By Sarah Palin is fighting back against critics of her that claim she didn’t know the difference between North and South Korea:
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) said Tuesday night that it was “a lie” that she didn’t know the difference between North Korea and South Korea during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Palin dismissed that and other assertions in a new book that reviews the presidential race as “gossipy anonymous accusations.”
Her appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” was Palin’s first on a Fox News show since Monday’s announcement that she would join the cable network as a contributor. She was asked by host Bill O’Reilly to respond to several claims cited in the book “Game Change,” which was the subject of a segment Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” [Washington Post]
Who knows what the truth in all this is, but I do have to say that Joshua over at One Free Korea has the best take on Sarah Palin I have read yet:
My views on this topic are guaranteed to please absolutely no one. On one hand, and speaking as a former USFK soldier for crying out loud, that’s the lapse of an unintelligent person, but then, my own impression of Palin has always been of a nice, decent, down-to-earth person who lacks the experience and gravitas for national office. On the other hand, Palin doesn’t seem any dumber than Harry Reid or John Edwards, any more gaffe-prone than Joe Biden, or any more dogmatic than Nancy Pelosi, yet the columnists don’t write about Reid or Pelosi, they write about Palin — constantly. [One Free Korea]
You can read more of his views at the link.
10:18 pm on January 14th, 2010 1
She wouldn't be the only one if she did. A lot of others (including college/university grads) speak of "Korea" as if the northern one doesn't exist without using the precursors "South" or "Republic of" when speaking of the one they actually mean.
7:00 am on January 15th, 2010 2
[...] Palin has responded. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) said Tuesday night that it was “a lie” that she [...]
1:48 pm on January 16th, 2010 3
I cant blame her for firing back – anyone knows that one difference is the north is above the south on the map. I'd guess she probably knows the north is evil and the south isn't. Fox news will encourage her appearances be scripted, so there is plenty of opportunity for her to expound on this more.
I think the assertion made was that she didn't know how north and south korea were created, …which some people believe the leader of the free world should know 'something' about. That was just an example of what they perceived to be a broad lacking of world history knowledge, believed to be important when running national security. These were the most competent repubs doing the vetting after she was already selected.
That decision banked on her persona winning the disgruntled hillary voters. Camp mac's strategy didn't bear any fruit in this respect. Women weren't going to be that easy to win over, just because the VP candidate was a woman. It just didn't sound trust worthy to be hearing the initial campaign speeches by the repub candidates lavishing praise on hillary clinton – all of a sudden.
1:58 pm on January 16th, 2010 4
There's only one good thing for Palin, and that's nailin'. Unfortunately, not only do retarded things come forth from here vagina, but also her mouth.
2:16 pm on January 16th, 2010 5
Condi!! Condi!! Condi!! 2012
She has it all.
1 She really IS African American.
2 She is a female.
3 She really is an American.
Oh oh and what I really like; she is single, as in never married.
I would enjoy watching her deal with the job.
2:25 pm on January 16th, 2010 6
/You just know they are both 3 holers…
2:32 pm on January 16th, 2010 7
2:33 pm on January 16th, 2010 8
If only we could get Yulia Tymoshenko to join in. Now THAT would be a power lunch.
3:07 pm on January 16th, 2010 9
She claims the McCain campaign went wrong because they tried to script her instead of allowing her to be herself. Let's hope Fox doesn't make that mistake and allows her to speak her mind.
Saturday Night Live, Jon Stewart, and the late night talk shows are salivating in anticipation of all the material she should provide.
7:42 pm on January 16th, 2010 10
Like what?
You're stating something without backing it with facts, as if everyone would agree with you. Everyone- including some discerning citizens and voters- won't necessarily fall in with you. Never mind the comments regarding her vagina.
Attacking her in such a way is not what I would expect from you.
With all of that- I am not saying that I am on her side. Just don't like someone who normally makes sense to fall into the same tactics as the massively irresponsible liberal left. That said, they are masters of propaganda (not meant in a negative way) and they spread their message, and make the lie become fact, in this same way.
11:52 am on January 17th, 2010 11
Leon,
With all the opportunities available to comment on palin, what is the need to take the lowest road. Or, is that all you've got up there?
12:16 pm on January 17th, 2010 12
"I would enjoy watching her deal with the job."
Thats never going to happen – condi is the first to say so. i believe she is firm on that. She turned out to be very weak and let the country down when she didn't perform her job when the country needed her the most. She let the real power in the white house walk all over her and submitted to them the whole time she had equal power as NSC dir to the president. She also had the power to overrule them but avoided contesting policy with them, to avoid their wrath. Only powell stepped up to that plate, to do the right thing, and she wanted no part of their kind of payback.
I had initially believed condi and powell would be the force for good in that white house but turned out condi was weaker than imagined and enabled the cheney/rummy alliance to deceive the country even longer than it should have been able to get away with. She also didn't do a good job of checking the facts from the cheney wing of the white house, nor using her position to inform the president about what she knew wasn't true and what was. (This is from repub insiders in the white house and never disputed by all the parties involved – it will be elaborated on more in the future) The result was W trusted cheney's policy formulations were probably the best way to go. A stronger condi would have at the least, had some influence to use more facts in their calculations. (W didn't formulate policy – he was just the decider if he should accept their conclusions or not. But he had no alternatives if he decided "no", so always decided yes.)
12:36 pm on January 17th, 2010 13
There should be consequences for posting while plastered.
Speakin of backing things up with facts, i'm all for that. Do you know of any cases where the repubs create false facts in order to fool their base into believing falsehoods? I'll trade you concrete examples of that if you'll educate me on cases where the libs do it. Not saying they dont – just that the right relies on this tactic far more often because the facts dont support their arguments. (They dont lie to fool the libs – they do it to keep their base in a partisan fog).
1:01 pm on January 17th, 2010 14
[quote] She claims the McCain campaign went wrong because they tried to script her instead of allowing her to be herself. Let’s hope Fox doesn’t make that mistake and allows her to speak her mind.[/quote]
Its clear fox is using her for their ratings so the mission will be to do no damage to what brings in the bacon. This will include not letting herself damage herself. This doesn't mean they wont let her say whats on her mind – they will. Its just saying they will advise her what Not to say and she will follow their advise because she knows they know better what is best for her – since its best for them too.
You can bet the mortgage she will avoid controversy as much as possible in order to attract support from the places that weren't included in her "good america". (This doesn't include parroting the popular partisan smear of the week, which is obligatory). It may be to just assess where she stands later on.
The smart money is she wont dare get into the repub primaries, where her fellow repubs will slice and dice their opposition to win that nominee position for themselves. The debates ask far harder gotcha questions than "what media sources do you read?" or "who is your favorite founding father?" She will comment on the koreas after a few days of tutoring.
1:02 pm on January 17th, 2010 15
Sarah Palin has Alaskan Native (Eskimo) in her family. Alaskan Natives share the same lineage as Koreans. When I visited Alaska, I was surprised to see that the Alaskan Natives had similar facial features as Koreans.
1:10 pm on January 17th, 2010 16
We all like to get our ya-ya's out from time to time.
But in fairness I usually attempt to make serious posts (or at least hopefully thought provoking, tongue in cheek, sarcastic posts). In this case, considering the subject, there is nothing serious to post about. Palin is the lowest road. She reflects the worst in American society, the nutty religious aspects, the total lack of understanding of basic knowledge, etc. Nice package but that is about all.
1:41 pm on January 17th, 2010 17
Greg,
All Native Americans were from Siberia. They crossed the Bering Straight around 20,000 years ago. Nothing surprising there.
I usually don't make a habit of defending Palin because it's quite difficult, but in this case, she's not lying. The Fox interview was typically softball and made it seem like the claim against her was absurd. Of course she knew that they were two different countries. The question, however, was not that. The question was whether or not she knew why North and South Korea were two different countries. To that question, she had no answer.
So, she didn't lie. Fox just changed the question. The book didn't lie either though.
2:38 pm on January 17th, 2010 18
Like when? The hurricane in New Orleans, where the holy federal government was supposed to blow past municipal and state governments without their consent? We're doing a much better job in Haiti, says the left.
There's one.
Want more?
Game on.
Libs generally try to attack our institutions, find fault in those institutions which are generally good- NOT to improve things, but to sling crap and tear down good, and replace it with "equality". Horse dung. I say this without MUCH malice, as most have good intentions; those who do are duped and used by those who have more sinister intentions.
My poke at Mr. Laporte was to point out that his writings are usually much better than that post, and not to take a page from those who apologize for us being great.
2:47 pm on January 17th, 2010 19
Not a religious person, but I have no problem with those who are, and understand that the Republic was founded by people with some kind of Western Christian ideals, if not outright religious beliefs (We immigrants are a lot like religious converts- we read and study a bit more 'cause we volunteered to join the team versus being born here).
The liberal left is more zealously religious in their anti values campaign than the Bible thumpers could ever dream of being, plus they have the tacit support of those who just don't care one way or the other about religious beliefs.
We'll see how it all pans out- I'm not getting too excited about it. I've already seen first hand the results of the road we're headed down; now, I am just getting the Jiffy Pop heated up to watch the show.
2:51 pm on January 17th, 2010 20
You may be right- we should have focused on A'stan and let Iraq do its thing…whatever that was.
Didn't we have intel going back to the early to mid 1990s- as during the Clinton administration- that said the Iraqis were working on WMD? At what point did we know- do we even now know- they weren't? Have you been in the desert- ANY desert- and tried to find anything?
Just curious… Now the Iraq war is over we can focus on the right war, and really focus on losing it so we can fail and blame it on Bushitler.
2:53 pm on January 17th, 2010 21
Yeah- thank GOODNESS that the Obama team is chock full of brilliance like Joe Biden.
We're so screwed.
5:25 pm on January 17th, 2010 22
Comparing an airhead like Palin to a gaffe-prone wonk like Biden is ludicrous.
10:59 pm on January 17th, 2010 23
Indeed you are correct sir. We are very fortunate to have a chief executive of such high accomplishment, with a right hand man who is so… so something or other.
My popcorn is almost finished… Don't want to miss the show! Sad thing is that I know how it ends anyway.
1:27 am on January 18th, 2010 24
Which facts did she not check? Educate me.
W didn't formulate policy? Really? Examples please.
Powell? You think well of the job he did? Example please.
I'm sure you will state that you don't have the time.
1:44 am on January 18th, 2010 25
junior.
While i didn't vote for the current CIC, I am thrilled that he won.
I'll never ever again have to hear a sweet brother man state that, "whitey be keepin the brothers down and $hit." Or words to that effect. Years from now, I will be able to respond with one word; omaba.
Of course, by that time they will likely respond that, "he wasn't one of us". Just as they did with Condi.
American Politics is the best drama on tv.
Palin would have been so boring compaired to the current Group in power. They are quit entertaining.
7:32 am on January 18th, 2010 26
Those "smears" really hit home sometimes I bet. It's got to be hard being an apologist for all those who appeal to the worst in America.
10:16 am on January 18th, 2010 27
Junior,
This is a reply to your 1-17 21.38 post to me. It has to be at the bottom because there is no "reply" option on my firefox screen – that seems to limit branches to just three response levels?
You're very sure about the left misrepresenting facts, but offered nothing in the way of a rebutting evidence to back that up with except the partisan rhetoric that i've heard 1000x already. Something made you believe that so i need to see the source of that information you consider to be most factually accurate. What media source do you believe is trustworthy?
Theres otherwise nothing of substance i can address here. I very much want to see something tangible to address, so would very much appreciate one example from your trusted sources, where the left is tearing something down" just to critisize. I'm confident your sources have misrepresented the facts, so that would be a great opportunity to break down their claims, point by point, to show you how dishonest they are.
Yes, this is harder work, but the alternative is just to respond with the same kind of rhetoric, which is basically worthless – it certainly cant influence anyone thats not already in agreement.
It may take longer, so it deserves its own thread. Someone implied i might cut and run away from that challenge, but they might have been projecting. This can be a timeless thread, since its not dependent on any news cycles. Its about deception, which is n every news cycle. Anyone is free to bug me for a reply if they're anxious for one thats not timely enough.
Since this is a palin thread, one r/w media distortion is how much they have furthered palin's rhetoric about "death panels". Did your trusted media sources break that down enough to inform you on which repub congressman wrote that option into the bill and what his initial reaction was to her comment? (specifically, he said something like "thats crazy"). I'll cite the details if someone wants to examine those facts by citing their own to defend palin. That was just one of many terrible distortions of facts furthered by the right, to back up what i've claimed. My opinion/rhetoric will say it was done to fool their own ill informed base, because i cant point to anything to prove that …right now. A pattern of distortions can be established though.
As far as katrina – the sources you believe deceptive (the msm?? who?) have been careful to detail how the blame should be spread around for the response, so you need to point to something specific that you conclude doesn't represent the true facts. Point to a source that you believe lied. The exersize will be good for you – we have info available to us now, so lets take advantage of it to better ourselves.
This is only common sense that adults use to examine issues carefully, to extract the best evidence to make better conclusions with. Its the children who rely on emotional rhetoric to make theirs. The former can still produce differences, but they will be differences on the agreed upon facts and not disagreements on blind rhetoric (which is already a forgone conclusion – a waste of time).
I used to have a friend to bet on politics with – we formatted the bet to depend on some associated fact that would be widely reported on the same way by most media or specific ones. You can be surprised how much you can learn from being wrong about something. Money changing hands helps amplify that enough to remember a mistake and not to repeat it again. Thats a good thing.
10:44 am on January 18th, 2010 28
""The question, however, was not that. The question was whether or not she knew why North and South Korea were two different countries. To that question, she had no answer.
So, she didn’t lie. Fox just changed the question. ""
""""""""""
This is accurate and while it sounds like no big deal to palin supporters, it is important how fox distorts the facts to misrepresent the truth. Its a good example of how fox news distorts the vidence in order to mislead their audience. (I know because their ratings can thank people like me, who monitor their "reporting" for accuracy).
Were any fox news viewers perceptive enough to hear how the question was changed to defend palin – or did ya'll not know the question was changed? Can everyone understand the differences between how fox phrased it and how it was phrased in the book? Why should fox distort the question folks, when it couldn't address the assertion made in the book? Doesn't it look like they are doing it to mislead their audience? (why then?)
This exposes how false it is for fox to claim they "ask all the hard questions". In palin's case, a "hard gotcha question" would be what media sources she read from for information. Beck probably didn't expect his question might be one to, when asking what her favorite founding father was. "All of them" was the safe answer for both, But is that what a competent leader could be expected to say? To me, this is more about fox news deliberate distorting facts and not about sarah palin, who they are using for their own financial ends.
11:07 am on January 18th, 2010 29
You really believe the iraq war is over or was that a slip? I heard many bush supporters say the same thing about afghanistan. When they say the surge worked, they can only cite a reduced level of violence achieved. But none of them have ever articulated on what critical factors made it so. Nor have they shown they know what the objective of the surge was and how that isn't likely to succeed in a decade – if ever. Dont be fooled again by the lack of violence over there – the combatants are building their arms caches we sleep.
Do you know what that objective of the surge still is and why gen petraeus admits to not achieving that goal? Thats important to know to understand the situation our troops are in right now – and why its smart to demonstrate honesty to the iraqis – that we mean to withdraw them and this isn't an open ended occupation, like it was before.
11:32 am on January 18th, 2010 30
Condi didn't check the details tha led the cia chief's "slam dunk" assertion, when bush himself was surprised how bare the facts were. This is info that came from reliable white house insiders and hasn't been disputed by condi. If it was false, she surely would have stepped up to defend herself.
Powell is too principled to tattle, regardless how much it would help his prestige. So is condi, but knows she isn't cut out for hard ball politics anymore. You might be surprised to hear how much the cheney/rummy wing would disagree with your sentiment of her being a good leader. They didn't respect her – especially her position that a new strategy in iraq should be made "for a change". She turned out to be right but they kept their strategy in place until the '06 election finally nudged out rummy and cheney lost his leverage. This is what woodward wrote and cheney wont dispute – lets see how much bush's book agrees with woodward's. Condi should give her story sooner than later.
If i'm ever late replying, i encourage you to repeat replies soliciing a response. I wont cut and run from an honest Q, regardless of a lack of time or only two fingers to type with (when my other hand is occupied with the cat during computer time;)
Neither of us were there, so have to rely on what the sources have been saying – and the only credible ones to consider are the ones who were given privaleged access to learn about these things. President cheney didn't like woodward hanging around – it was bush's decision to let him in. And remember that bush recommended his first two of three books on his presidency.
11:38 am on January 18th, 2010 31
"It’s got to be hard being an apologist for all those who appeal to the worst in America."
"""""""""""""
This is just your imagination Junior. It simply isn't true. I make no apologies for palin nor for fox news.
Do you?
12:02 pm on January 18th, 2010 32
Can anyone start a thread in here? I'm thinking of one that will siphon off the media issue posts and leave this thread to be more about palin – even though palin and media distortion are related, imo. They're both big topics.
It would solicit everyone's empirical evidence of media distortion and which media they believe is most credible/accurate. It would encourage details from trusted sources and discourage rhetorical opinions (without admitting thats all they had for evidence). The distortions topic is timeless and not dependent on news cycles, like the subject of palin is. So the topic would remain fresh to anyone concerned.
1:37 pm on January 18th, 2010 33
(I know because their ratings can thank people like me, who monitor their “reporting” for accuracy).
Thanks. The rest of us have been fighting those evil Bushitler wars or holding down jobs. Your service is commendable.
Tell me the truth, Wise One.
1:39 pm on January 18th, 2010 34
You're so right. Please- take my money and give it to someone who is sitting on his arse with his hand out. He needs my money and your guilt.
You must like it deep and hard. I don't.
1:48 pm on January 18th, 2010 35
Palin = All that is bad.
Now go out and organize a community or something.
I will follow you because I need to be led by someone so smart like you who knows better what to do with my money and my private property more than I do. To hell with MY kids- let's just give it away to the poor poor pitiful poor. I will teach my sons the error of working, saving, and taking care of ones's self and ones' family. We need to take care of the losers of the world first so we can totally collapse into a real third world shit hole.
I humbly concede to your wise leadership. Fox is bad. Janeane Garafalo, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, and their esteemed and wildly genius ilk will take good care of me. I no longer have to think for myself. All my first hand experiences in life have been an evil illusion from Bushitler.
I remember all too well your Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, and Andrew Young, and the horror they helped inflict. I hope that you get what you want. I also hope you and all the other robots f8cking choke on it.
We've seen it before, but you want to try it again. Fine. I just don't want to have to PAY for it- or my sons to have to pay for it.
Use your own god damn money -Not mine.
1:55 pm on January 18th, 2010 36
Fox is BAD. That fag guy on the prairie home companion is SO SMART. I get it now. Lead on with your wisdom.
Liberals are moochers and looters of people who WORK – the Left pimps and panders to the permanent underclass their programs have entrenched. Power. That's why they want all the illegals registered.
I'm not objecting, just watching. I'm old now, and hope to not live to see this all but my grandkids will have to.
1:57 pm on January 18th, 2010 37
Ideals like yours are simply shameful. You condone thievery and intolerance. It sickitates me.
3:34 pm on January 18th, 2010 38
Mike, I never said she would be a good leader. A President is a Politician. A good Leader could never be a good Politician. I served with both. (I should say *professional* Politician) What I said was that I would enjoy watching her deal with the job. I still would.
Thanks for the reply. Say Hi to the cat for me.
4:08 pm on January 18th, 2010 39
Junior,
No need to get so emotional. If you're not up to the challenge of using your intellect, then dont think you're obliged to. I know thats harder to do than slinging rhetoric, but it would have been good for You to at least try it.
You just made it sound like you were game to examine the details of our news sources for their accuracy. So my bad for mistaking that was your intent. If this makes you resort to getting personal then i'm not interested in furthering this discussion with you.
5:13 pm on January 18th, 2010 40
Retired GI
This response is to your 1-18, 10:34pm post (hoping the times are the same on all screens?) There was no "reply" option on my firefox screen so used this one again to keep the dialog together.
I agree the president is a professional politician and wonder why people forget their backgrounds once they become president. I try to remind them that they're choosing to make a politician their leader, whenever i hear them fawning over them (since most people rate politician very low on the respect scale).
All of the most recent discussion about condi has been about voting for her to be president because it involved their voting for both a black and a woman too. Repubs usually volunteer this pro-condi sentiment to dispell any semblance of their not voting for obama because of race. I thought you might be affirming that same sentiment for condi in the top job. Still not sure what 'watching her deal with the job' means, but i'll trust it doesn't mean watching her doing the job of president.
[this cat appreciates attention;)]
5:21 pm on January 18th, 2010 41
Nanananana
Mike is smarter than I am. See the monkey do tricks.
Not emotional. Just remember do-gooders like you helping out great people on the side of "social justice". Those people murdered farmers whose crime was being white.
No. I am not emotional. You are just like them. In fact, you are worse, because at least those scum aren't sanctimonious condescending arrogant bastards. They're just savages.
I know what you are but you have no idea what you are. One day, you'll wake up with a sore bung hole after being buggered by one of your little underprivileged and downtrodden chums and you will be so bewildered. I won't laugh. We've seen your kind before. You do MEAN well- and mean spirited people like me- well WE just don't UNDERSTAND now, DO WE? YOU'LL show US how it's done.
No emotion in that at all. I cried my tears long ago. Now I just watch in contempt of "reasonable people" like you.
Again- use your own god damn money- not mine. And shed your own blood, sweat, and tears. I have given all I care to unto those who would use you and toss you aside.
5:24 pm on January 18th, 2010 42
If i could edit my last post, …i'd like to include my wish that the repubs could nominate condi for president because i'd seriously consider supporting her. She is an un-politician, which is why her greatest problem would be getting support from her party's partisan machine. The country needs intelligence in that position and not someone trying hard not to appear too smart to the voters, in order to win the election.
9:58 pm on January 18th, 2010 43
You can always go over to the ROK Drop Forums and start whatever thread you want.
3:08 am on January 19th, 2010 44
Mike, I would enjoy seeing condi as CIC for many reasons. I believe her to be intelligent, educated (not the same thing) and mentally tough. She is wise enough to remain single. As for her race and sex, I like the fact of her being both Black and female. Maby that makes me a racist and a sexist. In any case, she is American by birth and by culture. Can't say I'm sure about the current CIC. I believe her to be completely capable for the job. Hey, if Obama can do it anyone can, to include Palin. Don't jump Mike, as I'm not a fan. But I see Obama and Palin as equally qualified. I do see fox using her for ratings. Hey, Liberals love to hate her. I would do the same.
Back to Condi, I would LOVE watching the left deal with a black female repub as CIC. The left so often reminds me of the name calling bullies in grade school. As I said, if that makes me a racist and a sexist, so be it. Sticks and stones. Which is what american politics is today.
As for Obama's "blackness", I heard an interesting theory while at the dentist, concerning the absence of a birth certificate (as opposed to a certificate of live birth).
The birth certificate shows the race of the mother as the race of the child. So Obama's birth certificate would show his race as white. That would be fun. I haven't looked into it, as the important thing for me is that a "truth" is being held back. That is all I need to know. I am unconcerned with what that truth may or may not be. I am concerned that it is being withheld.
I really do wish Condi would run! Anything less will be a letdown for me. Palin is just something to entertain the liberals. I saw the Beck "interview". She is much like Obama, another empty suit.
11:13 am on January 20th, 2010 45
Most of you are pathetic. You're fanatics. So many who would burn down down a city to insure that the "other side" loses.
Two party politics… this is what we've been reduced to, a disgusting, farcical barrel of self-serving jackassery where both sides have their heads so far up their backsides that can't hear anything from the other.
We need to do away with this whole "join a side" nonsense and start using our minds as individuals.
As with all of human history, large groups of people continue to be the scariest, most destructive forces on the planet.
12:06 pm on January 20th, 2010 46
I believe that has started as of the election of Scott Brown yesterday.
I like his truck also.