Posted on 09/15/2008 11:27:11 AM PDT by theothercheek
Charlie Gibson’s three-part interview (video) with Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin last week scored big in the ratings, reports trade pub Broadcasting & Cable ...
The portion of the interview that created the most buzz was Gibson’s “gotcha” line of questioning on the Bush Doctrine that Palin gamely parried as she tried to figure out what, exactly, he was asking her to comment on until Gibson clarified his question with what turned out to be an incomplete explanation of the Bush Doctrine ...
Amazingly, the most sympathetic reactions to Palin’s predicament over the Bush Doctrine came from Dem operatives and pundits not known to be favorably disposed towards conservatives. ...
[I]f you go back and re-read Palin’s answers, she was clearly feeling her way through Gibson’s faulty premise to try to answer his question best she could – but not because she knew any less about the Bush Doctrine than her interviewer. Her first instinct to maneuver Gibson into being more specific was perfectly understandable, and her first answer to his first attempt at clarifying his inscrutable question - “his world view” - was actually dead-on.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).
(Excerpt) Read more at thestilettoblog.com ...
What an arrogant jerk.
As far as I know, the Bush Doctrine is the stuff about the global war on terror and that state sponsors of terror are our enemies. Gibson’s definition does not jibe with the traditional definitions of doctrines. The Truman Doctrine, for instance, did not go beyond containing the expanse of communism; it did not tell us at what point we were justified in messing with a burgeoning communist country.
Exactly! The MSM came up with the ‘doctrine’ and slapped it on President Bush. It’s not HIS doctrine, it’s THEIR propaganda of twisting what he’s doing.
I sent abc an e-mail giving them a piece of my mind. Said gibson would never EVER have spoken to obama in such a rude condescending manner.
The guy could barely make eye contact with her!!
And if you haven’t seen this ... check it out:
************************************************************
Two Very Different ABC Interviews...
ABC “News”
Charles Gibson Interviews Barack Obama
Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee
June 4, 2008 (after Hillary Clinton concedes)
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184
GIBSON: Senator, I’m curious about your feelings last night. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?
GIBSON: What did your grandmother say?
GIBSON: Public moments are not your own. There’s a million people pulling you in a million different directions, but when everybody clears out, the staff is gone, you’re in your hotel room at night and you’re alone — do you say to yourself: “Son of a gun, I’ve done this?”
GIBSON: (inaudible) when you announced, did you truly, in your gut, think that a black man could win the nomination of a major party to be president of the United States?
GIBSON: You don’t get much time to enjoy this before people immediately start talking about the vice presidency.
GIBSON: But there obviously is one name that looms over all. Hillary Clinton has already, to some extent, expressed her willingness. There are supporters putting out petitions. There is a drumbeat of pressure. There are those 18 million votes. Is she a special case that you have to deal with before the others, or is she considered just like everybody else? How long can you let the “Hillary Clinton on the ticket” question linger?
GIBSON: Does there have to be a yes or no on the issue of Hillary Clinton before you get to the others, or can this issue linger on, because it pervades everything? You want to move on to the general election. You want to pivot to a campaign against John McCain. Can you do that while this question hovers over you?
GIBSON: So, you won’t do — you won’t deal with her first, get that out of the way, and then either move on or not?
GIBSON: As long as that question lingers, can you get about the business of unifying the party, or does that have to be taken care of first?
GIBSON: Did she squeeze you in any way by making known her interest in the job?
GIBSON: Should you choose her, how do you handle Bill Clinton?
GIBSON: On what three issues will this campaign turn to you?
GIBSON: Do you worry that it could turn on race, age and class?
GIBSON: John McCain has issued an invitation to do a series of town meetings (inaudible). Going to do it?
GIBSON: Will you go to Iraq?
GIBSON: Public financing: Going to take it or going to say no?
GIBSON: But there’s a dynamic on your side, as well. You originally said you would take it.
GIBSON: That was before we saw a...
GIBSON: If you already see that money coming in, it seems to me you’re saying...
GIBSON: Is the hardest part of all this behind you or ahead of you?
GIBSON: The picture of you in the paper, this morning, with your wife, watching the Clinton speech. What did you think of the Clinton speech? She didn’t exactly acknowledge your victory.
GIBSON: And finally your daughters. What did they say to you? Did they take it as a matter of course that Daddy could be nominated to be president? They never knew what older people know in terms of discrimination, although they may still feel some. What did they say about that?
GIBSON: I watched closely your countenance last night, your mien, as you stood in that hall. You didn’t smile much. Has the joyfulness of this hit home yet? Do you take joy from it?
GIBSON: Senator, thank you.
ABC “News”
Charles Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin
Republican Vice Presidential Nominee
September 11, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”
GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
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.
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.”
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
(PALIN: His world view.)
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
He certainly did come off as arrogant, rather than avuncular. I wonder if it was because he was flummoxed as to how to interview a female candidate for high office or whether he was “insulted” that the McCain-Palin campaign “chose” him to do the first big media interview because they thought he’d be soft on Palin. But as is often the case, the MSM winds up getting hoist on its own petard.
#6 is worth of its own thread. You should post it.
#6 is worth of its own thread. You should post it.
Its last and greatest achievement was the final collapse of the MSM as an influence in American politics.
That singular moment when good ol' Charlie tried to catch Sarah Palin will go down in history as the turning point of a monumental change. What Chalie and his ilk didn't understand was that Sarah has made a few million friends and admirers, and Charlie attacked their friend, and exposed the bigotry of the MSM to millions of voters, voters who will put Governor Palin in office this fall. Leading to a new generation of conservative voters, and at least 12 more years of a Republican White House.
Thanks, Charlie! You'll go down in history now!
I posted only an excerpt, but the full article also notes that snide “blizzard of words” comment by Gibson and the double-standard he applied to Palin that no one has applied to the stammering (off teleprompter) Obama.
It was actually posted a few days ago but bears repeating!!
Bet the Neocons know what the Bush policy is.
ping for later reading.
silly me ... i thought the Bush Doctrine, simply stated was, “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us.”
“i thought the Bush Doctrine, simply stated was, ‘if you aren’t with us, you’re against us.’”
That’s the jist. Apparently, the MSM can’t handle anything that simple.
Remember the Axis of Evil speech? As I recall, Bush said anyone who supports terror is part of the axis. Next day, I was informed that the axis consisted wholly of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Since the rest of reality hadn’t changed along with Bush’s speech, I determined the MSM didn’t care about accuracy as such.
“Bet the Neocons know what the Bush policy is.”
Who are these “Neocons” of which you speak? Oh, do you mean the dark lords of the Shadow World? They know ALL.
Yes but that was oeprative for about 4 minutes, after all our own State Department isn't with us....
For sure Bush didn't say, "such and such is my doctrine, the Bush Doctrine".
The question then becomes, is preemption the Bush Doctrine and when was preemption defined as the Bush Doctrine.
And since the legal basis for preemption was Article 51 of the UN Charter, you can use that phrase to determine.
Or, more plainly put, do a google search of "Article 51 UN Charter Bush Doctrine" or "UN Charter Bush Doctrine"
I feel much better now that I've gotten that off my chest. Whew!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.