Clearly the guy's a dumbass if he can't understand what she's saying. If there is someone that looks less intelligent it would be him.

   I did not say Russia was correct in its actions, what I did say was both sides were to blame for what occurred.  Ossetia is more or less a separate region, it is predominantly Russian and not economically important to either side.  Fighting over it was, on both sides, primarily to make a point.  Georgia attacked primarily for symbolic reasons and to draw Russia into a conflict.

 I think they expected more international help and to use it as a jumping off point to rebuff Russian influence in the region.  I do agree Russian influence is dangerous, but the way to do it is not to support badly conceived conflicts engineered in large part by the Georgians. 

   Either way the answer is ABSOLUTELY not the Sarah Palin response, that we should go to war with Russia over this.  That is just what we need, an armed conflict with a nuclear power over a symbolic objective, that couldn't end badly.

   Preemptive war is the defining legacy of the Bush administration.  More then anything else Bush will be remembered for the war in Iraq started without provocation on the basis of the Bush doctrine.  Does it matter that an aspiring VP understand preemptivism and why another Iraq would be a bad idea?  Absolutely.

 Given her responses on other issues like Russia/Georgia and Iran I'm relatively sure she doesn't understand the Bush Doctrine.  By that I don't just mean she can't define the term, I mean she doesn't understand why that neo con policy of start the war now ask why later is a really really bad idea that is costly in money, lives and international relations.  She has a combination of unflapable certainty and poor judgement that got us into the messes we are in today under George Bush.

    If you are going to be the most powerful person in the world you damn well better know how to make the right decision outside of your advisors.  All decisions are NOT made on the advice of advisors because advisors often disagree.  You have to figure out whether Colin Powell who says that attacking Iraq is a bad idea is right or Dick Cheyney who says its the most important thing we can do is right.  Bush picked wrong and we have the Iraq war, judgement is absolutely key, and she lacks it.

Impulsivity, I knew you would bring Bush up as a comparison. Dubya had a daddy as president, loads of money, and what amounts to basically a free ride his entire life.

Palin got there herself. "Clueless" people don't do that. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Palin. But give credit where credit is due. Her rise to prominence has been phrnomenal.

It may be important to know what preemptivism is, but that is not the same as knowing what the Bush Doctrine is.

An analogy for this is ... It is important for most CEOs of large corporations who have large IT budgets to know what Open Source software is, and it is somewhat important for them to know what Linux is, but only a fool would argue that a potential CEO was unqualified for not knowing what Ubuntu is

The best indication of how little Palin knows about foreign policy is the "Alaska near Russia = Foreign policy experience" argument.

How desperate do her supporters have to be to use this piss-poor argument...

   If she knows what it is and understands its pitfalls why did she suggest that armed conflict with both Russia and Iran would be justified and probably the right course of action?  Even Bush, advocate of the Bush Doctrine, does not believe we should got to war with Russia over Georgia and yet Palin does.  She even admits herself her understanding of the world is limited to North America (she left the continent once, for the first time, last year to go to Germany and Kuwait) and her understanding of Russia is limited to "seeing parts of it from land in Alaska".  That is exactly what she sounds like.

   When she says "other VPs haven't met foreign heads of state" thats complete BS.  There has not been a single VP in the last 32 years as unqualified as her, they have all had extensive foreign policy credentials including, yes, meeting foreign heads of state.  Gore, Cheyney (see old pictures of Dick and our Iraqi friend for example), George Bush Sr....even Quayle, all had actually been outside the US and had understanding of the world and its leaders beyond looking out over the horizon occasionally.  She lies, she responds poorly and impulsively and she would be a horrific choice for vice president.  There is no justification for picking her at all.  It's not even like she's the most qualified woman, Kay Bailey Huchison for example is infinitely more qualified with two decades of experience and impeccable conservative credentials.  

   There are literally hundreds of Republicans more qualified and yet he ignored them all and picked the charismatic beauty queen who will give Bush a run for his money in terms of being the worst most destructive president to serve since Warren G Harding.

   There is no way to justify her pick.  McCain says country first, but this move was clearly purely political and a very poor choice, probably even worse then Mr potatoe head with Bush Sr.   I mean compare her record with Joe Biden for instance, its night and day.

  I live down the street from a hospital, I can see the Hospital from my window thus I am qualified to be a doctor despite no medical training or meaningful experience.  Same argument, same absurdity.

   See another brilliant Republican VP pick detailed in this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle

   Yes, clueless people DO get into positions of power in politics.  The political system doesn't make so many boneheaded decisions and policies because its a bunch of geniuses in washington and in the governors mansions.

Who here has read the entire ABC interview?

Most of the arguments I'm seeing here are basing opinions on that shitty edit. Especially the "I can see Russia" comment. It was a dumb answer but once you see what was edited out, you can see where she was going with it.