The AP Portrays Palin As Hawkish On War With Russia
By NancyA on September 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM in ABC News, Associated Press, Current Affairs, Sarah Palin
The Associated Press (AP) in one short paragraph portrayed Palin as hawkish on war. This statement was meant to grab mainly men, I believe. My opinion heralds back from the days I was in Indiana volunteering for Hillary Clinton. The one theme I heard from quite a few men was they didn’t like Hillary because she sounded hawkish on Iran! When the AP did this they were reaching out to a specific demographic. (Another friend feels the AP was reaching out to mothers with draft age kids, we differ in our opinions.)
This is what the AP had to say just 33 minutes after the 1st part of the ABC interview ended:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally. “We will not repeat a Cold War,” Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain’s vice presidential running mate two weeks ago. Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she’d favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”
More misinformation on the part of the media. Palin did not leave open the option of going to war with Russia. What she showed was her knowledge of our contract with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Our contract with NATO is part and parcel of the history of NATO.
I am about to give the AP a lesson on our contract with NATO. I am supporting Palin’s knowledge of NATO. She did her homework, I don’t believe for a minute that she was force fed this “history” lesson by the McCain camp. Palin has shown she is a quick study.
Here is the history of NATO from Wikipedia:
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union’s Defence Organization in September 1948.[6] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.
These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949 which may have been Communist-inspired. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.
“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response must include military action. It is however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organization’s scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.
As you can see Palin understands our requirements under NATO agreements made back in 1949.
After the September 11th attacks one article that had never been invoked before was invoked. The scope of the loss at The Twin Towers was international, we lost people from our country and people from other countries. Article 5 in short says the following:
The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[20] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included : Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. It began on October 4, 2001.
NATO has changed quite a bit since 1949. It has been used outside Europe and North America, most notably in Afghanistan. The membership has changed as well over the years but we are still by treaty with NATO required to fulfill certain duties. That was the point Governor Sarah Palin was trying to drive home. Palin was spot on with her assessment. If Georgia was a member of NATO, we would be required to do defend Georgia against an attack by another country like Russia by treaty, a 60 year old treaty. And for no other reason. Palin never said implicitly or overtly that we would go to war with Russia.
It is my sincere wish that the media report on facts not on innuendo. AP is making a false charge here. If their reporting was factual in full, they would have stated that we would be required to stand up for Georgia if they were a member of NATO by treaty! Alas once again AP wants us to see one thing in print, directly influencing the presidential campaigns and polling data.
The AP should be ashamed!
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
