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
Has anyone done a comparison of Bill Clinton’s experience before running for President, and Sarah Palin’s experience before running for VP?
It could be interesting!
Good point Neutron! No, I haven’t really seen a mention of that!
The Palin interview was the first time my TV had been tuned to ABC in almost two years. The “set top box” must have been shocked to find there was a channel at that number.
I saw some of the interview, but had to stop because of the level of “gotcha” and patronizing. When he asked about “the Bush Doctrine,” my onw response as she paused was “Bush’s policy on what? Education? Healthcare, Energy, …”
I guess he would think me as “stupid” as he obviously thought Palin was, because he had to explain (to me too) that “The Bush Doctrine” meant preemptive war blah blah blah.
I’m college educated, well read in many fields, and follow politics like most men follow sports, but I guess I’m just not savvy enough, because I didn’t instantly grok the liberal code word “The Bush Doctrine.”
Palin proved that she has more in common with me than ABC news does. I’m going to help my “set top box” forget that channel exists.
There are many cases where journalists (Charlie Gibson included) take quotes out of context.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!
Trying to paint Charlie Gibson as a bad journalist over this is absurd.
She said the words “pray for” before the statement he quoted.
She obviously thinks the Iraq war MIGHT be a task that is from G-d.
It’s completely fair for Gibson to ask her if she thinks we’re fighting a holy war.
She said those things, and journalists have every right and responsibility to examine those statements.
Look somewhere else if you want to find people misquoting – this isn’t the place.
Too bad. So sad. Bye bye.
Quote me if you want to.
I have a PhD and I am a political junkie and I too wouldnt know how to answer Gibson’s gotcha question on ‘the Bush doctrine’ that is way too vague and loaded.
Palin did quite well, given that it was an unfair, gotcha-loaded grilling from a condescending liberal.
Then I submit that you’re not qualified to be VP either, Neutron. Palin is personable, a girl next door type, a successful hockey mom, but not ready for prime time. No way, no how, no Palin.
Sarah Palin clearly lied. She also said during her speech at that church, and I am quoting her, verbatim: “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to help get that gas line built.” She accepted the VP candidacy for one reason: To secure more drilling in Alaska. After listening to her responses to Gibson, I am convinced that she is no more ready for this VP slot, which is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, than I am.
One other observation. We all know that Palin is short on foreign experience. Being next to Russia does not qualify anyone. Otherwise, to extrapolate, we have millions of experts on Mexico. Had Palin answered “Charlie, I honestly don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, but I’ll sure as hell find out”, I would have cut her some slack. Instead, she tried to bluster her way through the question. She’s in the major leagues now, not a Saturday morning b’ball league. Knowledge and honesty is expected. And, the Bush Doctrine is a cornerstone of GW’s foreign policy.
I have to agree that her performance regarding the National Security Strategies (more commonly known as the Bush Doctrine) was dismal. I can’t defend the unpreparedness of someone who might have access to nuclear and other intensely delicate national security information. There is no defense. I personally believe McCain flubbed this choice. She was good for energy of the party but honestly not for governance.
Jason,
I disagree with you and I am partial to Charlie.
First of all, what is the Bush Doctrine?
We all know we are fighting a holy war. That isn’t some secret.
Ellis, what made Bill Clinton qualified to be POTUS? That isn’t a sarcastic slam against him, I am just curious what made him experienced with is governorship?
“Being next to Russia does not qualify anyone. Otherwise, to extrapolate, we have millions of experts on Mexico.”~ Ellis
To all the readers from CA, AZ, and Texas…do you get regular national security briefings via email?
Charles Gibson a “condescending liberal?” What, Travis Monitor, is your PhD in?
Gibson is one of the right’s best friends! I haven’t been able to watch him for over 6 years because of his constant soft-balls and absence of logical follow-up questions when interviewing conservatives. Liberal media, may ass. It’s CORPORATE media and corporate interests are overwhelmingly pandered to by the right.
Sheesh.
No Paul, Charlie is not the best friend of the right, but he is also not their sworn enemy.
I am not sure what the liberal bias in the MSM and your ass have in common, but their is no denying that the bias exists. The debate is over, all the scientist agree that it exists.
Yes, Charlie works for a corporation. Just as Keith does. Those corporations have stockholders..you see where this is going?
Pam,
More you post, more of your ignorance come to light. You can’t possibly be serious about most of the blabber that you’re posting. For you to compare Palin to Bill Clinton or any other president is insanity. For god sake do you actually believe that this loony toon is qualified to be, possibly, the president of this country because she is a hokey mom? I’m looking around my office and I can point out 10 other people who are actually more qualified than this woman. BTW. I know what Bush doctrine is and so do most of my friends. That’s elementary level knowledge.
I’d bet that Obama will never get questioned in the manner Sarah Palin did. She did just fine. She appears to think better on her feet than Obama does.
Obama gets a question he has to think about and it’s “uh, well, umm…” then it’s a “blizzard of words” that tries to play both sides, restates what everyone already knows (the obvious), then ends up by not taking any real position at all.
The voters see all this. And they’re taking notes…
Asking a VP pick about the Bush Doctrine should have been lobbing her a softball. It encompasses Bush’s foreign policy post 9-11 and her response should articulate whether the McCain-Palin ticket is supportive of Bush’s policies in this respect or not. Let’s face it, Palin (currently) is no foreign policy expert. Rather than focusing on what she is not good at (and none of the candidates are strong across the board), I would like to hear more about her strengthes. If McCain picked her because she is a reformer, I would rather hear more on that front. What can she do for us at home?
Sarah was terrible. It doesn’t hurt to admit it.
The world is too serious a place to let someone pretend through the role of a world leader.
So in other words God Help Us, you can’t answer what made Clinton qualified to be POTUS given the fact that he was Governor of Arkansas. You obviously don’t know what the doctrine is, otherwise you would have shared it..
Pam,
The hackneyed, trite old saw about liberal media bias is a conservative red herring; this, according to the National Review’s Bruce Bartlett http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNlNGNhMTlkYzA3YTU3MWZiYTMxMWFiNzg0MWEzN2Q=
You’re living in the past. If as you say, “all the scientist” (sic) agree, then please provide a citation to support your claim (or don’t make it).
You know, “change” is a peculiar mantra for conservatives, given that you’re the incumbent party. It’s a little Oh Brother, Where Art Thou, don’t you think? http://www.redroom.com/blog/michelle2005/o-brother-where-are-thou
If righties truly want change, perhaps you should start with your rhetoric/arguments (not to mention your ideas/strategies).
Paul- The all scientists agree comment was a slam against Gore’s stupid statement..regulars caught that for the sarcasm it was.
That is a great article that Bruce wrote. He makes many fine points, but tha was written last year..
That last link was really silly. Care to explain in your own words what it is that you want to say?
Pam,
Sorry, I don’t know the “code”. I’m a liberal, of course, so that’s no surprise. I do enjoy sarcasm, though and am sorry to have missed yours.
So, was it satirical when you complained about the “liberal media?” If not, again, please support your contention.
The last link merely makes light of a “reform” platform when a two term official is of the sane party as those claiming to want change.
Having had to explain that, I beg your indulgence if I fail to participate further.
Best of luck to you,
-p
Paul,
Where was the vetting by the media of Barack Obama? You do not want to admit the bias is there, therefore you try and play games. The media jumped behind him and never asked a tough question. The public saw through it and hence, the media is slipping in the polls to the level of Pelosi’s Congress.
Before you guys spout that the following is from “Huffington,” note that they are merely repeating McCain’s words. He has either flip-flopped (we all know how you despise flip-floppers), or never knew what he was talking about (we all know how you despise ignorance). Regardless, it’s clear that Palin is a good warm-up act, but not ready for prime time. It’s equally clear that McCain will say and do anything to win, and the hell with what’s good for the people. It’s all about power. No way, no how, no McCain/Palin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-last-year-mayors-a_n_125944.html
“When does being a governor or mayor for a short period of time not disqualify your credentials on national security? When you are John McCain and your task is to defend your vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
When does being a governor or mayor for a short period of time ABSOLUTELY disqualify your credentials on national security? When you are John McCain and your task is to defeat primary opponents Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
Back in October 2007, when McCain’s candidacy still appeared dead and buried, the Senator berated the two Republican front runners for lacking the necessary political experience to handle commander in chief responsibilities.
“I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I’ve been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism,” the Senator declared. “I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn’t a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn’t a governor for a short period of time.” “
Joe: “The world is too serious a place to let someone pretend through the role of a world leader.”
That’s how we feel about Barack Saddam Hussein Osama Obama.
GODHELPUS I’m sure you know what the “Bush Doctrine” is because it’s been in your talking points list for months. There are hundreds, probably thousands of people in my area alone that are arguably far more qualified to be POTUS than Barack Saddam Hussein Osama Obama.
The more lies, the more smears, the more venom that spews from the Looney Left about Palin, the more I am convinced she is absolutely the right one for the job.
They hate her so: that’s qualification enough! END of story!
I sincerely hope McCain/Palin win. The rabid Leftists will be so filled with rage and hate they won’t know what to do. They’ll be having strokes and heart attacks. Their miserable lives will be even more unhappy.
Paul Sonderman posts one link to a very short NRO article that has almost notning in it and that’s his proof? No, paul it isn’t trite and hackneyed and it’s a FACT.
Ellis, thanks for that link. You still have not answered my question about Clinton being a Governor and then into the presidency..in this case, Palin is going for VP, hardly the same job. I’ll remind you that Clinton was voted out of that job in Arkansas, and re ran a few years later. You tell me that Palin was only there a short time, but Obama has spent half his 1st term running for the presidency…do you see how that logic could backfire on you?
McCain is the most qualified of the 4 on the nov. tickets, and between the three that you highlighted, it still holds true. McCain has a military background as well as his committee experiences dealing with National Security..hence he is our candidate and soon to be 44th POTUS. Rudy is good, don’t get me wrong, but I was so disappointed in his campaign. I still don’t get that.
Amen Pam! Bush “Doctrine”? This is not a published doctrine. Gibson’s account of what is the so called Bush Doctrine was a pathetic attempt to come up with something since he doesn’t even know what it is himself since it does not exist in the sense he implied. Preemptively attacking another nation first when you know for certain they are preparing to attack you? Gee Charlie, I guess we’re supposed to believe Pres. Bush was the first to come up with this concept? I call that freaking common sense and as age old as nations themselves. Why don’t we just wait for it to happen – for people to die knowing we could have staved this off – and then we can consult the international community by way of the UN Security Council for guidance. Oh, and of course we should show “restraint” in whatever our response is! I think I just described the Obama Doctrine! I have lost any shred of respect I may have had left for the mainstream media. ABC News is where fewer and fewer people get their news from…….
Thanks Matt!
Here’s how the New York Times’s Tom Friedman opened an October 4, 1992 analysis of the foreign policy ideas promulgated by Arkansas governor Clinton http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDC123EF937A35753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all:
Under the pressure of a Presidential campaign, Gov. Bill Clinton has been trying to outline his own unique foreign policy, while at the same time fending off criticism from the Bush White House that he is a closet dove masquerading as a hawk and that his experience in world affairs is limited to breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.
Not published? Are you serious?
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_3c.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041002.htm
http://www.bushdoctrine.org/
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
Google hits — Books on bush doctrine: 2920
This is a tiny piece of its published sources. Although the entire list is indeed massive, this speech, given by Bush to West Point grads [published for immediate Release by the WH Office of the Press Secretary June 1, 2002 got the ball rolling.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
Obscure, indeed… in ‘Bizzaro World!’
Yes Paul, I am serious.
Well, Matt’s clearly wrong. Serious or not, he’s mistaken and you, too if you agree with his claim that the Bush Doctrine was never a published document.
This election is not about Clinton, and there’s no sense in comparing his credentials in 1992 to Sarah Palin’s in 2008.
It’s becoming more clear by the day, by the hour, that Palin is not qualified for high office despite her charm, and ability to deliver one-liners as a warm up act for McCain.
In addition to “forgetting” his prior stance on mayor’s/governor’s being ready for high office, McCain forgot today that Sarah took earmarks (even hired lobbyists for them) as mayor and governor. Watch the tapes of his performance on The View. It’s tough to remember what your posture is when that posture changes to fit the instant need.
It is becoming clearer by the day that Palin was exactly the right choice for McCain. The more the Left spews vitriol and lashes out in anger and uncontrolled rage, the better she looks. The more they smear, the lower they go to try to twist trivialities into manufactured scandals, the better she looks. The more falsehoods they introduce and promote the better she looks.
Sarah Palin is a dagger to the heart of the evil Left.
Here’s the Robert Doctrine: Liberalism is a form of mental illness, so all Liberals can assume to be mentally ill to some degree. There you go; I expect you to know it if asked about it in the future.
Ah, let’s not trifle with facts, Ellis…or for that matter, reason. Neither applies here.
These guys still argue about a guy that’s been out of office for nearly two terms. Talk Gibson and they bring up Olbermann. Talk Palin and the resort to Clinton. For good measure, they throw in obtuse references to Gore.
Of course, they rarely substantiate claims and ignore any opponents provide. They simply change the subject, insult the messenger and call opposing candidates inflammatory, slanderous names. This is rote rightie playbook BS. Nothing to see here, folks. Let’s move along, now.
Paul you are publishing links to site like Chomsky? You funny guy! We laugh long time! Ho ho ho!!!
And “Robert”, the only vitriol being spewed here appears to be emanating from you. You clearly possess a rare gift.
I posted right, left and official WH sources, “Robert”
I see Chomsky, “Paul Sonderman” and I have seen enough. Noam Chomsky is a hate-America Boll Weevil pos. He is vermin, scum, a cockroach of the lowest sort, a maggot. To even refer to him as a useful source says a lot about you.
And “Paul Sonderman” I am referring to the lies and smears and attacks upon Sarah Palin, “Paul Sonderman”.
Ellis,
I take that answer to mean that you can not answer me as to what qualified Clinton at the time. It is relevant given the level of scrutiny given to Palin..
Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer(one of the sources paul cited)
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”
– New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
i don’t expect sarah palin to know the answers to all of gibson’s, or for that matter any other journalist or broadcaster or interviewer’s, questions. when asked about her take on the ‘bush doctrine’, she rightly answered ‘in what way?’… that was honesty. gibson asked a loaded question out to prove one thing which is already obvious: that sarah palin lacks experience in foreign policy…
but the thing is, i don’t think any government official or politician can claim that he or she knows it all. because that would be a lie.
what’s important to note is that whether america has a mccain or obama presidency, i am certain that both candidates will have experts surrounding them that can provide encyclopedic knowledge on whatever they need to know on a particular subject, be it foreign policy, the economy, housing, oil drillings, etc. once elected president.
america is voting for its president and vice president this november. i don’t think anyone will be voting for a walking encyclopedia or a human internet…
peace!
I didn”t watch tv but gibson really nailed palin in that interview. He made her look silly and unqualified. I heard other Demacrats talking on the radio and they talked about it. They said she looked very bad like she doesnt know anything. I believe them and so thatis what I think too.
I also saw it in the paper the other day that Obama is best so we should vote for Obama. They couldn’t print that if it wasn’t true!
Nikko,
good analysis, and it applies to both sides of the aisle.
>-