Pentagon General Confirms Palin Visited IRAQ / Boston Globe – Obama Attack discredited

In response to false accusations in a Boston Globe Article, Governor Palin’s Campaign has issued a sharp rebuke to those who claimed that the Governor did not travel into Iraq during her trip to the Middle East last summer. Governor Plain made the trip to visit Alaskan National Guard troops.

The Globe reported today that Palin’s trip into Iraq was just a border crossing between Kuwait and Iraq. The question is this, if the Globe new she crossed into Iraq, why would they run a story with a headline implying Palin had, in fact, not been to Iraq? The Globe asked the Palin Campaign to confirm the border crossing. The Campaign confirmed the border crossing.

The Globe noted that in Palin’s ABC interview Thursday night with Charlie Gibson, Palin did not mention Iraq when talking about the trip. Palin mentioned visiting the troops in Kuwait and then visiting injured soldiers in Germany.

The Globe could not know if Palin had in fact mentioned a visit to Iraq. ABC edited Palin’s comments during the interview and there would be no way to know if Palin mentioned Iraq only to have those comments end up on the editing room floor. ABC admits to editing out Palin’s objection to being misquoted during the questioning and that several vidoes used in the televised portion of the ABC interview were, in fact, edited.

The Palin campaign has responded in detail, stating that Govern Palin did cross into Iraq, her stay was brief, she attended a re-enlistment ceremony for a member of the Alaskan National Guard.

The Palin Campaign confirmed, “Last summer, Governor Palin traveled to Kuwait where she visited Alaskan National Guard troops deployed to the war in Iraq at Camp Arifjen. While she was there she traveled to the K Crossing on the Kuwait-Iraq border, and a quarter mile into Iraq.”

The Pentagon General who traveled with Governor Palin and presided over the re-enlistment ceremony of the Alaskan National Guard soldier, confirmed that Palin did, in fact, travel into Iraq. 

During the return trip to the United States Governor Palin had a stop-over at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Governor Palin used the stop-over as an opportunity to visit wounded soldiers at the Landstuhl military hospital.

Is there no limit to the falsehoods and smear attacks that the media will direct at Governor Palin?

It is 11:45 PM – On 09/13/04 and the Washington Times has joined the attack to spread this false rumor. The Washinton Times Article notes that Palin was accompanied by a General –  

OBAMA CAMP SUGGESTS LIES OVER PALIN VISIT TO IRAQ                                           Glen Johnson – Associated Press

Originally Published 11:42 p.m., September 13, 2008 –                                         Updated 11:41 p.m., September 13, 2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/13/obama-camp-suggests-lies-over-palin-visit-to-iraq/

The Bridge to Nowhere – Gibson’s shameful Lies – the documents & facts to prove the Truth

ABC’s Charles Gibson’s shameful lies & The bias of the Liberal Left Media – The truth about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it was funded.  

ABC’s Charles Gibson falsely accused Governor Palin of “Being for the Bridge to Nowhere before you were against the Bridge to Nowhere”. With Gibson’s large staff of researchers one would have to assume Gibson knew his accusation to be false.                                http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

Thanks to ABC’s editing, Palin’s actual, verbatim, responses to this false accusation may never be heard. 

The following is a brief analysis of the facts, based on Congressional voting records and State Budget Documents.

The spending Proposal to fund the Bridge was submitted in 2005 to the US House, by US Rep Don Young, (R) from Alaska. The “Bridge” received funding that year, 2005,  while Palin was serving as Mayor of Wasilla. This “fact” can been confirmed by Congressional documents and in fact, has been confirmed by the independent consumer group, “Citizen’s Against Government Waste.”    http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594    

The original “bill” funding the $223 Million “Bridge” (in fact 2 bridges were funded) was passed by the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and was signed by President Bush and became law in 2005. When the bill reached the US Senate, Senators Obama and Biden voted to fund the Bridge while Senator McCain did not. In 2005 Mayor Palin was not involved with any part of this process. In 2005 the Governor of Alaska was Frank Murkowski, the incumbent Republican Governor Mayor Palin later defeated.  http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

In October, 2005, Senator Tom Colburn, (R) Oklahoma, offered an amendment to transfer $75 million from the ‘Bridge to Nowhere” to funding to rebuild New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82.  Senators Biden and Obama voted with the Majority and against the amendment which would have decreased funding for the Bridge to Nowhere; Sen. McCain was not present for the vote.   http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594 

With the completion of this vote in October 2005, formal Congressional opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” came to an end.

In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. Frank Murkowski was still the Governor of Alaska. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

Congress was attempting to create “cover” for the Congresspeople and Senators who voted to fund the “Bridge to Nowhere” by changing this language. Politicians, when questioned, could claim they didn’t vote to fund the “Bridge”, that question was left for the State of Alaska to answer. Congress tossed this fully approved, fully funded, “hot potato” to the Alaska Governor.

In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Bridge to Nowhere (actually known as the Gravina Island Bridge) in his State budget submission for fiscal year 2007. This money, $91 million, would be financed directly by Alaskan Taxpayers and would be added to the $223 Million of Federal funds to build the Bridge. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge. Specifically, Candidate Palin questioned how the project would be funded. Candidate Palin supported the concept of a Bridge to Gravina Island and the improved transportation it would bring the residents of the Island, however, Candidate Palin also questioned whether the planned bridge was the “right answer” or “the right bridge”.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Candidate Palin questioned whether the Bridge was fiscally responsible. 

Palin was elected Governor and took office in January 2007. Governor Palin submitted her first budget on January 17, 2007, two weeks into her Administration. The Governor’s budget contained no money for the Bridge. 

On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.”  Governor Palin said in a statement that Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”                                                     http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

According to the Committee for Citizen’s Against Government Waste, “Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,”. “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward.” The decision on whether to spend the money on the Bridge to Nowhere was left up to the Governor of Alaska. The money, which had already been appropriated, could have been spent on the “pork barrel bridge project” or on “freeways and infrastructure” items that are not considered “pork barrel”. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, “Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no.”

 ABC’s Charles Gibson and the spiteful Media claim that Governor Palin, “took no action on the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ until after Congress “killed the project’“, that claim is an outright lie. ABC’s Gibson and the Liberal Press are showing their bias when they make that false claim or falsely state that Governor Palin was,   “for the Bridge before you were against it“. Gibson knows his accusation is a falsehood – the voting records are a matter of public record. Congress never killed “the Bridge to Nowhere“, it was given full and final approval by Congress and provided with funding.                             http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

Congress presented Alaska with two choices “Build the Bridge” or “Kill the Bridge and use the money  elsewhere”. The criticism of “The Bridge to Nowhere” by Congress had ended long before Governor Palin made her choice. The “Bridge” was fully funded at the time she made her choice.                                                    

Governor Palin said NO to the “Bridge to Nowhere”. Governor Palin said “NO” two weeks into her Administration.  

In a closing shot at Governor Palin, Gibson noted that Congress sent approximately $200 million in earmark funds to Alaska this year. Those funds were requested by Alaska’s Congressional delegation, not Governor Palin. Gibson failed to mention that the 2008 total, $200 million, was $445 Million less than the amount sent by the last Congress. ($645 Million). The amount of earmarked money being sent to Alaska has been reduced by nearly 70% in two years. A 70% reduction in just two years. In addition to that amount, Governor Palin has cut  $500 million in wasteful spending from the Alaska State budget in just this past year.  http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594  

Governor Palin has earned the right to call herself a Reformer and a Maverick. 

This is what ABC News had to say about the “Bridge” in September 2007.  The End of the Bridge to Nowhere

September 21, 2007 1:43 PM

Lindsey Ellerson

ABC News’ John Cochran reports: The Bridge to Nowhere is gone.  Not the victim of aging frames, bolts and joints.  No, this bridge has collapsed, even before it was built, after an onslaught of angry editorials, furious anti-pork citizens groups, and caustic jokes on late night TV.

First, that name. It was not accurate. If built, the bridge would have gone somewhere. It would have replaced the ferry that takes residents of Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,000) to the local airport on Gravina Island. In 2005, Congress approved $223 million for construction.

In Washington, groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste, rallied their troops to try to block the money. They said the island was home to far more deer than people (50). 

The bridge’s main sponsor in the Senate, Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, was outraged by any attempt to prevent his state from getting federal funds. In 2004, with the help of Stevens, his state got special projects worth $645 million. That was $984 for every Alaskan. By contrast, Congress handed out less than $3 to every Texan. And a Texan was, and still is, the President. 

But the barrage of publicity was too much for his fellow Republicans. Senator John McCain, R.-Ariz., cited the Bridge to Nowhere as a perfect example of wasteful spending.  Senator Tom Coburn R-Okla., a longtime foe of pork spending, tried to shift the money to rebuild an interstate highway damaged by Hurricane Katrina. 

Senator Stevens grew even more outraged: “I don’t kid people.  If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state…I will resign.”  He did not resign.

An uneasy compromise was reached.  Congress took away the money for the Gravina Island bridge and another Alaskan bridge which was almost as controversial.  Instead, Congress gave the money to the state with the understanding that it was not required to use the funds specifically for bridges.

Friday, the state of Alaska officially sank the Bridge to Nowhere. Governor Sarah Palin, also a Republican, said “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport.”  “But,” she said, the bridge “is not the answer.”  Palin has told state transportation officials to look for the most “fiscally responsible” alternative.

A spokesman for Senator Stevens was not immediately available for comment.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/the-end-of-the-.html

 

 

The “Bush Doctrine” – Gibson’s “Gotcha Question” – Why Palin got it right / Why Gibson was wrong

HOW PALIN GOT IT RIGHT – WHY GIBSON WAS WRONG – HOW BIAS EFFECTS GIBSON’S JOURNALISM  

ABC News’ Charles Gibson is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine”.

The now infamous exchange went like this;

Gibson, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

Palin, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson,The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” A snappy response for a professional Journalist.

Palin, “His world view?”

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

Palin, “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” 

Gibson, “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.”

Is that so Mr. Gibson? In 2001, Gibson defined the so called “Doctrine” as, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ . 

Excuse my nit-picking, but please note that Mr. Gibson first used the term “Bush Doctrine” 1 year prior to when he claimed it was “enunciated” in September 2002.If I were Palin, I would have wondered, “What the hell is he talking about”. Remember that Gibson and crew had edited out Palin’s objection to being misquoted earlier in the interview.

Gibson’s clarification was not, in fact, an attempt to help Palin. It was an attempt to disguise his real purpose – another politically motivated “gotcha” question, much like his earlier misquote of Palin which was edited for the ABC program.  

I guess Mr Gibson might have applauded Govern Palin’s answer, had she only said, “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, and Charlie, the Bush Doctrine gives him the ability to use pre-emptive strikes”.

WHAT THE HECK IS THE BUSH DOCTRINE – the short explanation.

The “Bush Doctrine” is not a Government Document. It is not a law passed by Congress. The “Bush Doctrine” is a creation of the Press. It is the name loosely associated with a series of comments made by President Bush. There have been other “Doctrines” associated with other Presidents. The “so called” Bush Doctrine borrows heavily from prior Doctrines. It is claimed, by Journalists, to borrow from the Monroe Doctrine (President Monroe), the Truman Doctrine (President Truman) and even from President Reagan and the what the Press described as the Reagan Doctrine. If one looks hard enough, there are even traces of the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton and Carter Doctrines within what the Press now describes as the Bush Doctrine. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html . 

Apparently, when a President is elected a  Doctrine with their name is not far behind.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and 5 months after Bush took office.  Krauthammer noted that the definition used by Gibson, “is not the one in common usage today.http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard said, “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ 

When the term “Bush Doctrine” is used in common discussions (not to be confused with Liberal Media questions) it is usually referring to a speech that President Bush made on September 27, 2001 to a Joint Session of Congress. During that speech President Bush said,  

“We will direct every resource at our command–every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war–to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network…We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: 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. Our nation has been put on notice. We’re not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.” http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html

Compare Bush’s speech to Palin’s answer, “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.”

The similarities between the speech and the answer are striking.

As Gibson has a large research staff and as he, himself, had used a nearly identical definition in 2001, what are we to conclude? The answer to that question is obvious. One need not consider the earlier editing of the interview to “remove” Palin’s objection to being mis-quoted on an earlier question to understand why Gibson and the liberal media have reacted as they have. Media Bias is the answer.

What is the BUSH DOCTRINE – The Longer Answer – Not the complete answer

As stated above the concepts that the Media named the “Bush Doctrine” are a combination of the “old” and the “new”. Certain Commentators note items were brought forward from the Monroe and Truman Doctrines, other Commentators note that the Bush Doctrine borrows and diverges from the Reagan and Clinton Doctrines.                       

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html , http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/falk  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

The Bush Doctrine contains four seperate elements; Military, Economic, Political and Post War recovery. These elements have undergone many revisions.

The basic components of the Military Element have evolved to include; offensive operations, including preemptive war, against terrorists and their abetters—more specifically, against the regimes that had sponsored, encouraged, or merely tolerated any terrorist group. Afghanistan, the headquarters of al-Qaeda and its patron the Taliban, was the doctrine’s first target. The United States would “not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the worlds most dangerous weapons. Some believe that the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy.  

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp  http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

The Political Elements have evolved from past Doctrines or are related to a number of speeches and interviews conducted by President Bush. 

Commentators have attributed the following characteristics to the Policital Elements of the Bush Doctrine: The Doctrine is said to put the democratization of once totalitarian, authoritarian, and persistently tribal societies at the center of its objectives. Left to itself, Afghanistan after the Soviets’ withdrawal did not resume its former ways, at least not for long, and certainly did not evolve into a democracy. Instead, it succumbed to the Taliban’s peculiar Islamic totalitarianism. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration’s policy is not merely to expunge the totalitarians there and in Iraq, but to ensure that they never return by reconstructing their societies along democratic lines. Authoritarianism is no longer acceptable. That there is a, “”universality of democracy and human rights” (para-phrasing JFK), that the Doctrine recognized the difference between a “right to be free” with the “capacity to be free”. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp 

The Bush Doctrine was not an advocacy of a clash of civilizations or a Western crusade against Islam. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/jv6n2a5.html

The Economic & Post War Recovery Elements. These elements are based on the premise that Democracy needs free markets to survive. Certain Commentators attribute an almost Marshall type plan (The Plan used to rebuild Europe, Japan and Germany after WW II) to the Bush Doctrine. This has become a matter of heated debate.  Afghanistan is often discussed in this regard. After Afghanistan defeated the Soviet invasion Liberals in this Country refused to fund moneys to help repair the infrastructure destroyed by the Soviets. In the devastation of post Soviet Afghanistan al-Queda took root.  

Conclusion:

At the risk of belabouring my point – It is ridiculous for ABC’s Gibson and the Liberal Media to act as if there is some sort of single document that defines the Bush Doctrine – that there is one clear answer to Gibson’s question, or that there was any answer that would more accurately describe the so called doctrine. After all the interview was only an hour long.

Gibson’s response to an honest request to elaborate on his question clearly demonstrates, at least to this writer, the game he was playing. Palin was not confused by his question, she simply didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

Mr Gibson should be ashamed. 

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

 

ABC’s Gibson – FALSE SEXIST PARTING SHOTS: Gibson’s use of debunked internet attack – Palin/Hilliary & “whiner”

At the conclusion of yesterday’s interview segment, ABC’s Charlie Gibson, the once respected Journalist,stooped to an all time low. After getting caught editing the Palin interview, removing Palin’s objections to incorrect quotes and re-splicing her answers, Gibson closed last night’s segment with a repeat of a long ago debunked accusation that Palin called Hilliary a “whiner”.

The false accusation involved a now “removed” video of Palin speaking at a “Woman’s Forum” where Woman’s Rights issues were being discussed. The Forum took place prior to Palin’s selection as VP. The topic of media bias was brought up, specifically – how woman Politicians – being subjected to sexist attacks and questioning – should handle the situation. Attacks on Hilliary Clinton were used as a notable example of the media bias. Palin’s misquoted statement was that woman have to be careful on how they respond – that when woman complain about the unfair treatment the media is likely to accuse them, the unfairly treated female candidates, of being whiners.

Palin did not call Hilliary a whiner. The Panel used Hilliary as an example of unfair media treatment. Palin noted that challenging the media on their sexist bias would result in additional “sexist attacks” from that same media. Palin new what she was talking about.

Charles Gibson should be ashamed – and I thought he was one of the last to have some sense of  Journalistic Ethics.

The Associated Press is now attempting to resurrect the vicious and false rumor.

During the Friday interview Governor Palin said that she thinks Barack Obama regrets not making Hillary Rodham Clinton his running mate.  Palin praised Clinton’s “determination, and grit and even grace” during the nasty Democratic primaries.

%d bloggers like this: