Click Image For Story
Sound off!
Two clips are already up in case the transcript’s not good enough. Here and here.
Here’s a partial transcript. Good to see Charlie did his homework:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said ” first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
Totally untrue, but that’s what he gets for relying on the Associated Press, which took the liberty of bowdlerizing her quote mid-sentence in order to make it fit the narrative they were trying to build of her as some fundie who thinks she can read God’s mind. Here’s my post on the subject from last Thursday. Read it and see just how egregious the distortion here is.
Sorry, Gibson– exact words means exact words. And if you’re going to edit out key words and transform a statement from one meaning to another, that’s not even close to “exact.”
UPDATE..The Bush Doctrine: Much ado has been made about what the Bush Doctrine is. Few people realize that it is Charles Krauthammer that coined the phrase and it behooves us to read what he has to say on the subject:
…If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know ” while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Take off your smart glasses, Charlie. Because you’ve been schooled
Others blogging:
- ABC Distorts Palin’s Remarks ” Brennan Monaco
- Charles Gibson Distorts Palin’s “Pray” Quote | The American Pundit
- Gibson Asks Palin: Are We Fighting In A Holy War?
- Let the Distortions Begin: Sarah Palin Does Her ABC Interview. « The Rhetorican
- Ben Smith’s Blogs
- The Corner
- Washington Wire
- JustOneMinute, The Swamp
- Jonathan Martin’s Blogs
- Wake up America
- Balloon Juice
- Bring It On!
- memeorandum
- The World Newser
- Think Progress
- Talking Points Memo
- Jonathan Martin’s Blogs
- Hot Air
- Ace of Spades HQ
- TIME.com
- Spin Cycle
- AMERICAblog News
- Wizbang
- Michelle Malkin » ABC News blows it
- Open Thread: Sarah Palin Interview With Charlie Gibson | Right Voices
- Mediaslakter
- Neocon News » Barracuda hooked?
- ABC, Charlie Gibson Interview with Sarah Palin « Above My Pay Grade!
- Stuck On Stupid
- Suitably Flip
- The Charlie Gibson Interview, Part 1
- Gibson and Biden ” Gibson vs Palin « Gunservatively!
- What Is Fair And Balanced? | Politics and Hypocrisy
- Palin Smears, Continued « Nuke ‘m Hill
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Palin on the Bush Doctrine, 9/11, and Pakistan
- Webloggin » Bloggers Fact Check Distortions In ABC Palin Interview
- Excerpts Of The Abc Sarah Palin Interview – Palin (r, Alaska) | Sarah Palin – Sharpy News
- Stuck On Stupid
- Excerpts Of The ABC Sarah Palin Interview – John Mccain | John McCain- Sharpy News
- Transcript and Video of Palin Interview With Charlie Gibson: Take That Newsboy!! | The Patriot Room
Paul S you are a really snmart guy you tell them like it is here! Hey how did you get the job? Does it pay good? I mean the job working for the Oabma campaign. Going to websites like this and posting stuff to help Obama. Calling in to talk shows and putting down the Repugnicans like palin. I want to do that too can you help me? Please post the info so I can get a job like that too. Help me please I am on your side!
“It is relevant given the level of scrutiny given to Palin..”
Clinton went through a 2 year run up to a nomination via the routine primary process. He was continually vetted during that process, and I’m sure the Republicans scrutinized him during the general election process. Palin was magically and mysteriously thrust upon the scene as an unknown with no prior vetting. Hell, even McCain claims he only started to vet her a day or two before the announcement. Palin and Clinton are two totally different cases. BTW, the nominee you back is McCain, not Palin. Seems like you and your peers have forgotten that.
A. Why would you lie about mcCain claiming to vet her a day or two ahead of the announcement
B. I didn’t ask you how long Clinton was in the primary process, I asked you what made him qualified. The press does not make a person qualified for anything btw.
C. No I have not forgotten who my candidate is, nor what the lineup on the ticket is. You are trying to say that Palin is not qualified to be the VP and I asked you a very simple question that you can not answer.
Robert, I see you’re glomming into classic right wing insult and jab mode. It strikes me that whenever you guys are scared, Rovian tactics come to the fore. I think folks on the right are beginning to see Palin for what she is … a light weight on the national scene who is a detriment. That begs the question of McCain who looks like someone who cannot be counted on to exercise appropriate judgment when making major decisions. Hardly someone worthy of the highest office in the land.
Let’s see on Palin. We have:
- Troopergate
- Bridgegate
- Earmarkgate – yep she seeks them out; hardly a reformer
- Doctringate – she should have just said “I don’t know” or “They haven’t taught me that yet”; Tell me why she’s qualified based on Alaska’s proximity to Russia?
- Emailgate – 1100 withheld emails? How can she possibly claim executive privilege when Todd (remember Super Dude) was CCed on many (all?) of them
- Abstinence-only-gate – I understand that Alaska has an extremely high rate of teen (pre-marital) pregnancies)
Need I go on? It takes more than a smile and a one-liner that a speech writer develops. Palin is a joke as a vp candidate.
Pam – when did the Republican vetters get to Alaska to talk with Palin? Wednesday before a Friday announcement. So, who’s lying. I’m quite comfortable with my position. She may have been on a long list quite some time ago, but had been eliminated (as I understand it until the extreme right nixed Lieberman and demanded a hard core, ultra-right nominee).
I will not fall into the typical Republican trap of baselessly arguing something that has no relevance to the issue. Clinton and Palin are two different cases. I will not waste any more time on this point.
I’m pleased that you know the order of your preferred ticket. Given all the whoopdedoo you guys are giving Palin, the ads focused on her, etc., one wonders if the nuances of a POTUS v VPOTUS nomination were fully understood.
No, ellis. it has nothing to do with Karl Rove. Noam Chomsky is filthy vermin. If he died tomorrow the world would be better for his absence.
And about Palin? Actually, it is the democrites who are panicking and struggling. We’re having a party, watching Hurricane Sarah wreak havoc on the Osama campaign.
Normally, VP choices are mundane. They might bring in some extra votes, but they;’re not a big deal. Palin has taken the Country by storm, already making history.
It is so much fun watching the Democrites squirming and flailing and Obama going on tv attempting to insult his opponent’s running mate and just making himself look cheaper and smaller.
As for the GaffeMeister himself, who makes Bush look like a skilled orator, Obama is not going to win.
The Democrites are probably already planning their post-defeat strategy. An army of lawyers. What’ll it be this time, since hanging chads were already used? Sticking keys on keypads? They’ll try something, count on it. They have no shame, no integrity, no ethics, no morals.
How juvenile and contrived: Assigning “gate” to these made up smears against Palin. Here, I’ll give you some names you can freely use:
Nonsensegate
Madeupgate
hopethissticksgate
wesuckgate
Obamasintroublegate
MoreDemocriteliesgate
You can use them all, ellis. Have at it!
“Pam – when did the Republican vetters get to Alaska to talk with Palin?”
Alaskans LOVE Gov. Palin. Her approval is ~8x that of the Reid-Pelosi Congress.
Robert,
FYI, I’m unemployed and this exchange is a cardinal waste of time. If, for any reason, you prevail, you deserve what you get. Enjoy.
Forget the source of the following if you must, conservatives. The salient points are the quotes which are the same regardless of source. ’tis a sad state of affairs Mr. McCain is trying to foist upon us.
“Palin has no clue how entitlements work.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/palin-entitlement/
Actually, the so-called “Bush Doctrine” has 5+ different meanings. Charles Krauthammer first coined it in June of 2001 – yes, it was before the day of infamy, September 11, 2001.
So Sarah was correct to wait for Charles to define “which one” he was referring to. The best part of the interview was when Charles and Sarah were walking back from the boat dock – the camera momentarily panned to Charles as he was attempting to screw his head back on – - obviously, it didn’t work.
I can’t wait until the terrorists, Putin, Ahmadinejad and our “sorry assed” congressional representatives, have to deal with John and Sarah, especially, after she gets up to speed.
Why should we have read that Ellis? We discussed all those points yesterday, the day before etc.
Rich you are right, it was an MSM creation who have used it in various contexts. And Palin did handle it the best way.
People get whatever they want out of the Palin interview. If they like her, it was very good. If they are against her because she threatens their Messiah and Savior, she was awful, Gibson tore her up, she’s not ready to be VP, yadda yadda yadda.
BTW, Pam, it looks like a long year for the Wolverines. Now, I’m excited as hell about the Yellow Jackets. I think they may have it under our new coach. :d
I hate Meeeshigan! I am A Spartan fan myself, so I hope Michigan gets their just desserts this year!
>-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, my error. I got MSU and Fla Atl on the tube now. Looks like you’ll need an ark up there today.
I am so sick of the rain! But, it pales in comparison to what Texas is getting. Not that you would care, but I just bought a new pair of Wellies last week http://www1.talbots.com/talbotsonline/product/itempage.aspx?item=E271889&BID=&h=A&sk=S and I must go to the store and then to dad’s to clean so guess what I get to wear? :d
Georgia Tech is usually a powerhouse so you should end up doing well. There are growing pains with any new coach so if it doesn’t happen this year, it will within 2.
I’ve stopped hoping for a Rose Bowl..I just love my Spartans..no prettier campus in Michigan.
Please check this website. Some people are taking advantage of Gov. Palin in the guise of comedy acts. This one is viliful.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/feb8fb8bd0
Note that Gov. Palin is a baptized Catholic. And in our religion, once a Catholic always a Catholic.
For me, it’s a good thing that Sarah Palin is fresh from foreign policy. Foreign relations have already been destroyed by the political wrangling of both parties.
Many people now don’t understand what’s really going on with Government.
With Sarah, I hope she will make foreign relations easily understandable to the common people and let the people be given a chance to say what they actually believe when it comes to foreign policies and in going into war.
That includes treaties and economic sanctions to other countries.
McCain and especially Barack Obama cannot be fully trusted.
LET ONE OF US BE THERE IN THE GOVERNMENT DISCOURSE AND POLICY MAKING WRT NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.
Go Sarah!
CheckItOut-
Welcome to RV.
Membership is voluntary in the Catholic Church. I can leave and join another faith, but will be welcomed back to the Catholic Church if I so choose.
Matt,
You say the “so called Bush Doctrine ” was Gibson’s “pathetic attempt” to come up with something because it doesn’t exist?
Well, many of you here haven’t done your homework, but Gibson certainly did. Perhaps he assumed that Palin should at least be familiar with the Bush Doctrine, since it is a central to any foreign policy issues she would need to know as a prospective Vice President. It was outlined more than 7 years ago, after 911…the question is, how could she NOT know about the Bush Doctrine?
Here, maybe all of you can do your homework and read this, before spouting off about topics that you haven’t even taken the time to research….
You aren’t helping the McCain/Palin campaign with your unexamined, misinformed responses here (which is fine by me!).
for what it’s worth, here you go:
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]
National Security Strategy of the United States
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[6] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows: [10]
” It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. ”
Components
The Bush Doctrine has been formulated as a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of logical rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy.[11] Two main pillars are identified for the doctrine: preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change.[11][12]
The George W. Bush administration claims that the United States is locked in a global war; a war of ideology, in which its enemies are bound together by a common ideology and a common hatred of democracy.[11][13][14][15][16][17]
Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[18] The document emphasized preemption by stating: “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few.” and required “defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.”[19]
Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in 2006 stated that: “If I were rating, I would say we probably deserve a D or D+ as a country as how well we’re doing in the battle of ideas that’s taking place. I’m not going to suggest that it’s easy, but we have not found the formula as a country.”[16]
Unilateralism
Elements of the Bush Doctrine were evident in the first months of Bush’s presidency. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president’s increased unilateralism in foreign policy, specifically regarding the president’s decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty.[20][21]