Palin Derangement Syndrome Hits Hard

[Polk]

For what its worth:

"Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."

First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review - The New York Times

Also, the Law Review at Harvard has produced one US President and three US Supreme Court Justices.

Regardless, making it onto Law Review at any Law School, let alone Harvard, is a major accomplishment.

Whatever Obama did to get there, he was selected above his peers.

Here's an interesting article:

"For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did."

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

This taken with most people are going to use anything positive to become President, leads me to believe the grades were average (still saying alot being Harvard and Columbia) and he probably got onto the Law Review because of the student vote.

Except that average grades wouldn't yield admission.

 

[Polk]

He's the first admitted addict that's managed to get elected to the presidency???

Bush used by marijuana and cocaine.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you paid even one ounce of attention to the real news or watched ANY of the interviews that Palin did on O'Reilly, Hannity, or Greta you would know that Katie had taped 9 hours of the Palin interview, it was edited, because no one saw the entire 9 hours. Biden also had many hours with Katie, and the Rosevelt thing was in there, of course that huge blunder was edited out.

To suggest it was selectively edited to make Palin look bad is absurd. Those were Palin's boneheaded responses. She blew the interview. Everyone saw it. It tubed McCain.

She also bungled her resignation speech from governor.

You guys can continue to blame everyone but Palin for her failures, it won't fly with the rest of the world. Though it's cute that the fox crew tried to go into damage control.

By the way, I've never heard Palin or anyone in the McCain campaign claim that Couric was involved in any sort of malfeasance.

Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Article 15]

Palinites ....

 

[saveliberty]

Regardless, making it onto Law Review at any Law School, let alone Harvard, is a major accomplishment.

Whatever Obama did to get there, he was selected above his peers.

Here's an interesting article:

"For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did."

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

This taken with most people are going to use anything positive to become President, leads me to believe the grades were average (still saying alot being Harvard and Columbia) and he probably got onto the Law Review because of the student vote.

Except that average grades wouldn't yield admission.

Prove it. Give me the link to Obama's Columbia grades.

 

[Maple]

I have been living on the REAL planet. The one who actually reads something that does not involve the National Inquirer to get MY news. Oh no, there is no liberal media bias. Did you happen to know that Katie Curic interviewed Biden on several different occasions and that those tapes were edited to show Joe never stating one screw up.Did you also know that Joe made a statement stating that Rosevelt got on television to announce to the world about the attacks on Pearl Harbor and did you also know that there were maybe three television sets in the entire U.S at that time. Oh noooooooooooo Biden never screws up with what he states, not anymore, because Obama has his mouth taped shut.

Joe's taped interview with the very liberal left wing nut case Katie Curic was edited to make him actually look smart.

WTF does Biden have to do with any of this? I didn't bring him up. I knew his daughter in college and thought she was nice enough, but I think Biden is an ass. So what?

Palin's taped interviews with the very liberal left wing nut case Katie Curic was edited to make her look stupid. Nooooooooooooooooooooo media bias there.

Oh bullshit. Couric blew that interview. There was no editing. Couric just asked her legitimate questions that Palin flubbed time and time again.

Which led the thinking world to ponder this: If you can't handle Katie Couric, how are you going to handle Ahmendinejad?

Palin's resignation speech was equally awful.

From Palin's book, Going Rogue, page 272-275 this has been FACT CHECKED by 11 different Associated Press Journalists.

I couldn't have known it then, but what transpired during the series of interviews and what CBS actually aired were two different breeds of cat. Camera crews shot hours of footage across the U.S; Katie and her producers decided on which fraction America would see-- and let's just say the emphasis was on my worst moments. Editing footage is nothing new, of course,' I created video packages when I worked as a sports reporter. But reponsible editing means you keep substance and context, and trim out fat. When I saw the final cut, it was clear that CBS had sought out the bad moments, and systematically sliced out material that would accurately convey my message. The sin of ommission was glaring.

For example, when John and I sat down with Katie for a segment in Columbus, Ohio, she started with an energy-related question. " Governor Palin, it will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers, " the anchor said. " so isn't the notion of " drill, baby, drill" a little misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?"

I said, " And it's why we should have started ten years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore. Should have started it ten years ago, but better late than never."

That's the part CBS left in. They edited out a discussion of the need to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons and a call for America to stop spending billions of dollars on foreign oil when we could be investing it at home. Did Katie think Americans wouldn't be interested to know that I was in favor of alternative energy sources and reducing our carbon footprint? Or that I might be a conservative who was both pro-development and pro-environment? Perhaps my answer did not fit her agenda.

Katie then moved on to ANWR. " Experts say it will take almost twenty years.... to achieve peak production," she said. " And it would still only cut foreign oil dependency by about two percent and only for a little while...so is it really worth... the risk?'

I replied that I didn't know which experts those were. But I explained that as the chair of the AOGCC and IOGCC, I knew from the geologists and petroleum engineers with whom I had worked that it could be done a lot quicker. I also pointed out that ANWR is a 2,000-acre plot that's in the midst of 21 million acres. Americans needed to know how unconscionable it is that anti-development radicals use ANWR as their fund-raising poster child. They use bogus Photoshopped pictures showing moutains and waterfalls and lush forests with Bambi prancing to and fro. That's all fake and these fund-raisers know it. It is an absolutely barren, permanently frozen, remote sliver of land that requires a minimal drilling footprint, and its development parameters are equivalent to the size of L.A's airport. But neither Katie's question nor my answer wound up on the air.

I knew the media would distort my responses on social issues. But I thought surely they couldn't distort my economic and energy-related responses, because they would have to stick with the facts. I was mistaken.

Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geo-graphical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a litte square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaning that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada.

But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, " here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?"

There was so much I could and should have said, and I later kicked myself for not doing so. There was much Katie appeared not to know, or care to hear about. For instance, that Alaska's geographic position makes our relations with Pacific Rim countries of great strategic import, and that we're the air crossroads of the world. That Russian bombers often play cat-and mouse with our Air Force near Alaska's airspace. That I dealt with Canadian officials on a weekly basis and have signed agreements concerning everything from security to salmon fishing and that NAFTA has significantly affected our economy. That melting polar sea ice has created trade routes but has also created security threats to North America. That Alaska takes on Japanese and Russian fishing trawlers that want to ravage the ocean floor. That Chinese and Russian energy companies had both sought access to ( and possible control of) our natural gas resources. That these and other countries were staking their own resource claims in Artic waters while the U.S sat on its hands. And that, yes, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska.

And those were just the foreign policy issues ( though issues certainly foreign to most governors). How much more I would have liked to say about Alaska's contribution to the U.S economy, its potential to help the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and the delicate balancing act required to manage and responsibly develop our abundant wildlife resources.

But Katie wasn't interested in discussing these issues. And when I did, she didn't air them. Instead, when I tried to describe frequent Russian incursions by figuratively referring to Vladimir Putin entering our airspace, CBS researched the Russian leader's actual flight plan over the United States and called my statement inaccurate. And when I referenced Alaska's narrow maritime border to describe our close proximity to other nations, CBS reported that the Coast Guard monitored the border and not the governor.

But Katie's purpose--shared by most media types--seemed to be to frame a "gotcha" moment. And it worked. Instead of my scoring points for John McCain, I knew that I had let the team down.


For all of you historically challenged liberals, you do know that during World War 11, the Japanese entered Alaska attempting to get a foot hold there. Thankfully they were beaten back.

Alaska is not an important state to you libs but the Japanese certainly thought it was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

Aleutian Islands Campaign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Aleutian Islands Campaign
Part of World War II, Pacific War

American troops hauling supplies on Attu in May 1943. Their vehicles could not move across the island's rugged terrain.
Date June 3, 1942 – August 15, 1943
Location Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Result Allied victory

Belligerents
United States
Canada Japan
Commanders
United States Navy:
Thomas C. Kinkaid
Francis W. Rockwell
United States Army:
Albert E. Brown
Archibald V. Arnold
Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. Imperial Japanese Navy:
Boshiro Hosogaya
Kakuji Kakuta
Imperial Japanese Army:
Yasuyo Yamasaki †
Strength
144,000[1] 8,500[1]
Casualties and losses
1,481 killed,
225 aircraft destroyed[2]
{640 killed/Missing;
3416 Wounded/Disease}.
US Navy losses:
1 warship "USS Abner Read (DD-526)" damaged. 22 lost. See [3];
USS S-27 (SS-132) lost June 1942 {no lives lost}
USS Grunion (SS-216)" lost 30 July 1942 {70 dead}< 4,350 killed,
7 warships sunk,
9 cargo transport ships sunk[4]

[show]v &#8226; d &#8226; eAleutian Islands Campaign

Dutch Harbor &#8211; Kiska &#8211; Komandorski &#8211; Attu &#8211; Cottage


[show]v &#8226; d &#8226; ePacific Ocean theater

Pearl Harbor &#8211; Marshalls-Gilberts raids &#8211; Doolittle Raid &#8211; Coral Sea &#8211; Ry &#8211; Midway &#8211; Solomons &#8211; Aleutians &#8211; Gilberts & Marshalls &#8211; Marianas & Palau &#8211;
Volcano Is & Ryukyu Is

[show]v &#8226; d &#8226; eCanadian military actions
in World War II


Northern Europe
Battle of France - Dieppe - Spitzbergen
Normandy Landings - Juno Beach - Le Mesnil-Patry - Windsor - Charnwood - Atlantic - Verrières Ridge - Spring - Totalize - Tractable - Falaise pocket - Le Havre - Boulogne - Calais, 1944 - Dunkirk, 1944 - Scheldt - Rhineland - Northern Netherlands - Liberation of Arnhem
Italy
Sicily - Avalanche - Bernhardt Line - Moro River Campaign - Monte Cassino - Shingle - Gothic Line
Far East/Pacific
Hong Kong - Aleutian Islands
Other Campaigns
Battle of the Atlantic (1939&#8211;1945)


The Aleutian Islands Campaign was a struggle over the Aleutian Islands, part of Alaska, in the Pacific campaign of World War II starting on June 3, 1942. A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a large U.S. force to eject them. The islands' strategic value was their ability to control Pacific Great Circle routes. This control of the Pacific transportation routes is why General Billy Mitchell stated to Congress in 1935 "I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world." The Japanese reasoned that control of the Aleutians would prevent a possible U.S. attack across the Northern Pacific. Similarly, the U.S. feared that the islands would be used as bases from which to launch aerial assaults against the West Coast.

The battle is known as the "Forgotten Battle," due to being overshadowed by the simultaneous Guadalcanal Campaign

 

[Chris]

Here's an interesting article:

"For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did."

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

This taken with most people are going to use anything positive to become President, leads me to believe the grades were average (still saying alot being Harvard and Columbia) and he probably got onto the Law Review because of the student vote.

Except that average grades wouldn't yield admission.

Prove it. Give me the link to Obama's Columbia grades.

 

[Polk]

Here's an interesting article:

"For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did."

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

This taken with most people are going to use anything positive to become President, leads me to believe the grades were average (still saying alot being Harvard and Columbia) and he probably got onto the Law Review because of the student vote.

Except that average grades wouldn't yield admission.

Prove it. Give me the link to Obama's Columbia grades.

Don't know 'em. What I do know is that even with a B+ average and with preferences for minority status, any applicant would be an autoreject with anything less than a 174 on the LSAT.

 

[Maple]

Except that average grades wouldn't yield admission.

Prove it. Give me the link to Obama's Columbia grades.

Don't know 'em. What I do know is that even with a B+ average and with preferences for minority status, any applicant would be an autoreject with anything less than a 174 on the LSAT.

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

 

[Polk]

Prove it. Give me the link to Obama's Columbia grades.

Don't know 'em. What I do know is that even with a B+ average and with preferences for minority status, any applicant would be an autoreject with anything less than a 174 on the LSAT.

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

You realize anyone can make up numbers, right?

 

[geauxtohell]

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

An IQ of 130 is still two standard deviations above the mean, which means these persons have higher IQs than 95% of the people tested.

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the Mensa dorks and as a metric for mental retardation, few people utilize the IQ test as a metric for anything.

I can look at Obama and Carter's academic achievements and know they are plenty smart. Whether that correlates into good job performance, only time will tell (for Obama).

 

[Article 15]

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

An IQ of 130 is still two standard deviations above the mean, which means these persons have higher IQs than 95% of the people tested.

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the Mensa dorks and as a metric for mental retardation, few people utilize the IQ test as a metric for anything.

I can look at Obama and Carter's academic achievements and know they are plenty smart. Whether that correlates into good job performance, only time will tell (for Obama).

No, no, no GTH.

Didn't you hear that despite the fact that Obama can't get any of his agenda passed, he has managed to do irreparable damaged to this country and put it on the fast track to Gulag era Russia?

Keep up, man!

 

[geauxtohell]

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

An IQ of 130 is still two standard deviations above the mean, which means these persons have higher IQs than 95% of the people tested.

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the Mensa dorks and as a metric for mental retardation, few people utilize the IQ test as a metric for anything.

I can look at Obama and Carter's academic achievements and know they are plenty smart. Whether that correlates into good job performance, only time will tell (for Obama).

No, no, no GTH.

Didn't you hear that despite the fact that Obama can't get any of his agenda passed, he has managed to do irreparable damaged to this country and put it on the fast track to Gulag era Russia?

Keep up, man!

My bad!

I swear, these people are almost comical. I disliked Bush immensely, but I believe my objections were always from a reasonable place.

Some of these people are two standard deviations above the mean on the crazometer.

 

[QUENTIN]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk"]Palin Derangement Syndrome's Worst Victims[/ame]

 

[gautama]

San Quentin, don't be afraid to name your past residence correctly.

Recidivism being what it is, no doubt that you're languishing in some prison where the usual proportion of Liebtards to Republicans is approx 100 to One. Or, would you dispute the obvious ?

Don't bother answering a rhetorical question.

BTW, it is seldom that I bother reading posts of mental cripples once I determine who you are.

 

[California Girl]

Palinites ....

Yea..... I feel that way about people who defend any politician.

In truth, anyone who thinks any politician is worth defending is a fool.

 

[Claudette]

Gotta agree Cali. Most politicians are self serving, period. Some go in with grand ideas but it doesn't take long before they belly up to the trough for whatever they can get. Wouldn't trust most of em withe the cookie jar never mind my healthcare or anything else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have been living on the REAL planet. The one who actually reads something that does not involve the National Inquirer to get MY news. Oh no, there is no liberal media bias. Did you happen to know that Katie Curic interviewed Biden on several different occasions and that those tapes were edited to show Joe never stating one screw up.Did you also know that Joe made a statement stating that Rosevelt got on television to announce to the world about the attacks on Pearl Harbor and did you also know that there were maybe three television sets in the entire U.S at that time. Oh noooooooooooo Biden never screws up with what he states, not anymore, because Obama has his mouth taped shut.

Joe's taped interview with the very liberal left wing nut case Katie Curic was edited to make him actually look smart.

WTF does Biden have to do with any of this? I didn't bring him up. I knew his daughter in college and thought she was nice enough, but I think Biden is an ass. So what?

Palin's taped interviews with the very liberal left wing nut case Katie Curic was edited to make her look stupid. Nooooooooooooooooooooo media bias there.

Oh bullshit. Couric blew that interview. There was no editing. Couric just asked her legitimate questions that Palin flubbed time and time again.

Which led the thinking world to ponder this: If you can't handle Katie Couric, how are you going to handle Ahmendinejad?

Palin's resignation speech was equally awful.

From Palin's book, Going Rogue, page 272-275 this has been FACT CHECKED by 11 different Associated Press Journalists.

I couldn't have known it then, but what transpired during the series of interviews and what CBS actually aired were two different breeds of cat. Camera crews shot hours of footage across the U.S; Katie and her producers decided on which fraction America would see-- and let's just say the emphasis was on my worst moments. Editing footage is nothing new, of course,' I created video packages when I worked as a sports reporter. But reponsible editing means you keep substance and context, and trim out fat. When I saw the final cut, it was clear that CBS had sought out the bad moments, and systematically sliced out material that would accurately convey my message. The sin of ommission was glaring.

For example, when John and I sat down with Katie for a segment in Columbus, Ohio, she started with an energy-related question. " Governor Palin, it will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers, " the anchor said. " so isn't the notion of " drill, baby, drill" a little misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?"

I said, " And it's why we should have started ten years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore. Should have started it ten years ago, but better late than never."

That's the part CBS left in. They edited out a discussion of the need to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons and a call for America to stop spending billions of dollars on foreign oil when we could be investing it at home. Did Katie think Americans wouldn't be interested to know that I was in favor of alternative energy sources and reducing our carbon footprint? Or that I might be a conservative who was both pro-development and pro-environment? Perhaps my answer did not fit her agenda.

Katie then moved on to ANWR. " Experts say it will take almost twenty years.... to achieve peak production," she said. " And it would still only cut foreign oil dependency by about two percent and only for a little while...so is it really worth... the risk?'

I replied that I didn't know which experts those were. But I explained that as the chair of the AOGCC and IOGCC, I knew from the geologists and petroleum engineers with whom I had worked that it could be done a lot quicker. I also pointed out that ANWR is a 2,000-acre plot that's in the midst of 21 million acres. Americans needed to know how unconscionable it is that anti-development radicals use ANWR as their fund-raising poster child. They use bogus Photoshopped pictures showing moutains and waterfalls and lush forests with Bambi prancing to and fro. That's all fake and these fund-raisers know it. It is an absolutely barren, permanently frozen, remote sliver of land that requires a minimal drilling footprint, and its development parameters are equivalent to the size of L.A's airport. But neither Katie's question nor my answer wound up on the air.

I knew the media would distort my responses on social issues. But I thought surely they couldn't distort my economic and energy-related responses, because they would have to stick with the facts. I was mistaken.

Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geo-graphical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a litte square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaning that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada.

But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, " here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?"

There was so much I could and should have said, and I later kicked myself for not doing so. There was much Katie appeared not to know, or care to hear about. For instance, that Alaska's geographic position makes our relations with Pacific Rim countries of great strategic import, and that we're the air crossroads of the world. That Russian bombers often play cat-and mouse with our Air Force near Alaska's airspace. That I dealt with Canadian officials on a weekly basis and have signed agreements concerning everything from security to salmon fishing and that NAFTA has significantly affected our economy. That melting polar sea ice has created trade routes but has also created security threats to North America. That Alaska takes on Japanese and Russian fishing trawlers that want to ravage the ocean floor. That Chinese and Russian energy companies had both sought access to ( and possible control of) our natural gas resources. That these and other countries were staking their own resource claims in Artic waters while the U.S sat on its hands. And that, yes, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska.

And those were just the foreign policy issues ( though issues certainly foreign to most governors). How much more I would have liked to say about Alaska's contribution to the U.S economy, its potential to help the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and the delicate balancing act required to manage and responsibly develop our abundant wildlife resources.

But Katie wasn't interested in discussing these issues. And when I did, she didn't air them. Instead, when I tried to describe frequent Russian incursions by figuratively referring to Vladimir Putin entering our airspace, CBS researched the Russian leader's actual flight plan over the United States and called my statement inaccurate. And when I referenced Alaska's narrow maritime border to describe our close proximity to other nations, CBS reported that the Coast Guard monitored the border and not the governor.

But Katie's purpose--shared by most media types--seemed to be to frame a "gotcha" moment. And it worked. Instead of my scoring points for John McCain, I knew that I had let the team down.


For all of you historically challenged liberals, you do know that during World War 11, the Japanese entered Alaska attempting to get a foot hold there. Thankfully they were beaten back.

Alaska is not an important state to you libs but the Japanese certainly thought it was.
Aleutian Islands Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aleutian Islands Campaign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Aleutian Islands Campaign
Part of World War II, Pacific War

American troops hauling supplies on Attu in May 1943. Their vehicles could not move across the island's rugged terrain.
Date June 3, 1942 – August 15, 1943
Location Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Result Allied victory

Belligerents
United States
Canada Japan
Commanders
United States Navy:
Thomas C. Kinkaid
Francis W. Rockwell
United States Army:
Albert E. Brown
Archibald V. Arnold
Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. Imperial Japanese Navy:
Boshiro Hosogaya
Kakuji Kakuta
Imperial Japanese Army:
Yasuyo Yamasaki †
Strength
144,000[1] 8,500[1]
Casualties and losses
1,481 killed,
225 aircraft destroyed[2]
{640 killed/Missing;
3416 Wounded/Disease}.
US Navy losses:
1 warship "USS Abner Read (DD-526)" damaged. 22 lost. See [3];
USS S-27 (SS-132) lost June 1942 {no lives lost}
USS Grunion (SS-216)" lost 30 July 1942 {70 dead}< 4,350 killed,
7 warships sunk,
9 cargo transport ships sunk[4]

[show]v • d • eAleutian Islands Campaign

Dutch Harbor – Kiska – Komandorski – Attu – Cottage


[show]v • d • ePacific Ocean theater

Pearl Harbor – Marshalls-Gilberts raids – Doolittle Raid – Coral Sea – Ry – Midway – Solomons – Aleutians – Gilberts & Marshalls – Marianas & Palau –
Volcano Is & Ryukyu Is

[show]v • d • eCanadian military actions
in World War II


Northern Europe
Battle of France - Dieppe - Spitzbergen
Normandy Landings - Juno Beach - Le Mesnil-Patry - Windsor - Charnwood - Atlantic - Verrières Ridge - Spring - Totalize - Tractable - Falaise pocket - Le Havre - Boulogne - Calais, 1944 - Dunkirk, 1944 - Scheldt - Rhineland - Northern Netherlands - Liberation of Arnhem
Italy
Sicily - Avalanche - Bernhardt Line - Moro River Campaign - Monte Cassino - Shingle - Gothic Line
Far East/Pacific
Hong Kong - Aleutian Islands
Other Campaigns
Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)


The Aleutian Islands Campaign was a struggle over the Aleutian Islands, part of Alaska, in the Pacific campaign of World War II starting on June 3, 1942. A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a large U.S. force to eject them. The islands' strategic value was their ability to control Pacific Great Circle routes. This control of the Pacific transportation routes is why General Billy Mitchell stated to Congress in 1935 "I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world." The Japanese reasoned that control of the Aleutians would prevent a possible U.S. attack across the Northern Pacific. Similarly, the U.S. feared that the islands would be used as bases from which to launch aerial assaults against the West Coast.

The battle is known as the "Forgotten Battle," due to being overshadowed by the simultaneous Guadalcanal Campaign

 

[California Girl]

Clinton, Bush, Reagan had IQ's around the 130's. They were good leaders.

Carter and Obama scored in the 170's with Carter slightly ahead. They are lousy leaders and even worse Presidents.

Does that tell you anything?? Because it does me, you don't want intellectual elitists running the country because they are indecisive and make extremely POOR leaders. They are as Chris Matthews described them, " Intellectual eggheads."

An IQ of 130 is still two standard deviations above the mean, which means these persons have higher IQs than 95% of the people tested.

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the Mensa dorks and as a metric for mental retardation, few people utilize the IQ test as a metric for anything.

I can look at Obama and Carter's academic achievements and know they are plenty smart. Whether that correlates into good job performance, only time will tell (for Obama).

No, no, no GTH.

Didn't you hear that despite the fact that Obama can't get any of his agenda passed, he has managed to do irreparable damaged to this country and put it on the fast track to Gulag era Russia?

Keep up, man!

Art, he has the majority. If he can't get his agenda passed, it's not because he can't - it's because he doesn't actually want to. You're smart - think more logically about what he says he wants and what he really wants. And, by 'he', I don't necessarily mean Obama himself as an individual.

 

[Maple]

An IQ of 130 is still two standard deviations above the mean, which means these persons have higher IQs than 95% of the people tested.

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the Mensa dorks and as a metric for mental retardation, few people utilize the IQ test as a metric for anything.

I can look at Obama and Carter's academic achievements and know they are plenty smart. Whether that correlates into good job performance, only time will tell (for Obama).

No, no, no GTH.

Didn't you hear that despite the fact that Obama can't get any of his agenda passed, he has managed to do irreparable damaged to this country and put it on the fast track to Gulag era Russia?

Keep up, man!

Art, he has the majority. If he can't get his agenda passed, it's not because he can't - it's because he doesn't actually want to. You're smart - think more logically about what he says he wants and what he really wants. And, by 'he', I don't necessarily mean Obama himself as an individual.

He is nothing more than a puppet for the left wing radical agenda in this country. That's why it has taken sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long for him to make a decision on Afghanistan. He has no positions other than the one's he's told to have. He's the salesperson. That's it!!! Just wait until he announces the increase in troops over in Afghanistan, the liberals will be howling and it's the one and only thing that he has done that I agree with.