Palin punts in the interview with Charlie Gibson

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@ArizonaTeach

Is it true that ABC deleted the “exact quote” exchange in the airing? If that’s true (and all I’ve heard are assertions, not proof), whoa boy.

Huh? Even if they did, it was an exact quote! There’s a video tape of her saying exactly what he quoted. I don’t understand this bullshit.

[Ludovic]

@Steve_MB

Well duh. That’s why she’s like, a maverick, y’know?

In Russia, beauty queens want war!

[Dinsdale]

@CJJ

Yeah, and I can see the moon when I look out my window. Doesn’t make me a fucking astronaut though.

Yeah, well maybe if you were from Alaska, home of the highest spot in America…
Stolen from a late night comic.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It occurs to me, though, that her mindless, hackneyed pagent answers will probably appeal perfectly to her base. They don’t want nuance or information. They just want to be reassured that America is pure good, and that we’re fighting pure evil, and that it’s just that simple. They probably think the Bush Doctrine question was unfair and tricksy and that Gibson is a meanie for asking her something so haaaard.

Nobody ever lost conservative votes by being too stupid.

@Starving_Artist

if I’ve ever heard the term “Bush Docrine” at all, I don’t recall it

I think you now have proof for your statement , Diogenes.

[Bearflag70]

Obviously, the governors of South Dakota and Oklahoma have more foreign policy experience than those from Nebraska and Kansas.

Which governor has the most foreign policy experience on African affairs? Maine, that’s who.

[Defensive_Indifference]

Edit: Damn, Maine is closer than Florida.

Thissite is freakin’ cool

[dropzone]

I missed the interview. Does she, through her words, tone, and body language, know that Georgia is not a member of NATO and that the USA has no treaty obligations to defend it?

[Phlosphr]

@dropzone

I missed the interview. Does she, through her words, tone, and body language, know that Georgia is not a member of NATO and that the USA has no treaty obligations to defend it?

No - she knows what her tutor told her to know for the interview.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@dropzone

I missed the interview. Does she, through her words, tone, and body language, know that Georgia is not a member of NATO and that the USA has no treaty obligations to defend it?

Are we sure she knew which Georgia was the subject of the discussion?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ArizonaTeach

Is it true that ABC deleted the “exact quote” exchange in the airing?

No. I saw it. It was in there.

I don’t understand why asking for clarification on the Bush Doctrine is an issue. It’s huge - it covers a number of aspects. It’s like asking her what she thinks about Bush’s Foreign Policy decisions. “Which ones?” is a perfectly cromulent question to ask.

“She answered in sound bites! GET HER!”
“She didn’t answer in sound bites! GET HER!”

She didn’t know what the fucking phrase meant. She wasn’t asking for clarification. It was clear she simply didn’t have any idea what Gibson was talking about. She sat there blinking stupidly and then tried to fish for hints. She then took a wild guess that the Bush doctrine is Bush’s "worldview<’ and got it wrong. None of her responses had any real reference to the Bush Doctrine (anyaspect of it), and nothing she said revealed any knowledge of it. She reacted exactly like a pageant contestant trying to bluff her way through.

Why can’t some of you ever be intellectually honest? Just admit she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. You’re not fooling anybody, so why bother?

Hell, even I admitted that ABC was deceptive with “task from God” question. Can’t both sides try for a little objectivity here.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@ArizonaTeach

Is it true that ABC deleted the “exact quote” exchange in the airing? If that’s true (and all I’ve heard are assertions, not proof), whoa boy.

I don’t understand why asking for clarification on the Bush Doctrine is an issue. It’s huge - it covers a number of aspects. It’s like asking her what she thinks about Bush’s Foreign Policy decisions. “Which ones?” is a perfectly cromulent question to ask.

“She answered in sound bites! GET HER!”
“She didn’t answer in sound bites! GET HER!”

Oh BS, she had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was and you know it.

Look she has shown ZERO interest in foregin affairs prior to be tagged the VP candidate.

ZERO.

So she has osme executive experience, much of it bad, and Obama has none (he has some but whatever). He is light years ahead of her in the consideration of national policy on not just foreign affaris but EVERYTHING.

She has never met a foreign leader.

She got her passport two years ago.

She “read something about” the surge in the paper.

At OnTheIssues.org has ONE comment from her under foreign policy…on the freaking Peace Corps.

She regurgitated the idiocy that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Her Foreign Policy comments at the Convention were written for her and sounded like they were pulled from Wikipedia.
ANd in this interwiew her answers were vacuuous and without any substance. If Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton or Olympia Snowe had given those answers folks would have been shocked and appalled…as they reightfully are with Palin.

She does not get to be graded on a freaking curve! Gibson knows more about foreign policy than she does. We cannot simply say she did well. considering…

She did horribly for someone who wants to be my freaking Vice PResident and needs to be ready to step into the Presidency at a moment’s notice. It is ridiculous, it is scary and I’ll be damned if I am going to sit here and pretend that it is anything than what it is.

She is woefully unqualified, there is no way around it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Huh? Even if they did, it was an exact quote! There’s a video tape of her saying exactly what he quoted. I don’t understand this bullshit.

What Gibson quoted was accurate but truncated. She did say [paraphrasing here] “let us pray …that we are on a task from God.” It wasn’t a flat statement. I have to give her that one (even though she did submarine her own point by then making an unambiguously declarative statement in that same speech that the natural gas pipeline was “God’s will”).

[ArizonaTeach]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No. I saw it. It was in there.

It seemed very odd when that claim was made, so good.

She didn’t know what the fucking phrase meant. She wasn’t asking for clarification. It was clear she simply didn’t have any idea what Gibson was talking about. She sat there blinking stupidly and then tried to fish for hints. She then took a wild guess that the Bush doctrine is Bush’s "worldview<’ and got it wrong. None of her responses had any real reference to the Bush Doctrine (anyaspect of it), and nothing she said revealed any knowledge of it. She reacted exactly like a pageant contestant trying to bluff her way through.

Disagree. She asks for him to clarify what he means by the Bush Doctrine, which, as I pointed out, means several different things. Can you dispute that?

Why can’t some of you ever be intellectually honest? Just admit she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. You’re not fooling anybody, so why bother?

Mostly because you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, and God knows you’re far, far smarter than her.

Hell, even I admitted that ABC was deceptive with “task from God” question. Can’t both sides try for a little objectivity here.

Well, that’s because you’ve been throwing everything against the wall and very little of it has stuck. To use your own words, Epic Fail.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What Gibson quoted was accurate but truncated. She did say [paraphrasing here] “let us pray …that we are on a task from God.” It wasn’t a flat statement. I have to give her that one (even though she did submarine her own point by then making an unambiguously declarative statement in that same speech that the natural gas pipeline was “God’s will”).

Ah, I see now. I retract my statement.

[xenophon41]

@davidw

I think James Fallows nails it.

Good article. Fallows explains very concisely what most media consistently get wrong about the Bush Doctrine, and why it’s different from “preemption”, which has always been an option claimed by the US.

[dropzone]

@ArizonaTeach

Disagree. She asks for him to clarify what he means by the Bush Doctrine…

You are a teacher, right? And you couldn’t tell that by her pause and facial expression that she was completely clueless what the Bush Doctrine was, by ANY definition? And her request for clarification was to buy more time while she made up a bullshit answer? And that the answer wandered until she thought she had something that was close to the right answer?

I take it you do not teach at a high school or college and that you were a better student than Palin or I. I caught on immediately and nodded sympathetically saying, “Been there. Tried that. Didn’t work for me, either.”

[Kokopilau]

@ArizonaTeach

Disagree. She asks for him to clarify what he means by the Bush Doctrine, which, as I pointed out, means several different things. Can you dispute that?

Hmm…how about we ask Vice President Dick Cheney (you know, the current holder of the job she wants), what the Bush Doctrine is:

After 9/11, President Bush decided that the artificial distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors could no longer be allowed to stand. **The Bush doctrine makes clear that states supporting terrorists or providing sanctuary for terrorists will be deemed just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. **If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030616-3.html

Or perhaps George Bush himself, who acknowledged the same definition in the following exchange with the press:

Q Thank you, sir. Perhaps the clearest, strongest message you have ever sent from any podium has been what you like to call the Bush doctrine – that is to say, if you feed a terrorist, if you clothe a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist. And I’d like to follow up on the Middle East. You have noted that Yasser Arafat is compromised by terror; Condi Rice has said he cavorts with terror. You’ve both noted that he is an obstacle to peace. He has, in political terms, choked off your last two Palestinian interlocutors. What is it that prevents you from concluding that he is, in fact, under your own definition of what a terrorist is, a terrorist, and should be dealt with in the same way that you’ve dealt with Saddam Hussein and Charles Taylor?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not every action requires military action, Jim. As you noticed, for example in North Korea, we’ve chosen to put together a multinational strategy to deal with Mr. Kim Jong-Il. Not every action requires military action. As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us. And a reminder: When you mentioned Saddam Hussein, I just wanted to remind you that the Saddam Hussein military action took place after innumerable United Nations Security Council resolutions were passed – not one, two or three, but a lot. And so this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html

Why didn’t she go with what the Administration itself claims is the Bush Doctrine, instead of floundering around like a student called on in class who hadn’t read the assignment the night before?

[DoctorJ]

I’m sure she’ll get plenty of hard-hitting questions in her next interview–with Sean Hannity.

Did I say “hard-hitting questions”? I meant “Sean’s tongue up her ass”.

[Rhythmdvl]

@davidw

I think James Fallows nails it.

Great essay.

@James Fallows

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

I think the essence of why BD ignorance and canned replies are so grating is that this was her first chance to dispel rumors and allegations about her worldliness. I would have loved it if it came across that she’s had a subscription to the Economist for years and at the very least skimmed the major sections with some regularity. If not the Economist than maybe the* The National Review*. The way she came across suggested that she didn’t didn’t make it as far as the Limbaugh Letter.

How does this not bother the right wing?

[Bearflag70]

@Bayard

Edit: Damn, Maine is closer than Florida.

Thissite is freakin’ cool

Cool. Apparently, the governors with the least foreign policy experience are:

Hawaii - 1,277 miles from Kiribati
Mississippi - 546 miles from Mexico
Kansas - 496 miles from Mexico
Alabama - 494 miles from Canada
S. Carolina - 448 miles from Canada
Missouri - 439 miles from Canada
Georgia - 431 miles from Bahamas
Nebraska - 413 miles from Canada
N. Carolina - 360 miles from Canada
Colorado - 358 miles from Mexico
Tennessee - 339 miles from Canada
Iowa - 315 miles from Canada
Utah - 311 miles from Mexico
Wyoming - 277 miles from Canada
Delaware - 267 miles from Canada
Virginia - 211 miles from Canada
Rhode Island - 208 miles from Canada
S. Dakota - 207 miles from Canada
Kentucky - 206 miles from Canada
Connecticut - 201 miles from Canada
New Jersey - 189 miles from canada
Maryland - 189 miles from Canada
Mass. - 156 miles from Canada
W. Virginia - 135 miles from Canada