Wow. Um.

7 comments so far on that last post - cripes, for my lil' crappy blog that's like one of Atrio's 900+ comment threads.

5 out of 7 positive - not a bad figure. The other two - well, let's do the usual Pere Ubu "answering the critics" post, shall we?

"Daniel" writes:

This is too funny to read.

Oh, thanks I try to be humorous... oh, wait, you're being facetious, aren't you?

So you feel we'll be at war with the Russians if Palin is in office? What's she's going to usurp McCain?

In order, "yes", and "possibly". There are, after all, people are actually praying for McCain's death so she can take over.

Does talking about how foreign policy might be handled frighten you?

Well, yes, when it's someone who's so clueless on foreign policy that she honestly seems to think being able to see Russia makes her qualified.

ANWAR will not give us energy independence, but the House and Senate are re-evaluating their stance on expanded drilling off the coasts, so maybe that's worth talking about?

It would be worth talking about if it was done in a mature manner, free of idiot fantasies about $2 a gallon gas and bigger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. ANWAR would provide about six months worth of US oil usage (less if people started driving more on the assumption of cheaper gas), the federal Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration estimates production from ANWAR is roughly 10 years off, and has this to say on the impact it would make on world oil prices:

It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.

So, yeah, let's talk about it. But I don't trust Caribou Barbie to be honest about it.

Meanwhile the ever-popular "anonymous" lays into me for my baseless attacks on po' lil' defenseless Sarah:

These posts are all an intent to smear Palin’s comments. She never said to go to war with Russia, read the transcript. She was asked the hypothetical question that if Georgia joins NATO and then is invaded by Russia if she thought an obligation by the USA to intervene. Her answer was “perhaps” which is the right answer but she also mentioned other ways besides war. I could imagine this forum if she would have answered “no” - all the posts regarding Palin with no clue on the contractual relationship of NATO. Do you know what Obama will reply before so much critique of Palin? May be this is something the Obama’s fans should know before throwing so many stones (remember FISA).

Oh, yes, entirely "hypothetical" apart from the fact that she endorses Georgian membership in NATO. And I see from consulting Teh Gazoogle that yes, indeed, Obama has endorsed a Membership Action Plan for Georgia, though there's this from NATO's Handbook:

The MAP gives substance to NATO’s commitment to keep its door open. However, participation in the MAP does not guarantee future membership, nor does the Plan consist simply of a checklist for aspiring countries to fulfil. Decisions to invite aspirants to start accession talks will be taken within NATO by consensus and on a case-by-case basis.

So it's less of a promise and more of a "we'll review your application and let you know if anything comes up in the future". In addition, from what I've seen of Obama vs. Palin, I'd like to think he's more open to the idea of reconsidering the matter; she's more of the G. W. Bush school of ignorant stubbornness. (That, though, is assuming Obama isn't pressured into dumbass Clinton-esque hawkishness to "prove he's tough on national security", as if the key to national security is blowing the crap out of as many foreign civilians as possible.)

And she terms the Russian assault "unprovoked", which is arguable:

The defence ministry in Tbilisi announced that it had sent troops into South Ossetia "to restore constitutional order in the entire region".

Fierce fighting erupted around the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, and Georgian war planes were reported to be in action bombing the town and surrounding areas.

The Georgians said they had been forced to retaliate after coming under continuing and sustained attack from the South Ossetian side.

Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, speaking on the morning of 8 August, said there had also been reports of an incursion of "so-called volunteer fighters" from North Ossetia coming through the Roki tunnel, which links South Ossetia to Russia.

In a news conference six days later, the prime minister amplified this, referring to "a massive column of 150 units" crossing through the Roki tunnel during the night. It was this, he said, that had triggered the decision to send in the troops.

So far there have been no independent reports about this alleged incursion, although there were reports of Russian military exercises in the area around the Roki tunnel in the days leading up to the fighting. It is just one of many questions about this war which have yet to be answered.

Within hours Russia had launched its own "peace enforcement" operation in support, it said, of Russian peacekeepers and civilians in the region.

But of course it would be the height of absurdity to expect a candidate for the Vice Presidency to understand such subtleties.

One might get a feeling for her depth on foreign affairs from her response to Gibson's question about violating Pakistan's border:

In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

So, yes, taken as a whole, I'm not exactly filled with warm fuzzy confidence about her perception of Russia and possible conflict.