yankees manager and they treated him awfully.

    But its the Dodgers, man. 'Twould (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:36:48 AM EST
    be like cheering for MSU or something.

    Hee hee (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:43:40 AM EST
    The Tigers are the only team I love... and the Yankees are the only team I hate!  Of course I happen to think that hating the Yankees is as American as apple pie.

    I wonder if we'll keep on (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:48:18 AM EST
    hating the Yankees if they keep on losing?  

    I've been (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM EST
    hating the Yankees since they traded Roger Maris and it hasn't had any great effect on them losing, but your Yankee hate is welcome here.

    Since I like to respond with data (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:19:07 AM EST
    it's worth noting that the Yankees were the bad guys in "Major League" even though they hadn't won anything for a decade when the film was released.  As long as they keep going on about their eleventy billion championships they'll always be the team people love to hate.

    You carpetbagger NY'ers and your Yankee (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:29:12 AM EST
    hate.  Go live in Jersey.  That's right, eleventy billion, and hopefully next year eleventy billion and one.  

    As we say in the Bronx, don't hate the playa, hate the game.  A more applicable pun I've yet to find.  



    That it is.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    and I'm a New Yorker.

    Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for the Empire in Star Wars, like rooting for the British during the American Revolution, like rooting for Javert to catch Valjean.


    Rooting for the British during (none / 0) (#41)
    by tootired on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    the American Revolution was just what the New Yorkers did. It was the beginning of the Boston/New York feud.

    Their descendants.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    must be the Yankee fans:)

    Joe and Manny beat the Red Sox in the WS (none / 0) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:59:41 AM EST
    It's like a double beat on the Yanks and Sox.  Christmas in October.

    There is no freeway from LA to Philadelphia (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:36:08 AM EST
    Go Phillies! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:37:28 AM EST
    I'm in Ardmore ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:41:41 AM EST
    ... Where are you?

    New York City (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:49:27 AM EST
    but my car used to climb Mount Airy. ;-)

    Great game (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    Bad ending.  Late for those of us on the east coast too.

    I would like to see my team take on Manny & Torre in the World Series.


    Nervous (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:23:35 AM EST
    In today's Times:
    "Mr. Obama, who noted that General Petraeus wanted "maximum flexibility" in setting withdrawal schedules, said he "pushed back" when he met with the commander in July by making the case for sending more forces to Afghanistan, which the Democratic candidate views as the main battleground against terrorists."

    So, it doesn't look as if the troops will be coming home. They'll be moving East for another war.

    Obama also reserves the right to "pause the withdrawal" in Iraq. This is already programmed to last a year and a half.

    In addition, Obama plans to leave 30,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.

    So, if Obama wins, I for one will not sense a breath of fresh air.

    This is what I experience though (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:58:35 AM EST
    in my environment.  If the military has any pockets of energy that remain it is for going to Afghanistan and going after the real Al Qaeda.

    I also can't find any evidence (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:07:25 AM EST
    that Obama has said anything about keeping 30,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.  I did find one conversation between him and the general and Crocker though were he was attempting to understand what the two would label a success in Iraq and used a 30,000 troop scenario.

    Some evidence (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    From todays' NYTimes:

    To me, this is a scenario for an indefinite stay:

    "Seeking to preserve a measure of flexibility, Mr. Obama said that he would "reserve the right to pause a withdrawal" if it led to a major increase in sectarian violence. He also reiterated that he planned to keep a residual military force to pursue militants from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protect American installations and personnel, and, if Iraqi forces conducted themselves in a nonsectarian manner, train Iraqi troops.

    Mr. Obama said that such a residual force would probably include Special Operations forces, teams of military advisers, combat planes, attack helicopters, medical helicopters and perhaps some smaller-scale combat units to protect the advisers.

    He declined to estimate the size of the force, saying he would decide that after consulting commanders. But Richard J. Danzig, a secretary of the Navy in the Clinton administration who is regarded as a likely choice to serve as Mr. Obama's secretary of defense, said in a June interview with National Public Radio that it could number from 30,000 to 55,000 troops.

    "If we have some Special Forces in the region, they are going to be engaging in combat, taking out any potential terrorist camps," Mr. Obama added. "If we have got trainers in the field who are training Iraqi security forces, then I want to make sure that they are protected, and part of that means when you are in a dangerous neighborhood that you have got some combat capability."

    You know these "special forces" are going to sustain casualties.
    And so we go after the perpetrators...  and around and around.


    I don't think you have a leg to stand on (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    in attempting to address Darfur or any other genocide if you are willing to allow your own country's invasion of a country to meltdown into genocide just so your troops go home.  Sorry, but we destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq and mass genocides are now a possibility that country faces with our leave taking.  I really don't want that blood on my hands or the further destruction of the little that is left of our credibility.  I'm sorry so many people insist on interpreting Obama's words that mean that we will be responsible as him saying that we are occupying Iraq.  It is sad, irresponsible, and a misrepresentation.

    No matter how you say it, (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    whether in your opinion it is to prevent genocide, or in my opinion because we want to keep a foothold in the area, Obama intends on leaving a force of 30-50 thousand U.S. soldiers in Iraq - minimum.

    If your concern is preventing a genocide, we would need to muster a force of far greater numbers than that floated by Obama.
    You probably be more inclined to accept McCain's idea of just being there from now on.

    I also think that lost in all of this is any consideration of what the Iraqi people might want.

    If I were they, I would want all foreign troops out of the country.


    He does not and leaving (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:15:31 AM EST
    30,000 troops there by themselves long term is troop homocide and I'm certain he knows this.  He isn't a stupid man.  He doesn't have the troops to leave laying around the globe in locations where they are extremely unsafe anyhow so why would he even consider it (and I doubt he's the sort of man to consider such things).  I do get tired of the doomsdayers though all the way around that enjoy participating in doomsday shock doctrine much more than they enjoy reality.  P.S. you aren't an Iraqi but if you do a bit of reading you will discover there are mixed feelings about America leaving......relief mixed with fear.  Since you aren't an Iraqi though you are free to make up anything you want to about how they should feel or do feel since none of your family members were kidnapped and then later found dead in the street the next morning due to an execution.

    Not stupid (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    Leaving 30,000 troops in Iraq is troop homicide, you say.
    Only someone stupid would propose such a thing, you say.
    Obama is not stupid, you say.
    So why is he proposing it?

    I am not Iraqi. True. I can only empathize with them.


    Duh, he didn't propose it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    He used it as a strawman scenario in attempting to understand what Petreaus and Crocker consider success in Iraq.  Of course people like you take everything anyone says completely out of context to make their S.O.S. statements when delivering the doomsday to all of America that we are never leaving Iraq.  We are too fruckin broke to stay, too undermanned to stay, and once again......Obama is not my dream candidate but he isn't out of his mind stupid either.

    We don't need the "duh" ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And "Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground." Obama said, "The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians." [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

    November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, "It's Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels." Obama said, "If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy...If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, 'Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there." [Fosters, 11/28/07]

    How many "residual" troops do you think would be required to accomplish this - a "limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians."?

    Notice, by the way, Obama makes no mention of preventing genocide - the issue with which you were principally concerned.


    Obama makes it very clear (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:04:22 AM EST
    he will be listening to commanders and focused on the needs of the people living in the region.  Some of you people would welcome genocide with open arms just as long as no U.S. troops were within 10,000 miles.  And if U.S. forces are any place they are only there for evil.  I don't know anyone in a military leadership position even claiming we can keep residual forces in Iraq as an occupying force of any kind.  That is why I don't fear such nonsense.  Of course people like you also call residual forces the forces that will be kept in Kuwait and Turkey and that will be happening.  We had troops in those countries though long before Dubya took office and in my opinion doing so remains a very important component to our diplomacy with those countries, being able to help alleviate some of the fear that goes with living in those parts of the world and the volatility that goes along with it.  Do I see a total of 30,000 troops between what will be in Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt?  Sure, and I'm okay with that.

    Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:43:56 PM EST
    Obama does not mention the prevention of genocide.

    He talks of leaving troops in Iraq to protect the embassy, kill terrorists and the like.
    I don't understand why you don't acknowledge that.

    And, please get off the "people like you" kick.
    It really is demeaning.


    Afghan developments (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:11:21 AM EST
    Hopefully there is something to this report:

    CNN Headline: Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace


    Or . . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by Doc Rock on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:08:35 AM EST
    . . . Colorado could be critical.  I'd like to see the Obama-Palin ticket sweep to a crushing victory like that that in what was predicted to be a close race but, FDR took all but two states from Alf Landon.

    Obama-Palin ticket? (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    Wow, a lot happened over the weekend.

    I'm still fairly certain Colorado (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:51:48 AM EST
    is going to be in the Obama column on election night.

    Palin also got the county she was in wrong (none / 0) (#43)
    by akaEloise on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    At that same fundraiser....she referred to being "right here in Marin County" which is two counties and a rather expensive bridge toll away.  No biggie, though, since the Reuters reporter in Jeralyn's link was also mildly inaccurate in setting the fundraiser in San Francisco; it was in Burlingame, by the airport.  I imagine McCain and Palin, like George W. Bush, will never set foot in San Francisco proper.