CBS Vindicates Palin On Bush Doctrine
by Big Dog on Sep 15, 2008 at 20:46 Political
The people on the left who have been running scared by the nomination of Sarah Palin could not wait until Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed her so they could see her exposed. The left went nuts and people like Alan Colmes said that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. People said she looked like a deer in the headlights and that she had little knowledge of a doctrine that everybody in the world should know. Turns out there is no official Bush Doctrine but that at least four things have been given that label. CBS, in a hit piece on Palin and how she will fade, unwittingly exonerated her.
The premise is that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and that this shows she is unqualified to be VP. Yes, Gibson had to tell her what it was because she must have been too busy putting on lipstick to pay attention. But, Gibson told her one version of the doctrine and it was from 2002. Gibson said:
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. 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 other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? [emphasis mine]
So that settles it. The Bush Doctrine is what Gibson laid out and any rube who does not know that should not be out in public alone. Everyone knows the doctrine except Palin, or do they? In the hit piece at CBS News, they said this:
Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. [emphasis mine]
Now, if CBS is saying that this is the Bush Doctrine we have a problem because it differs from what Gibson said and this means that not everyone is in agreement as to what the term means. The one Gibson relied on is from 2002 and the one CBS wrote about is the most current version. So, when Gibson asked Palin what she interpreted it to be and she answered “His world view”, she was pretty much in line with CBS and the current line of thinking on the topic.
One would think that CBS would have looked at the transcript (they couldn’t have if this is what they think Gibson “put to her”) so that their version would match Gibson’s. Since they decided to write “what everyone knows” they have unwittingly vindicated Palin. She demonstrated there is more than one version when she asked “in what respect?” and she demonstrated that she is current by saying “his world view.”
I think that it is funny that while CBS was trying to reassure liberals (and keep them from jumping off bridges) with a hit piece designed to diminish Palin by promising that she will fade, they actually helped her out by showing that she is not stupid, had the correct answer and that Gibson was wrong. His credibility (and theirs) took a hit.
One other thing. The CBS piece, when discussing the fact that Palin will fade, presented this gem:
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)
Notice that one name is missing from the list of stars raised to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions; Barack Obama.
Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star. All we can hope is that this won’t change by election day.
If she gets one third the time he had, she will still be shining in November.
Tags: abc, bush doctrine, cbs, gibson, Obama, palin
It will be up to the non traditional media including bloggers to keep the heat on. As more and more folk discover more real truth on blogs and internet news sources, the less they will rely on the MSM, and that’s a good thing.
Outstanding find. Now, if I can just hold my breath till Charlie Gibson issues a mea culpa…
Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star…booyah!..right in line with my latest post BD!:)
This sounds like justifications for a candidate’s inexperience on foreign affairs. She did better saying “I can see Russia from my house”!
The facts are that Palin is a LIAR! She DID campaign for the BRIDGE until it was a dead deal then she ditched it, with a “NO THAAAANKS”, however she kept the millions of $. She DID request earmarks both as a MAYOR and a GOVERNOR! $200 million for 2009, more per citizen than any other state. She DID want to CENSOR the books in the library, she just got too much flack from the citizens of Wasilla. She DID abuse her power by firing ANYONE that didn’t agree with her politically or personally. She DID leave Wasilla in DEBT not better off than before her reign. Oh should I not use the term reign? Is that too sexist, being that beauty queens reign?
Wake up! I know you want to like her! You want to think that she is experienced enough to take this job! But face it, the likelihood that she will actually HAVE to step in as President is REAL! We have a 72 year old who has had cancer multiple times, not to mention many other ailments, that we aren’t allowed to know about since he won’t release his medical records. She is not ready for VP and ABSOLUTELY NOT READY FOR President!
KB,
Perhaps you would care to show some of the “facts” as true by providing evidence. You are spouting off the Daily Kos/Obama campaign smears. BTW, the federal government owns 65% of the land in Alaska so there is going to be more money going there because the feds have to maintain it.
No, did not try to ban books, the money in Wasilla was a ballot referendum to spend on a sports arena so the town VOTED to go into debt for it. Imagine that, a politician that lets the taxpayers decide.
As for the rest, all talking points. It is not a matter of “keeping” the money. It was federal money for a transportation project. She moved it to other transportation projects. Since we pay taxes for these projects, that is where it is supposed to go.
Since you are interested in facts, perhaps you could expand upon the facts of Rezko, Ayers, close ties to Fannie Mae (second largest amount of money in Congress), land deals, Wright, radicalism, forcing people off ballots, using legislation others wrote to beef up resume for US Senate…
The list goes on but the MSM will not scrutinize Obama the way they do others.
Why is that?
The truth is, I support Obama. But with all the smear ads (from both parties) its hard to decipher whats the truth and whats b.s. I am a Teamster and Obama backs organized labor far more than McCain does. Since I’m trying to be fair to both parties, I would like to see what proof that you have that McCain would back (not just organized labor), but every American middle class worker. Again, I’m not trying to be rude, but you seem aware of the issues at hand. Just wondering what you know about McCain’s views on labor, offering tax breaks to send our jobs over seas, and the failing economy as a direct result of not having fair paying jobs for the average person. Respectfully, AC