Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Sep
12
Highlights (from full transcript at Fox News):
Go to war with Russia to protect Georgia should become part of NATO:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple 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.
GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.
GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.
On letting Israel nuke Iran (anyone recall just how many times I’ve written about Israel being a pawn just like many of the Middle Eastern populations):
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?
PALIN: We have got to make sure 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.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we didn’t second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?
PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
And the moment of cringe, The Bush Doctrine:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: As for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.
Now you know – when John McCain didn’t know about how he’d voted on viagra versus birth control getting medical insurance coverage, you know – he said, I don’t know – I’ll have to check. And even though it’s kind of pathetic that he didn’t know the answer, it is far worse to punt, far far worse. I’ve done both – punt and say, I don’t know. But if I’m running for VP of a 300 million person country, folks – I’m telling the truth when I don’t know.
Norm Orenstein agrees with me:
She had me at hello Charley– had me scared to death. Not a single doubt that she is ready to be president– everyone, no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job. A combination of utter inexperience and utter arrogance is about the worst possible combination I can imagine.
On God and war:
GIBSON: Are we fighting a Holy War?
PALIN: That’s 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.
Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son, oversees with his Stryker brigade. Four thousand other wonderful American men and women to fight for our country, to fight for our freedoms.
GIBSON: But you went on and said, “There is a plan, and it is God’s plan.”
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world, and that plan, for this world, is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country, to be able to live and be protected within inalienable rights, that I believe are God-given, Charlie. And I believe those are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That in my worldview is the grand plan.
GIBSON: Then, are you sending your son on a task from God?
PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision. What he decided to do, in serving for the right reasons in serving something greater than self, and not choosing a real easy path, where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
I watched a bit about energy and global warming- you can read it here.
Gov. Palin is incapable of going past canned answers, she has no depth of knowledge about anything that doesn’t have to do with Alaska, she tried to push the debunked “9/11 was the reason for invading Iraq” falsehood and rather than state that she might not know something, she uses platitudes and tired Bush administration phrases intended to make us think she knows how dangerous it is out there and she will protect us.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the last thing Gov. Palin does is make me feel safe.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:00 am September 12th, 2008 in Politics, Sarah Palin, Vice President, WH2008
Comments
17 Responses to “Transcript of Sarah Palin interview w/Charlie Gibson, 9/11/08”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
I couldn’t agree with you more. It was extremely disheartening. The fact that the media is all Sarah all the time is also disheartening, since it is taking the spotlight off Obama and his message and bringing the attention to Palin.
Also, I have been somewhat disconcerted that this election has turned into a comparison between Obama and Palin, rather than between Obama and McCain. McCain is lurking out of sight, content to let the people “elect” Palin, even though she’s running on the #2 spot on the ticket.
Charlie Gibson: “I got lost in a blizzard of words there.”
How does she NOT know what the Bush Doctrine is???? I had this vision of her storming off the set and screaming at a McCain handler about why no one bothered to explain it to her. Would be funny were it not so scary.
Oy!
[...] Miller Zimon at Writes Like She Talks agrees with Norm Orenstein: She had me at hello Charley– had me scared to death. Not a single [...]
She scares the living daylights out of ME, that’s for sure!!
Sometime in the next month, I’ll be posting about Obama’s foreign policy and how boneheaded it is. Obama and his chief foreign policy advisors (retreads from the Madeline Albright State Department) don’t even agree with Joe Biden. If I had to pick who I trusted more on foreign policy, Obama or Biden, I’d pick Biden. I have a number of disagreements with Biden, too, and I’m still deciding whether to include those talking points in my post about Obama’s foreign policy or not. I’m leaning against it.
You should hear what Obama’s foreign policy advisors have to say about dealing with Russia, especially Susan Rice. She chided the Bush Administration for making moves to isolate Russia with the chatter about reducing the G8 to the G7. Nevertheless, when she talked about the Obama strategy, the carrots and sticks were about forcing Russia to decide whether they wanted to isolate themselves or not. Duh! Same thing she just chided Bush for! Palin had an answer that differed greatly from the Bush/Obama response, as Palin left ALL options ON the table, while the Bush/Obama foreign policy takes options OFF the table from the get-go. Frankly, our response to the Russians hasn’t been good enough, so I’m not sure why the proposed Obama response is identical.
If you interpret Palin’s response as being clueless about the Bush Doctrine, which I don’t, then one has to recognize that McCain-Palin foreign policy is not rooted in Bush foreign policy. It’s just another example of McCain not being the same as Bush.
Interestingly enough, Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball probably vetted the Palin-Gibson interview the best, as he put the transcript text on screen and delineated the points where Palin clearly has a different view of foreign policy than Bush or Obama.
As for Israel, Palin clearly did not allow herself to be boxed in to second-guessing Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation. Israel is the entity that must assess when it’s existence as a nation-state is in peril. Gibson’s line of questioning began with the assumption that Israel had already made their determination of whether an existential threat exists. What other response could Palin make with the scenario Gibson laid before her? Was she supposed to say the United States would advise Israel to lay down and die? Was she supposed to say that the United States would allow Israel to pull marionette strings, and go to war against Iran when Israel gives the order? Was she supposed to say that the USA would be a turncoat and block Israel’s path toward Iran? Was she supposed to say that the USA would substitute itself for Israel, and take action on behalf of Israel’s interests so that Israel can sit on the sidelines? Any of those responses would either compromise US sovereignty or Israeli sovereignty. Palin gave the response that preserved the sovereignty of both America and Israel.
She is clearly hungry for this job and not stupid. That is what I took away from the interview. Of course she has no depth on foreign policy but that came as no surprise to any of us I think. Unlike some of the commenters, I don’t think she made any major blunders; I’m not really sure how a VP candidate is supposed to react when asked a question they don’t know. Because while most of them are calculated choices to run on the ticket, they’ve never seemed this inexperienced.
I’m not sure I could answer every question the press threw at me but I do know what the Bush Doctrine is and I have the feeling when I watch or listen to her that I could do at least an equal job as VP of the United States as she could. That is not comforting by the way. I already feel that way about the current Prez so I don’t want to have to go there anymore.
Chris Matthews astutely noted that Palin’s views on the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war were much more dovish than that of Bush. Even though she’s more dovish, her statement does not reflect any willingness to back down or back away from America’s leadership role. Her answers, while not populist or pandering, were nuanced and balanced, yet assertive of America’s interests. She did well.
You know what Daniel – you and I – we have to hash this out in person. I’m a student of just and limited war and other political science and strategic theories – I’m not expert and I certainly haven’t brushed up lately, but her answer shows an absolute lack of depth – she has no idea what she was saying and shows no concern for what doctrines are all about in the world of global relations.
If people who for whatever reason do not want to vote for Obama don’t want to vote for him? FINE. If people who don’t want to vote Dem but don’t like their GOP choice feel compelled to rationalize why they will still vote GOP, FINE.
But stop this total nonsense about what she said.
Daniel – she does not know what she said and she did not know what Gibson was asking her about and she does NOT have a handle on this area.
She should have just fessed up – just like McCain did about Viagra and medical insurance coverage.
If you like her – FINE. But this constant spinning to make her palatable.
She was a poor choice except as a way to rally the conservative base and possibly dormant voters. Woohoo.
It is an abysmal ticket for this country – abysmal.
I never said that her knowledge was deep. But she does convey the right attitude.
One reason why I oppose Obama’s foreign policy isn’t that his advisors have no knowledge. It’s because they have the wrong attitude. Joe Biden has made several poor forecasts on what to do and how to do it, but you know why I prefer Biden to Obama on foreign policy? It’s not so much because he knows more. It’s his attitude. Fundamentally, Biden is more pro-American than Obama. Period.
And, Daniel, I have my calm face on now. That is all fine and well and good – and highlights how it is that any one voter chooses who they support based on such things. I’m only trying to point out that none of that has anything to do with Palin’s paucity of preparedness, on so,many,things that matter in general AND that matter for a VICE PRESIDENT.
That is how I feel – I know we do not share these feelings. I don’t expect that we ever will during this election.
[...] Governor Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s running mate on the GOP ticket, mentioned that if Georgia became part of NATO and Russia went into Georgia, we would have to go to war with Russia, but here’s what the poll said about NATO members’ preferences: In the recent poll, the [...]
[...] the Charlie Gibosn-Sarah Palin exchange on the Bush Doctrine that the left and Dems are using as proof that Palin is not ready to live at the National [...]
The Bush Doctrine made clear that any nation connected with terrorist groups that attacked America or American interests would be considered to have joined in an act of war against the US and subject to immediate and overwhelming attack. The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. 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. So, The New York Times got it wrong and Charlie Gibson got it wrong. Charles Krauthammer, who originally coined the phrase in early 2001 says Palin came a lot closer to the right answer than Gibson did:
Geez. And I thought bush was stupid. I’m guessing McCain just wants Palin around to fill the shoes of Monica Lewinsky in the white house. Can’t blame him. She is pretty hot. I’ll bet Palin could suck the stitches out of a baseball.
Palin no doubt is one scary individual. It almost defies logic that she was chosen as veep.
But something that defies even more logic is Irena Sendler. Irena Sendler – During World War II helped save 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto by providing them with false documents and sheltering them in individual and group childrens homes outside the Ghetto.
Irena Sendler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, but lost to Al Gore’s propaganda film.
That a hoax such as Global warming could even exists is a credit to the enormous power propaganda has over the feeble minded. The peace prize in my eyes has gone to Irena, the rightful owner. Hopefully when this junk science is revealed we can go back and award it to her, even though she won’t know she won it, she died this May.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDEjca8nYqg&feature=related
For those who noticed the heavy editing of the ABC interview and who wondered what wound up on the cutting room floor:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
[...] [...]