Sarah Palin Defends Experience, Takes Hard Line Approach on National Security

ABC News ^

[Chet 99]

ABC News

Sarah Palin Defends Experience, Takes Hard Line Approach on National Security

Republican VP Candidate Speaks with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in Exclusive Interview

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

Sept. 11, 2008—

On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if that nation invades another country.

In her first of three interviews with ABC News's Charles Gibson and the only interview since being picked by Sen. John McCain as his Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin categorized the Russian invasion of Georgia as "unacceptable" and warned of the threats from Islamic terrorists and a nuclear Iran.

The Governor advocated the accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

When asked by Gibson if under the NATO treaty, the U.S. would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she told ABC News' Charles Gibson in an exclusive interview.

[filbert]

I originally graded her out at a C . . . mainly because of her trouble with the Bush Doctrine question.

But as you note, “The Bush Doctrine” isn’t a single, simple statement, so her initial response of “in what respect, Charlie” was in fact 100% correct.

So I’m upgrading her to a solid B. Still room for improvement but all in all she held her own against a very hostile interviewer.

[onemiddleamerican]

I watched only a few minutes of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (on the ABC News website) before I had to stop. Charlie Gibson's tone of voice, words and and facial expressions just oozed with condescension as he asked questions which he would never have the balls to ask a male with the same qualifications.

He probably thinks he did a good job, but I would be willing to wager cold, hard cash that he infuriated many more women than just me in his interview of Sarah Palin. I am generally not a violent person, but if he was anywhere near me right now, Charlie Gibson would be a bruised and battered man eunuch.

[Scotswife]

“This is a good wake up call for those who thought Charlie ‘pinky ring’ Gibson was fair. You’ve never seen him day in and day out because he may not make headlines as Couric or Williams, but he is from the same cloth!

Wake up call!”

I fess up.

I had hopes for Charlie.
He was the only one who challenged Obama with ONE hard question (capital gains).
He called Kerry out on his lies about throwing medals.

But yes - Charlie would never,NEVER, talk to Obama like this.

[devolve]

.

Thanks potlatch

Wind & rain there?

[Notwithstanding]

	THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

JEFF JACOBY

Death of the Bush Doctrine

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  January 16, 2008

THE Bush Doctrine - born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of violent jihad: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - is dead. Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.

The secretary of state was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood - an end to Palestinian terror. Rice's explanation, recounted here by The Washington Times, was as striking for its candor as for its moral blindness:

"The 'road map' for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the 'core issues': the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border, and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Rice said. . . . What the US-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was "break that tight sequentiality. . . You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure. . ."

Thus the president who once insisted that a "Palestinian state will never be created by terror" now insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration championed a "road map" whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism" and shut down "all official . . . incitement against Israel." Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing "to get hung up on."

Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and detoxified?

Bush's support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided - rarely has a society shown itself less suited for sovereignty - but at least he made it clear that American support came at a stiff price: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state," Bush said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He reinforced that condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that "the Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on maintaining a "peace process." No doubt it is difficult, as Rice says, to "move forward on the peace process" when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a murderous goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine - "with us or with the terrorists" - were still in force, the peace process would be shelved. The administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism persisted.

But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic "legacy" - the administration has dropped "with us or with the terrorists." It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. "Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Rice says.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com. 

© Copyright The New York Times Company
 

[mplsconservative]

I just posted this on another thread and I’ll repeat my thoughts.

Charlie grabbed his shovel and helped the MSM dig their hole a little deeper.

Palin did very good job answering his questions in a direct, plain-spoken fashion. She’s not afraid to mention her faith in God, calls out Islamic terrorism for what it is and obviously loves this country.

Gibson came off as a stern, lecturing principal that’s not going to go over well with the majority of Americans. (At least those not suffering from BDS, like Charlie) :)

[ichabod1]

Naw, I thought she whiffed on the Bush Doctrine question, but as somebody pointed out, do the libs really know what it is? It’s that we have the right to take preventive action to prevent our national interests when facing a gathering (not necessarily imminent) threat. But, she didn’t lose her poise, imo.

[ichabod1]

As Adams said, in this position I am nothing, but I may become everything.

[VINVIDIVICI]

I am an AMERICAN before any political allegiance and to anyone that calls themselves a liberal, a progressive, an independent, etc , I just ask of you one thing. Do you REALLY think that the bias of these 60’s peaceniks that browbeat anyone that threatens their ignorant, fanciful world views serves any purpose other than their own? If you are a real American, first you will demand EQUAL TREATMENT of both sides candidates. How can you trust news organizations that alienate roughly 60% of our country that many polls show to be a center/right country?. It is this news media that has polarized this country post 911 because they feel a sense of guilt for the state of our nation and try to blame others for their partisan negligence. If this media had done their job correctly, we would of NEVER elected Bill Clinton, his hometown newspaper the Arkansas Democrat Gazette put on its front page " BILL CLINTON NOT FOR PRESIDENT" and then listed more that 70 reasons why he was corrupt. Had this corrupt, unknown governor from Arkansas been descended upon the way the lw media jackals have descended upon Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, Bush 41 would of cruised to victory, we would of finished off Saddam in 1995, the towers would still be standing in all their glory, and the combined lives of Americans killed in all attacks from 1993 to the 911 terrorist attack victims, to all the young patriots that have given their lives to protect us from more attacks would of been spared. Think about that, and then understand why liberals in media are so angry.

[ARCADIA]

Thanks for posting.

Sarah Palin is very attractive, telegenic and bright. There's no doubting her essential goodwill.

The whole interview had the feel of an oral exam, with Gibson asking her "advanced placement" questions on national security. All those hard-to-pronounce names, etc. Palin tried not to get rattled when she couldn't keep up, but she obviously did not know all of the answers to Gibson's "pop quiz".

Contrary to what's said here, Gibson is BY FAR the friendliest MSM interviewer for McCain.

IMHO, the big danger here is not that she'll make a gaffe - she's too smart for that. But that the Gibsons of this world walk away thinking she failed her "pop quiz" and that will influence their coverage.

[Notwithstanding]

Advertise on NYTimes.com

The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P.

• Print
• Reprints
• Save

By FRANK RICH

Published: April 13, 2002

As a statement of principle set forth by an American chief executive, the now defunct Bush Doctrine may have had a shelf life even shorter than Kenny Boy's Enron code of ethics. As a statement of presidential intent, it may land in the history books alongside such magisterial moments as Lyndon Johnson's 1964 pledge not to send American boys to Vietnam and Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to ''bring us together.''

It was in September that the president told Congress that ''from this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' It was in November that he told the United Nations that ''there is no such thing as a good terrorist.'' Now the president is being assailed even within his own political camp for not only refusing to label Yasir Arafat a terrorist but judging him good enough to be a potential partner in our desperate effort to tamp down the flames of the Middle East.

Yet the administration's double standard for Mr. Arafat is hardly the first, or only, breach of the Bush Doctrine.

As Tina Fey explained with only faint comic exaggeration on ''Saturday Night Live'' last weekend, the U.S. also does business of state with nations that both ''fund all the terrorism in the world'' (Saudi Arabia, where the royal family on Thursday joined in a telethon supporting Palestinian ''martyrs'') and are ''100 percent with the terrorists except for one little guy in charge'' (Pakistan). President Bush, who once spoke of rigid lines drawn between ''good'' men and ''evildoers,'' has now been so overrun by fresh hellish events and situational geopolitical bargaining that his old formulations -- ''either you are with us or you are with the terrorists'' -- have been rendered meaningless.

But even as he fudges his good/evil categorizations when it comes to Mr. Arafat and other players he suddenly may need in the Middle East, it's not clear that Mr. Bush knows that he can no longer look at the world as if it were Major League Baseball, with every team clearly delineated in its particular division. ''Look, my job isn't to try to nuance,'' he told a British interviewer a week after the Passover massacre in Netanya. ''My job is to tell people what I think. . . . I think moral clarity is important.''

Mr. Bush doesn't seem to realize that nuances are what his own administration is belatedly trying to master -- and must -- if Colin Powell is going to hasten a cease-fire in the Middle East. Mr. Bush doesn't seem to know that since the routing of the Taliban his moral clarity has atrophied into simplistic, often hypocritical sloganeering. He has let his infatuation with his own rectitude metastasize into hubris.

The result -- the catastrophe of the administration's handling of the Middle East -- is clear: 15 months of procrastination and conflict avoidance followed by a baffling barrage of mixed messages that have made Mr. Bush's use of the phrase ''without delay'' the most elastically parsed presidential words since his predecessor's definition of sex. It takes some kind of perverse genius to simultaneously earn the defiance of the Israelis, the Palestinians and our Arab ''allies'' alike and turn the United States into an impotent bystander.

The ensuing mess should be a wake-up call for Mr. Bush to examine his own failings and those of his administration rather than try (as he did a week ago) to shift the blame to Bill Clinton's failed Camp David summit talks (and then backpedal after being called on it). While the conventional wisdom has always had it that this president can be bailed out of foreign-policy jams by his seasoned brain trust, the competing axes of power in the left (State) and right (Defense) halves of that surrogate brain have instead sent him bouncing between conflicting policies like a yo-yo, sometimes within the same day.

Speaking to The Los Angeles Times this week about Mr. Bush's floundering, the Reagan administration policy honcho for the Mideast, Geoffrey Kemp, said: ''A two-year-old could have seen this crisis coming. And the idea that it could be brushed under the carpet as the administration focused on either Afghanistan or Iraq reflects either appalling arrogance or ignorance.''

The administration of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell is hardly ignorant. But arrogance is another matter. ''We shouldn't think of American involvement for the sake of American involvement'' is how Condoleezza Rice defined the administration's intention to butt out of the Middle East only a couple of weeks after her boss's inauguration, thereby codifying the early Bush decision not to send a negotiator to a last-ditch peace summit in Egypt. Since then, even as Sept. 11 came and went, we've been at best reluctantly and passingly engaged, culminating with our recall of the envoy Anthony Zinni in December, after which we sat idly by during three months of horror. Not until Dick Cheney returned from his humiliating tour of the Arab world in late March did he state the obvious: ''There isn't anybody but us'' to bring about a hiatus in the worst war the region has seen in 20 years.

Even then, the 180-degree reversal from the administration's previous inertia was not motivated by the bloody imperatives of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians but by their inconvenient disruption of Mr. Bush's plans to finish his father's job in Iraq. A cynic might go so far as to say that ''Saddam Hussein is driving U.S. foreign policy'' -- which, as it happens, is what Benjamin Netanyahu did tell The New York Post on Tuesday.

The goal of stopping Saddam, worthy as it is, cannot be separated from the conflict of the Jews and the Palestinians and never could be. But even now Mr. Bush seems less than engaged in the Middle East. It took him a week after the Passover massacre to decide to send Colin Powell to the region. The president has yet to speak publicly about the spillover of the hostilities into Europe, where each day brings news of some of the ugliest anti-Semitic violence seen there since World War II. He continues to resist the idea that American peacekeepers will be needed to keep the Middle East (not to mention Afghanistan) from tumbling back into the chaos that could once again upend his plans to take on Saddam.

Peacekeepers, of course, are to Mr. Bush a synonym for nation-building, which he regards as a no-no. If there's a consistent pattern to the administration's arrogance, it's that when the president has an idée fixe of almost any sort on any subject -- from the Bush Doctrine on down -- it remains fixed in perpetuity, not open to question, even as a world as complex and fast-changing as ours calls out for rethinking.

Never mind that Sept. 11 was the most graphic demonstration imaginable that a missile shield may not be the most useful vessel for our ever more precious defense dollars; it's still full speed ahead. Nor has the bursting of the stock-market bubble dampened Mr. Bush's conviction that Americans should entrust their Social Security savings to his campaign contributors from Wall Street's investment houses. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, once pitched as a quick fix to the (fleeting) California energy crisis, is now being sold as an antidote to our Middle Eastern woes (because some 10 years from now it may reduce our oil imports by 4 or 5 percent). The Bush tax cut, conceived at a time of endless surpluses and peace, is still touted as the perfect economic plan even now that the surpluses are shot and we are at war. In this administration, one size idea, however slender or dubious, fits all.

To Mr. Bush, these immutable policies are no doubt all doctrines, principles, testaments to his moral clarity. In fact, many of them have more to do with ideology than morality. Only history can determine whether they will be any more lasting than the Bush doctrine on terrorism. Meanwhile, we should be grateful that the administration did abandon its stubborn 15-month disengagement from the Middle East to make an effort, however confused, hasty and perilous, to halt the bloodshed and (one imagines) lead the search for a political solution.

''This is a world with a lot of gray,'' said Chuck Hagel, the Republican from Nebraska, to The Washington Post late this week. ''We can choose either to live in an abstract world or choose to engage in the real world. . . . The reality of that has started to set in with this administration.'' We must hope that Senator Hagel is right. While it is far too late for an Arafat or a Sharon to change, it is not too late for a young president still in a young administration to get over himself. At this tragic juncture, the world depends on it, because, as his own vice president put it, there isn't anybody else to do the job.

E-mail: frankrich@nytimes.com

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I Plagiarized this from a blog at hotair:

Gibson: What do you think of the Constitution?

Palin: Could you be more specific?

Kos: OMG SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS!!!!

[lonevoice]

But yes - Charlie would never,NEVER, talk to Obama like this.

I agree. And I also believe he would never talk to John McCain like that. Could it be that he has a problem with strong women being in the political arena?

[maggief]

Ping!

Can someone point to another interview Charlie conducted in the same manner?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4854865&page=1

TRANSCRIPT: Charlie Gibson Interviews Hillary Clinton

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5000184&page=1

Charles Gibson Interviews Barack Obama

[ARCADIA]

See my post on the pop quiz aspect of this interview.

I felt she came across a smart student who hadn't prepared that well for an oral exam.

But she's so attractive and comes across genuine and smart. She's just not as educated as the three guys running.

Say what you will abot Obama - we may disagree with his POV - he's very well-versed on these type of oral exam questions.

[Scotswife]

It sure looks that way doesn’t it?

It’s like Matt Damon’s stupid comments about Palin and Putin.

I personally would feel much more comfortable if Palin were to have a showdown with Putin than if it were left to Obama.

[Scotswife]

I have dial-up, so please fill me in.

I already know he wouldn’t subject Obama to this type of questioning.

Did he talk to Hillary like this?

[mplsconservative]

Er, um, uh, sure. I don’t know, I don’t know about that, that Russia is a member of the er, uh, UN security, uh, council? Errr...

Yes, Obama is extremely well-versed on these type of oral exam questions. /S

I can’t wait for the debates!

[maggief]

CHARLIE GIBSON: Part of the equation, also, is money. And I know you’re meeting with your chief financial people, and chief financial supporters, today. How, how deeply in debt is the campaign?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve had, uh, to compete against, uh, uh, a pretty, uh, well-financed war chest. I’ve raised more money, uh, for a primary election, than anybody ever in American history, except for my opponent, and, uh, from time to time, for the last month, he’s outspent me two, three, four to one. Uh, and as you know, I’ve lent money to my campaign, and, uh, we’ve had to, uh, you know, sort of forward some money, but we’re going to be fine. We’re getting the money we need to compete in these last contests, and, uh, I’m not entertaining any kind of, uh, uh, conclusion, until everybody has a chance to vote.

///

The links are to the transcripts. Notice any uh’s in Obama’s?

[tallyhoe]

Heck of a lot better than Sen HR Fluff and Puff!