[IWE] Sara Palin calls Kissinger naive

[D. Scott Katzer]

Hi Jay and All,

I know this has been commented on most of you already, but I wanted to 
throw my $0.02 in.  To keep the context, I'll comment here.

Jay Mehaffey wrote:
> Another jaw dropping moment of stupidity. You can Kissinger wrong, you 
> can call him evil, but trying to call him naive is idiotic.

I think she got caught up in her talking points and didn't mean to call 
him naive and having bad judgement.  In effect, though, she did.  After 
all, anyone who agrees with Obama is obviously naive, hates America, 
etc., etc.....

> Jay
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/palin-calls-kissinger-nai_b_129445.html?view=print
> 
>     *Couric:* You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry
>     Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do
>     you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President
>     Assad and Ahmadinejad?
> 
>     *Palin:* 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 that, and without
>     preconditions being met. *That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad
>     judgment.*

Of course, Obama didn't make a "proclamation", he answered a question at 
a debate.  And he gave the correct answer, in my opinion, when you 
consider the *actual question*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

It's a 2:43 clip of the question and Obama's answer, among others.

In other words, Obama and Kissinger are on the same page on the issue of 
talking to our "enemies".  Palin is not on the same page, she's off in 
another building somewhere...

 >     *Couric:* Are you saying Henry Kissinger ...
 >
 >     *Palin:* It's dangerous.
 >
 >     *Couric:* ... is naïve for supporting that?
 >
 >     *Palin:* *I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet
 >     with these leaders without preconditions being met."* Diplomacy is
 >     about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and
 >     positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be
 >     implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of 
diplomacy.

I don't think that Sadat went to Israel after getting a bunch of 
concessions beforehand.  The question was whether Obama was willing to 
actually talk to lay the foundation for a breakthrough.  Bush's and his 
followers' idea of diplomacy and negotiation is:  "Give us iron-clad 
guarantees that you'll agree to give us what we want, and then we'll 
talk about sitting down to talk about what you want."

Cheers,
Scott.