Here's the transcript, which leaves us wondering: Does John McCain really believe this person has what it takes to be president? If so, it's yet another reason to doubt this judgment.
Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent 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 and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.
5 comments:
What's worse, that she is clueless, or that Charlie Gibson tries to smooth over the fact that she is clueless?
Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU
Lame and pathetic. She doesn't grow on you.
Who could have imagined getting a candidate that makes Bush look like the chairman of Mensa?
Palin got the Bush doctrine right according to the author that coined the phrase and said Gibson was wrong.
Washington Post.
Not only that if one is really concerned, they ought to look at the unedited version of Gibsons interview. Leaves Gibson an unethical journalist.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
Sorry, Charley, it is quite clear from the video that she was BSing like a student who didn't read her assignment.
She obviously had no idea of ANY meaning of the Bush doctrine. She was stalling and fishing for Gibson to give her a clue.
The link you provided is to Newsbusters, a right-wing propaganda outfit. I'm sure they and others will be trying furiously to spin away Palin's ignorance, but I'm afraid that isn't possible, not even by Krauthammer in the WaPo. He's got an extreme vested interest in the GOP, if you have read his columns in the Tulsa World.
From The Atlantic, conservative Andrew Sullivan on Krauthammer dated 9-12-2008
"Now we know how Krauthammer really thinks: what matters is not that what he has just described as an empty dress shouldn't be president. What matters is that Republicans maintain power."
Post a Comment