ABC’s Gibson Interview of Palin – The Bush Doctrine Question – Gibson got it Wrong Again

Charles Krauthammer, the Columnist credited with coining the term “Bush Doctrine” says Gibson got it wrong again!

FOX News – September 12, 2008 – By Bill Samon

ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.

Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.

Gibson countered: “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.”

Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.

“His world view?” Palin queried.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.

That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “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.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption,” Starr observed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.”

Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”

This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”

Starr added: “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

Bill Sammon is Washington Deputy Managing Editor for FOX News.

BLOGGERS NOTE:This writer will post a BLOG tomorrow on this topic. To add to this confusion – their have actually been 2 separate “Bush Doctrines” – the second superseded the first – that version has undergone at least 4 revisions as noted above. The Bush doctrine contains 4 separate components  1). Military Action / Terrorism, 2) Political – Spreading Democracy, 3) Economic and 4) Post War Recovery and the roll of Democracies. The complicated Doctrine borrows from both the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. 

Gibson’s definition was not incorrect it was simply incomplete. Governor Palin’s request for more detail wasn’t surprising. The Governor’s response was equally correct but incomplete. A complete correct answer was impossible in the format – the interview was only 1 hour long.

FOX NEWS – ABC misquotes Palin in Gibson Interview. Tape edited. Palin objection edited out of TV broadcast. Written transcript proves point.

FOXNews – September 12, 2008                                                                              ABC MISREPRESENTS PALIN QUOTE IN HOLY WAR QUESTION

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.

In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “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’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.

ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

COMPARE THIS INTERVIEW TO GIBSON’S INTERVIEW OF OBAMA IN 2007 HERE: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/ 

John McCain on THE VIEW / McCain Grilled about Palin

McCAIN on THE VIEW – 8 minute video. http://mymccainblog.com/?p=240

   

VIDEO – John McCain on THE VIEW – VIDEO – Hostile reception on THE VIEW?

AOL Video of JOHN McCAIN ON THE VIEW   #1   – Differences with BUSH – Immigration – Global Warming  http://video.aol.com/partner/abcshort/the-view-john-mccain-part-4/20817-98146

AOL Video of  JOHN McCAIN ON THE VIEW #2 – IRAQ & 100 yr War                        http://video.aol.com/partner/abcshort/the-view-john-mccain-part-3/20817-98145

AOL Video of John McCain on THE VIEW – Strips Clubs? http://www.236.com/feed/2008/04/10/john_mccain_gets_teased_on_the_5786.php

AOL Video of John McCain on THE VIEW – Martin Luther King Holiday http://video.aol.com/partner/abcshort/the-view-john-mccain-part-8/20817-98153

AOL Video of John McCain on THE VIEW – IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN /                             http://video.aol.com/partner/abcshort/the-view-john-mccain-part-9/20817-98152

Sarah Palin’s actual Words on The Iraq War, God, Prayer and our Troops

PRESIDENTS LINCOLN & KENNEDY – GOD AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE 

Liberal pundits and bloggers are attacking Governor Palin for comments she made to a Church Congregation.

What Palin said was this,

“Pray for our Military men and woman who are striving to do what is also right for this Country. Pray that our leaders, our National Leaders, are sending them on a task that is from God. That is what we must pray for. That there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan. So bless them with your prayers – prayers and protection over our soldiers.” You can watch Governor’s Palin’s comments here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

Governor Palin does not refer to the War in Iraq as “God’s War” or a “Holy War”. She asked that a prayer be said that the “task” the soldiers were being asked to perform was a “task” that God approved of.  That the congregation pray that our National Leaders had a plan, and that God approved of that Plan.

Somehow the liberal pundits and the hateful bloggers interpret these comments as referencing a “Holy War” or “God’s War”. How strange. Her meaning is clear enough. Of course, there is a very high probability, that these detractors really know there is no substance to their rants. 

Governor Palin has explained that she was attempting to reference Abraham Lincoln with her comments. Lincoln’s famous quote in this regard was, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

President Lincoln also said, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong.”   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html

Lincoln’s concern – am I on God’s side. He acknowledged that both sides may claim to be on God’s side – and one would be wrong.

President John F Kennedy once stated, “Our goal is not victory of might but the vindication of right — not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.”

President Kennedy also stated, “The supreme reality of our time is our indivisibility as children of God and the common vulnerability of this planet. Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

Kennedy’s themes – right not might, peace not at the expense of freedom but peace with freedom, that we are all children of God, we should ask his blessing and His help and that God’s work must truly be our own. 

 It maybe just that the Obama surrogates, Liberal Pundits and hateful bloggers detest references to God. They are clearly misrepresenting the context of Governor Palin’s message. 

Her message was a simple one, not complex or convoluted. Her message is one that would have been shared by both Lincoln and Kennedy: We are children of God, We should ask his blessings in our endeavors, that it time of war – the question is not “is God on my side” – rather we should pray that our actions meet with his approval. 

As Governor Palin continues to weather the unwarranted personal attacks, lies and inuendo of this campaign, I’d like to offer her a quote from Mother Teresa, 

“Anyway People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centered. Love them anyway. If you do good, people will accuse you of ulterior motives. Do good anyway. If you are successful you win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway. The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway. People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs. Fight for some underdogs anyway. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway. People really need help but may attack you if you help them. Help people anyway. Give the world the best you have and you”ll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you”ve got anyway”.  http://www.wise-quotes.com/quotes-topic/god

Yes, Mother Teresa made this statement.

Targeting Trig Palin – Obama supporters go negative on a baby: WSJ BEST OF THE WEB by By James Taranto

“South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin [yesterday], saying John McCain had chosen a running mate ‘whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion,’ ” Politico reports. Fowler later apologized “to anyone who finds my comment offensive.”

We’ll leave the offense to others. We find Fowler’s comment revealing and disturbing. And she is not alone in striking this theme. Here is Andrew “Beagle With a Smear” Sullivan of The Atlantic:

And then, because [John McCain] could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama.

Sullivan loses control of his syntax, but Salon’s Cintra Wilson manages to make a similar point with flawless grammar:

Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms. What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own political ambitions with the conservative right.

This is worse than tasteless or even unhinged. It is depraved. It represents an inversion of any reasonable conception of right and wrong, including liberal conceptions.

Fowler uses Palin’s motherhood to disparage her accomplishments, an obvious betrayal of the principle of women’s equality. And although proponents of permissive abortion laws nearly always claim to support not abortion but “a woman’s right to choose,” here we have three of them rebuking Palin for choosing not to abort her baby.

Sullivan and Wilson go further, ascribing evil intent to an act of maternal love. To Sullivan, Palin’s decision to carry her child to term is a salvo in a “culture war”–that is, an act of aggression against those with different political views. (That, at least, is how he sees it for the purpose of this post. In an earlier one, he praised her for going through “eight months of pregnancy and a painful, difficult, endless labor for a cause she believes in”–which, although considerably less obnoxious, still depicts the decision as a political rather than a personal one.)

To Wilson, Palin’s adherence to her own principles about the sanctity of life is an act of neglect toward her children–proof “that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform.” Never mind that the alternative would have ensured that one of her actual children did not live.

Both Sullivan and Wilson make a point of highlighting Trig Palin’s handicap. Indeed, both his more recent post and her article refer to Trig only by his handicap. If this were all you had heard about him, you’d think his name was Down Syndrome Child Palin.

In their defense, one might note that Sarah Palin, too, is using Trig as a symbol. But there is a world of difference between humanizing a political candidate and dehumanizing a 4-month-old baby.

None of this can be explained in terms of political calculation. Scorning a woman for declining to abort a disabled child is likely to be about as persuasive to voters as burning an American flag. These ugly sentiments have to be sincere. In a way, that makes them even more disquieting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122113849516123327.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

Why Georgia & Ukraine belong in NATO – NATO Keeps Peace In Europe for 60yrs – 26 Member Countries

Surrogates for the Obama campaign are attacking Governor Palin for suggesting that Georgia and the Ukraine be admitted to NATO. (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). These surrogates fail to note that most of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s neighboring countries have already been admitted.

NATO was established precisely for the threat currently being posed by the New Soviets in Eastern Europe. NATO,  through the promise of a common defense of all members, kept Western Europe safe from Soviet aggression for 60 years. 

On 29 March, 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia formally became members of NATO, bringing the membership count to 26 Countries.  http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/03-march/e0329a.htm.

Formed in 1949, NATO was set up largely to discourage an attack by the Soviet Union on the non-Communist nations of Western Europe.

THE FIRST 15 MEMBERS  WERE: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. 

Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined in 1999.  http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573186/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization.html

Artile 5 of the NATO Charter promises, “the use of the members’ armed forces for “collective self-defense”. Palin’s detractors fail to note all 26 NATO countries would be required to come to the aid of Georgia or Ukraine if they were attacked. 

 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573186/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization.html#s3

Attacks by Obama surrogates to the use of a well stablished, multinational, Treaty organization to provide safety and security to Georgia and the Ukraine is nothing more than a cheap political ploy intended to tarnish Governor Palin and diminish her credibility. Where were these surrogates when the 12 former Communist or Soviet Satellite Countries were admitted to NATO over the last 10 years. Their silence was deafening.          

  http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/03-march/e0329a.htm.

%d bloggers like this: