The 'GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY' Hype ...

Matt Lewis
|
Posted: Sep 11, 2008 7:33 PM
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080910/425.palin.gibson.091008.jpg

The liberals are beside themselves over Palin's answer to one of Charles Gibson's questions, in which she stated that war with Russia might possibly be necessary if Russia were to invade another one of the former states of the Soviet Union -- and if that nation were a member of NATO.

Palin's answer was hyped on ABC's website, with the teaser:  'GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY.' 

Of course, this is pure hype and misrepresentation.

Here's the excerpt:

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

... Of course, the Left is going to try to use this to misrepresent what was actually said.  And they will ignore her points about economic sanctions.

First, the operative word is "perhaps" -- she said we would "perhaps" go to war.  Second, the question assumed that the country invaded would be a member of NATO.  We are obliged to defend any member of NATO.  Third, what should she have said ... that if she were president, Russia could do whatever the heck they want without fear of any consequences?  That would have emboldened Russia to do as they please...