do I really have to say it???
Posted on 09/13/2008 5:08:24 AM PDT by coffee260
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
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.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. 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 and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
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:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
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?
PALIN: 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.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
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.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
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?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
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?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
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.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
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.
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. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
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 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.
McCain also brought up the town hall meetings challenge twice during the 9/11 Presidential Forum...and then on the View.
I don’t know. Maybe on ‘the View’ website.
Rush Limbaugh warned them about this several months ago. He was right, as usual.
I e-mailed ABC news: I’ve lost all respect for Gibson. The interview was worse than condescending; it was dishonest.
I’m thinking of hiring a detective to investigate this Charlie Gibson AND his children to see what skeletons are in his closet.
The press refuses to police themselves, so that leaves me no choice but to hire detectives to investigate them all!
NOW LOOK OUT !
My email to ABC:
I have been a loyal viewer of ABC news since Gibson took over the helm. The manner in which the Palin interview was edited and butchered, cutting her responses in midsentence to make her look bad, was disgraceful to journalism. You seem to have an agenda to discredit the candidate...yet you won’t touch the Obama/Ayers story, the earmark Obama got for the hospital Michele works for (she got a huge raise afterwards..) etc. Respond to this email or I will switch channels to NBC.
Everybody should copy this text showing the exits and email it to your complete distribution lists.
This is total propaganda.
I’ll predict right now and right here that if the McCain Camp doesn’t attempt to get this story out, it shows they will be pushed around and we will lose this election.
do I really have to say it???
Why didn’t Charlie Gibson ask Obama about his familiarity with the writings of Saul Alinsky - writings dedicated to lucifer?
That was a fine email you sent to them. But......ABC and Gibson could care less if you threaten to switch to NBC.
bump for links at 80
“Chicken in every pot” is not the slogan for THIS chicken-livered candidate!
I sent my reply to ABC and it seems like a good number of PAlin supporters have as well. It always amuses me the obsession leftist have with Karl Rove.
"Charles Gibson Rather" of the American Barackcasting Company.
From SouthernRoots’ reply:
From the Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, how does this editing stack up?
* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always
permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
* Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant
* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
I pointed out last night that it appeared they actually chopped of some of Gibson’s questions to paint her response in a controversial light.
e.g., Gibson, according to the clips on abcnews.com asjed Palin her thoughts on whether homosexuality was a genetic trait or a choice. The EDITED portion shown on the television broadcast had Gibson’s question abbreviated to, “what are your thoughts on homosexuality...” (or to that effect). Palin’s answer to the original question was, “I can’t judge someone,” IN OTHER WORDS - I’m not a scientist and even scientists don’t have an answer to that. The EDITED broadcast used the SAME response to the abbreviated question, which now became:
Q: What are your thoughts on homosexuality?
A: I can’t judge someone.
I’ve been fairly un-reactive to the MSM shenanigans, but this is atrocious. It’s the equivalent of Iran photoshopping extra ricket launchers to change the impact of a photograph.
At another point, she was asked a question about embryonic stem cell research and the original answer was, to the effect, “It’s my opinion that it’s wrong to create an embryo in order to destroy it.” The EDITED answer was taken out of context of the direct question and became (to this effect), “Because I have a personal belief doesn’t mean that official policy won’t be different”, as if to say, “MY BELIEFS ARE NOT STRONG”.
UN-FRICKING-BELIEVABLE.
ricket launchers=rocket launchers (but they may as well have been ricket launchers).
Wow. This is some good ammo against some of the folks who were complaining about how Gov. Palin did in the interview. Thanks for posting.
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.