Ammo For Sale

« « I kissed a squirrel | Home | Notice anything different? » »

back

Been out. Not reading the internets. Checked the bloglines account with over 600 unread. Said screw it and marked it all read.

Miss anything important? Well, other than ABC trying to win an election?

And that gas in East Tennessee is one hundred billion dollars per gallon.

8 Responses to “back”

  1. Manish Says:

    Well, other than ABC trying to win an election

    The nerve..ABC asking Sarah Palin hard questions about the Bush Doctrine and stuff like that..clearly they should have been asking her about moose burgers and shooting guns.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    i think the nerve involved them editing out the context of her answers.

  3. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Like I said on TOS’s site…I just don’t see it. But even if they did, it really doesn’t obviate the bigger booboos (like thinking the BD is “his worldview”).

    Guys, really–do we have to defend EVERY Palin attack? I’d think you’d have more integrity if you’d just offer up that no, she’s not a FP expert.

  4. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    In any event, I’d be more worried about this sort of thing.

    Again, I’m not a Palin basher–I’m somebody who realizes that McCain’s flimsy vetting just might ensure President Obama and all that entails for the RKBA.

  5. Robb Allen Says:

    Sebastian, if you don’t see the editing issues, then you’re not paying close enough attention. They cut out HALF sentences to make her appear to say something she did not. Of course you think she’s not vetted properly, you’re only getting a quarter of the news.

    The Bush Doctrine is defined by everyone differently. If you hate Bush, it’s one thing. If you like him, it’s another. I’ve heard the Bush Doctrine invoked for both foreign and domestic issues. When certain funding has been cut, it’s part of the “Bush Doctrine”. Global warming? “Bush Doctrine”.

  6. Manish Says:

    its the hallmark of all TV interviews..they interview people with lots of questions and then have to use some of the footage and scrap some of it to fill within a certain amount of time. Looking at what was cut, I too don’t see it…how would you have cut things differently? What pearls of wisdom were dropped in the cut segments that would have shown her in a better light? In particular, the bit about Gibson dropping the part where he agrees with Palin on the reference to Lincoln is particularly idiotic..the interview is there for the viewer to decide if they agree with the candidate, not to learn if the interviewer agrees or not..isn’t that what objective journalism is supposed to be about?

  7. Manish Says:

    actually, looking at the entire interview and what stayed and what was cut, I would say that the cutting was more beneficial to Palin than detrimental. The transcript is here. I’ll go one-by-one on each cut:

    GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

    PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

    GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

    PALIN: Right.

    GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

    PALIN: Right, right.

    GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

    PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

    the edited out parts are Palin not answering the question and could have cast her in a light that of being evasive.

    PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

    And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

    This is redundant, as they showed Palin saying pretty much the same things that got cut. In the prior question she had said (which did get aired):

    And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

    and the next question was:

    GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of 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, from an island in Alaska.

    After that, the following was cut:

    GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

    PALIN: {response}

    Airing this question would have slammed home the point to the viewers that saying that Russia is close to Alaska as foreign policy experience is utterly ridiculous.

    Sarah Palin on Russia:

    We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

    We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

    This was cut. I’m not sure what great insight it would be for the viewing public to know that Sarah Palin repeatedly said that we have to have good relationships with our allies and we can’t repeat the cold war.

    GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

    PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

    But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

    We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

    She previously mentioned that Ukraine should be in NATO so that part is redundant. And it seems rather obvious that we are going to have a new President on January 20th (maybe it should have been noted that Palin knows when inauguration day is?)..and then again the bit about relying on our allies.

    GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

    PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

    And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

    It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

    His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

    In this question, she rambles, but she seems to say that yes..the US should go to war with Russia over Georgia..probably not a popular position with the American people.

    GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

    PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

    GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

    PALIN: We have got to make sure that 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 and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

    First Palin doesn’t directly answer the real question (i.e. what should we do about Iran) and answers the sub-question saying that McCain is right and Abizaid is wrong, so Gibson gives her the opportunity to answer the real question again, though phrases it slightly differently (“So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?” vs. “So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?”) And again, ABC decides to cut Palin talking about our allies.

    GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

    PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

    This question was edited out completely and was a follow-up to the previous question where it was edited out that Palin thought that more diplomatic pressure was needed. However, once you’ve implemented sanctions there is little else you can do diplomatically and she’s called for implementing sanctions. This exchange also makes Palin look like she doesn’t have an opinion of her own as she first says pursue diplomacy and then when Gibson says threats of sanctions haven’t worked, she says oh then implement those sanctions.

    The part about making sure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons was addressed in the previous question and was shown.

    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?

    PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

    I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

    GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

    PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

    Gibson asks a question about the Bush Doctrine (after explaining to her what it is), she doesn’t answer the question responding with the Presidents duty to defend the nation and her knowledge of when Inauguration Day is again. He asks again, she answers which gets shown (though again evades the question). The part about “the President has the obligation, the duty to defend” gets cut, but I don’t think that this was earth shattering that she (or any other person in the country) thinks this.

    GIBSON: 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: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

    GIBSON: Exact words.

    They edited out an embarrassing moment where she denies saying something that she said.

    That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

    Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

    There are other points where she implies fighting Islamic extremism being right including (in a question about Pakistan):

    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.

    They edited out the part where she says that she doesn’t like war, but I think most people would make that assumption given that they did air the part where she says that her son is shipping out to Iraq. She did say that these were freedoms that we take for granted and that victory is in sight in Iraq, but again, I don’t think its earth shattering that she thinks this way.

    right after the above, we have:

    GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

    Gibson agreeing with Palin is irrelevant. The interview is there for the American people to listen to her answers and judge, not to find out what the interviewer agrees with or not.

    So there you have it..a bunch of redundant answers, some cliches, ABC deciding not to include answers about working with our allies for some reason and several embarrassing moments getting cut. In the end I would say that Palin got the better half of the deal.

  8. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Manish spent a lot of time doing the heavy lifting I was too lazy to do, but yeah that’s pretty much it–I don’t see where that stuff hurt her.

    And like I said in the other thread, the fact that the BD is defined differently doesn’t excuse the fact that she couldn’t come even remotely close to ANY of the possible answers. She pretty clearly didn’t have much to offer on the defining FP principle of the last 8 years other than “terrorists are bad” soundbites she’d been trained on.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives