Charlie Gibson’s Biased Attack

What strikes me as absurd in the coverage of Palin is that she is running for the #2 spot and she was picked because she is a reformer with a proven track record, not becaus eshe is a foreign policy wonk.

Her feet were put to the fire more in that one interview than Obama has experienced over a series of interviews… He is on the top of the ticket, the MSM better start treating him like a woman!

Working Class Artist

You nailed it Larry. NQ Rocks !

DITTO

Ditto!!! Well spoken….or well written.

yeah thats an excellent article

Lets get some of it here:

ABC’S BUNGLES
BOTCHES MAR PALIN INTERVIEW
Kirsten Powers

Posted: 3:47 am
September 12, 2008

LAST night, Sarah Palin had her first big-time media interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC World News Tonight.

At times, Palin seemed to know less than she should. On the other hand, Gibson sometimes seemed to “know” things that just aren’t so.

Her responses to Gibson’s cross-examining seemed canned and rehearsed, a little like the answers you might give in a tough college interview. But that may be a result of the ham-fisted editing – which seemed to cut her off mid-thought on many answers. ABC should release the entire, unedited interview, so that Americans can judge her more fairly.

The biggest concern is that she appeared to not know what the Bush Doctrine is. There are, in fact, different definitions of it – but all have had an impact on this nation. One hopes Palin is more up to speed than she seemed.

Edit: This point is being debated ad nauseum inthe speech thread. More on it after the story.

Of course, she needs to be questioned on many issues – but this interview left us with little new information about her.

Americans already know she lacks foreign-policy experience (as, by the way, did Democrats’ 2004 VP candidate, John Edwards). All we could learn from Gibson’s grilling on that topic was how well she’s memorized McCain’s positions. Why ask her whether Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO? Her position will match McCain’s, just as Joe Biden’s stands will mirror Barack Obama’s.

Plus, her answers last night are already being misrepresented. She said – quite correctly – that, if Georgia and Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect.

So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she wants to invade Russia instead of debating real issues.

ABC’s errors didn’t end there. The interview seemed to show a lack of good faith, with the blatant misrepresentation of comments she’s made about the Iraq war.

Gibson – probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report – told Palin she has said that, “Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC’s Web site), Palin says, “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

Gibson snaps: “Exact words.”

Sorry, Charlie – let’s go to the tape.

In the video of her remarks, Palin says “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders – praying that they are following God’s will.

This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well.

There’s more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, “There is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Here’s what she really said: “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Despite Gibson’s insistance that she’d said things that she clearly hadn’t, Palin was polite and seemed unrattled.

We need to get beyond the stereotypes. Palin has been cast as a right-wing nut job in the media, yet her actual record suggests something more complex. She is a Republican who made herself the enemy of oil companies in Alaska. She raised funding for pregnant teens and learning-disabled children. She has expressed concern that we don’t have a clear strategy in Iraq.

But she also was mayor of Wasilla at a time when women were charged for rape kits – we need an explanation why. And what of her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest? Is that a personal position, or does she seek to impose it on all Americans? And, even if no books were banned in the Wasilla library, why did she inquire as to how the librarian would react if they were?

There are real questions that Americans need to hear Palin answer. But they’re ill-served by the game the media has played so far. Rather than real insights into this woman, we get exchanges that will lead to arguments about whether she’s a religious fanatic – arguments based on a comment she never made.

This is completely destructive to the public debate.

The above article continues here:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/abcs_bungles_128726.htm?page=0

alright regarding the Edit I placed up above:

It has been pointed out repeatedly that She was 100% right on her answer to this and gibson was actually wrong on his interpretation.

It has also been pointed out that her response and forcing him to quantify his question and her susequent refusal to give him the gotcha yes or no answer he was desperately seeking was very shrewd on her part.

The Troll Free analysis:

media.nationalreview.com

Thursday, September 11, 2008
ABC
Defining the Bush Doctrine [Greg Pollowitz]

The left is going bananas over Governor Palin’s answer to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine” question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I’d add a little history of the “Bush Doctrine” using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term “Bush Doctrine” looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:

A senior administration official said Mr. Bush’s speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:

Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.

By March, the “Bush Doctrine” had expanded yet again to include regime change:

In the tug of war between the go-get-’em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush’s sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president’s conservative superego, has taken to calling this ”The Bush Doctrine.”

”On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,” said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. ”But he’s very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.”

In September, the Times had an editorial titled, “Bush Doctrine,” based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:

The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush’s policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.

At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush’s lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.

This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.

By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he’s not quite sure what the “Bush Doctrine” actually is:

Mr. Bush’s overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.

Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the ”Bush doctrine,” or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.

In December, we have yet another version of the “Bush Doctrine” as described in the book America Unbound:

Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America’s six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.

As the authors describe it, his policy rests on two beliefs: ”The first was that in a dangerous world the best — if not the only — way to ensure America’s security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies, and international institutions.” The second belief was that ”an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world.”

This does not mean that America need always act alone. When unilateral actions seem impossible or unwise, Mr. Bush will seek allies, but not to make decisions that would require their approval. His preferred approach is to seek ad hoc ”coalitions of the willing,” what Richard Haas, a former adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has called ”à la carte multilateralism.”

After John Kerry’s defeat in 2005, the “Bush Doctrine” became defined by the left with the buzzwords “preemptive” and “unilateral.” Paul Krugman for example:

On the foreign policy front, the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emption and unilateralism sounded very impressive at first. But Mr. Bush’s tough-guy attitude wasn’t matched by his willingness to commit resources. His administration sought global dominance on the cheap, with an undermanned, underplanned invasion of Iraq that has, indeed, transformed the balance of power in the Middle East – in favor of Iran.

In December 2006, Gary Hart wrote this in defense of Barack Obama:

His inherent internationalism causes him to ponder why, five years after 9/11 and 15 years after the end of the cold war, the United States “still lacks a coherent national security policy,” rightly finding the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and defeat of evil in the world wanting.

In January 2007, there’s this description:

In a sense, it was an extraordinary retreat by Bush – and not just because Fatah and Hamas killing each other daily makes a plan for new talks surreal. More, it winds the United States deeper into the whorls of process, and goes against the Bush doctrine that democratization of the Middle East starts with the defeat of terrorism.

September 2007:

None of the leading Republican candidates has been willing to articulate anything like a new direction for how to confront terrorism or what to do in Iraq, despite the fact that the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy has been widely deemed a failure, even by a sizable chunk of Republicans.

From the Times review of Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV:

Mr. Podhoretz, however, remains an ardent supporter of the Bush doctrine of unilateral action, pre-emptive war and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.

So, it’s easy to see why there might be a little confusion on what exactly Charlie Gibson was getting at when he asked about the “Bush Doctrine.” Except for the Times, of course. It’s crystal clear for them. Here’s how they wrote up the Palin interview:

In the interview Thursday, Palin:

— Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.

Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: ”In what respect, Charlie?” Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: ”His world view.” That prompted Gibson to say ”no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war” and describe it to her.

Here’s what Gibson actually said, however:

The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. That we have the right to a premptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.

Not only was Charlie Gibson wrong about what was enunciated in September 2002, Gov. Palin was 100% correct in asking what the heck he was babbling about as well as 100% correct in what she said.

09/11 10:28 PM

Charlie did come across a little Tweety-ish, didn’t he. I have watched the interview a couple of times now, and do agree he was unfairly harsh on her, as compared to Obama. However, I still am glad he was tough. Just shows she has a lot more staying power then Obama. He is so fragile, he can’t even handle tough questions from journalists.

I agree. BO will win the White House but not because he won fairly. Just like ousting Hillary, he will have his thugs get him in.

We thought Carl Rove was shifty and a great manipulator of people, BO has an army of Carl Rove’s behind him.

You have got to be kidding; the only way Barack will get into the White House is if he takes the tour!

roseeriter — Amen to everything you say.

One of the stories out there right now which has gotten no play on the media is — Phillip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic Party about whether Obama is legally able to run for President in this country because he was not born here.

So its the people against the media’s corporate dominance. This year WE MUST VOTE.

Oh Brother ! I cannot believe how irreverant that appears….Guess Barky was in a hurry or sumpin’…..sheeesh!

What an arrogant POS. It’s like:” you deserved to die. you don’t get respect from me”

this guy can’t be president

I think it was Mayor Bloomberg.

This footage before the flower toss is more telling of his character, IMO.

At 10 sec, he see’s a construction worker in a reception line, at 16sec, he is snubbing him.

The body language speaks volumes. That snub was felt by the construction worker as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67a8BYSx2DU

Well…That depends on which public you mean…The snobs who dismiss the workinglass or the workingclass who generally decide most elections….chuckle….
The Workingclass seems to identify with her…Palin that is….Barky is in FULL MONTY PANIC!

That’s the brave thing to do, sit home wring your hands and cry. I was a Hillary supporter myself, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Barky anywhere near the whitehouse especially after how him and his thugs treated Hillary. No, I will step up and vote for Mccain Palin. Life isn’t fair but you must confront it, if you want to get ahead.

I suggest before you judge palin, you do some reasearch.

Bill, is that you?

My thoughts exactly, Annie! My first thought when watching this interview was, “OMG, how patronizing Gibson is! I’ve never seen him be so condescending toward anyone!” And the look on his face, like he was completely disgusted with her, and this whole thing was such a come-down for him– wow!

I thought she did really well, considering all of the assorted emotional and time-pressure, etc. she was under (son leaving for Iraq, new to the national political scene). I thought she showed tremendous poise. She must have sensed Gibson’s deprecating attitude… how could she not? With her schedule the last 2 weeks, she can’t have crammed everything she answered, so must have come into this thing knowing lots to begin with. I’m rooting for her, big-time!

I have now learned after a 3rd round of false accusations in emails, everything that you receive is probably a lie.

Even now trying to claim “Mayor Palin charged rape victims for rape kits”.

This was my reply:

“… now I do know better of you. I have no intentions of selling or not a candidate, but you should know about me is that the truth is what I like. And when it’s lies intentionally being spread, that irks me, as no doubt many others.

I have no intention of going back and forth on this, and I surely know you like to get the facts, so if this is what you are responding with, I can only assume you are doing it again intentionally, not looking for truth.

Sara Palin did not charge for rape kits. The POLICE CHIEF did. And, unfortunately, many places charge for rape kits because they are so costly, like ILLINOIS-for example, but they signed a bill in 97 to allow reimbursements if they file a claim after paying for it (how nice). But, in 2000 a bill was signed in to law that stopped that practice of charging for the rape kits and that was WHILE GOVERNOR PALIN WAS MAYOR. The Police Chief expressed his displeasure-no doubt, because he was the one who started charging for it.

Former Democratic Governor Knowles who lost another Governor election to Governor Palin is the one spreading the lie and tale that it seems others are just too willing to repeat. Some Democrats really do eat sour grapes and obviously have no problem with gutter politics. I saw his debate performance, I wouldn’t have voted for him EITHER! lol”

Why hasn’t any friggin journalist asked hard questions of Bozo? When Steph/Gibson asked about Ayers etc during the debate, Bozo and his ganglia cried “smear!” all the way home….

And it was NOT an interview, it was an interrogation.

paul 3 triple —

bed wetting and an ad calling McCain old? Boomers and Seniors vote and we are sick to death of the self–professed rock star. At 47 Mr. Obama is fooling nobody — he is middle aged. Getting a few lines and gray hair BO? You aren’t going to get my vote EVER.

agreed.

i mean, i would love to see equal treatment by the media, and would love to see interviewers get tough on obama, but the fact that he was tough on her, and she did good, makes her look better, and obama and the media worse.

I agree, beebop. I think Gibson was probably trying to appease the thugs that kicked his ass after Bozo’s limp debate with Hillary.

Palin is no victim, which is how the media wants to spin this. She stood strong and confident. She’s the fly in their ointment because she isn’t obsequious.

You want to see Obama stutter? You have to watch this video. It is a 14 minute interview with 7 minutes of uh. I kid you not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc&feature=related

Didn’t Obama touch Bill on the knee, twice. Maybe that’s the sexual-psycho part that Obama’s got down to a science. Softened Bill up – didn’t know what touched him.

Oops. Last sentence should: “. . . there’s a lot out there . . .”

sam — I love Sarah Palin. She is the real deal and the media wants to destroy her so I will defend her. What don’t you get about that?

I watched the interview first with no sound. It’s a good way to focus on body language. I sometimes do that with movies I am studying so that I can focus on the visuals of the scene to see if they are telling the story.

Upon viewing only body language, I did not see the moment when Palin drew a blank. If it happened, it only happened in her voice. In fact, she maintains steady eye-contact and poise throughout. She looked at Gibson straight on, I never noticed her hands fluttering and she kept her feet still. She managed that without looking stiff.

Gibson did have a stern, tough, interrogator demeanor, but I never caught the eye-rolling that some people accused him of with the sound down. He did keep wiggling his foot around and they were so close that it was uncomfortable. I give her credit for that. As a woman I don’t like my physical space to be invaded by a strange man or even woman. It’s a passive aggressive move and it brings out the worst in me. He gave 0bama all the space he needed. And laughed with him in a few spots.

Before listening with the sound, I read the transcript about the Bush Doctrine. I am satisfied with her answer considering Gibson himself thought differently in 2001.

I think she handled herself well considering the tone set by Gibson. She was composed and handled herself with an air that said, I’m not easily ruffled. 0bama has already shown that he can be ruffled. Bear in mind, he’s running for POTUS.

I give Palin a B+

I didn’t think she ever drew a blank. She paused and looked pointedly at Gibson when he asked about the Bush Doctrine. She knew he was trying to trick her and she wasn’t going to let him do it. I thought she had a good answer. The Republicans have to be careful this year because Bush is so unpopular. They can’t appear to be in step with him. I didn’t know myself what Gibson was talking about “The Bush Doctrine” and I am very well aware of national affairs. I didn’t know his preemptive theory had a name.

Anyway you look at it, considering she sent her son off on a tour of duty, and then had to deal with an interviewer who was obviously trying to trip her up, she handled herself with confidence, never lost her composure and remained firm in her responses.

This isn’t a freaking koffee klatch she’s trying out for for cripes sake. Thw woman failed woefully to display knowledge of world affairs! Jeezus, some people deny reality.

Cuz…chuckle….heez tryin to reach out an touch the workin class folks….