|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Register | Video Directory | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Games | Today's Posts | Search | Chat Room |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview
ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive) September 13, 2008 - 07:26 ET A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier: GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview: GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be: Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia. GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country: GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out: 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.Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing. —P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog. __________________________________________________ ______ Just in case you watched the interview and got confused by the later edited version.
__________________
|
Sponsored Links |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17 "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. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." Wrong. I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. 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. letters@charleskrauthammer.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202457_pf.html
__________________
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ok-ok, a new hate object. Bolt out of the blue, steel ball bearings pitched into the churning DNC gear box and it’s panic mouse time. Composure, think composure and think Maalox rather than a dope hit, ABC.
Scamp
__________________
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, I really would. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John McCain selects Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for running mate | 82Rigger | Political Debate | 25 | 09-15-2008 10:48 AM |
Sarah Palin Rifle Training | David | Political Debate | 0 | 09-10-2008 11:55 AM |
Sarah Palin: Well, Here We Go! | 82Rigger | Political Debate | 43 | 09-08-2008 07:42 AM |
Sarah Palin in Flag Bikini Photo… | darrels joy | General Posts | 9 | 09-02-2008 10:13 PM |
Alaska - Chabad Rabbi: Sarah Palin a Great Friend To The Jewish Community | darrels joy | Political Debate | 0 | 08-31-2008 10:35 AM |
|