quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all

Happy?

quote:

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition.

The other was Gibson's own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there's no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like "shooting in self-defense.") The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.

Gibson used the word "preemptively" -- but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point ("Well, preemption was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba"), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the "preventive war" point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn't get in the way of his real intent.

Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed -- an endorsement of "preemptive" action -- was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.

How could she not know this? For the same reason I don't know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all

Happy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

I think this is good analysis. I know cutting and pasting is frowned upon in these hardboiled forums of do-it-yourselfers, but I just can't help myself. James Fallows is just a better writer than me. This is not all of it (click the link for the rest, if you care) but it is the meat.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php#more

quote:

A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:

1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"

That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy
To bring this back to the OP, simply compare Charlie Gibson's interview with Gov. Palin to one of his interviews with Senator Obama. Such as this one. Mr. Gibson is very congenial towards the Senator, even when pressing him for an answer. Anyone who watched the Governor's interview saw that he was anything but congenial with her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
Sad.


Thanks
RC

quote:

And I was right, ABC is up to thier old game of changing interviews by editing out anything that would go against thier agenda;

aee HERE.

Reporting or activism? Me thinks agenda driven activism.

Sad.

quote:

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.

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.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

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? 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.

quote:

Well, it's worse than that - a transcript of the unedited interview shows that her answers sounde quite different without edits:

quote:

The public still hasn't been shown the whole [Palin] interview. I know they have to deal with time constraints, but it was ridiculous how badly it had been chopped up.

I watched all three shows on which ABC showed portions of the interview, and each airing of the same portion of the interview was chopped differently so that it came across differently each time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t
This is really common in network interviews. My dad was once interviewed for an hour by CBS News, and I'd say the total amount of footage finally aired was 10 seconds' worth.

quote:

I laughed during the interview, I did not get Charlie got anything over on her. She is stubbron, and had a come-back to everything he tried to twist. I could see the frustration on his face. I like how she used his name " Charlie" everytime she responded to his very biased interview.

quote:

Think about it many Hillary voters, went to McCain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Historically, presidential doctrines (dating back to Monroe) sum up a chief executive's general philosophy on how the U.S. interacts with the world.

I don't see Bush's (actually, it's more like Cheney's) doctrine encompassing his global response to 9-11 being much different from these previous models.

Plus, I don't see the following quote by Froomkin holding much water.

Actually, these determinations are generally made sometime after a President leaves office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kernsfamily

quote:

I laughed during the interview, I did not get Charlie got anything over on her. She is stubbron, and had a come-back to everything he tried to twist. I could see the frustration on his face. I like how she used his name " Charlie" everytime she responded to his very biased interview.

Is there going to be an interview of this type with Biden?

Only when, and if, I see a Biden interview (as well a "follow up" interview with Obama....since it has been so long, and we've learned so much about him since that last interview)..... will we really know if the interview with Sarah was really "biased"....

And, sure I am with McCain/Palin....certainly the choice of those who believe in capitalism, free markets and free enterprise...

quote:

Think about it many Hillary voters, went to McCain.

I read somewhere....not sure where....perhaps "real politics.com" or something....but, the estimate, so far, has been 1 in 5 Hillary supporters are now at least leaning towards McCain.

quote:

I read somewhere....not sure where....perhaps "real politics.com" or something....but, the estimate, so far, has been 1 in 5 Hillary supporters are now at least leaning towards McCain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kernsfamily

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Historically, presidential doctrines (dating back to Monroe) sum up a chief executive's general philosophy on how the U.S. interacts with the world.

I don't see Bush's (actually, it's more like Cheney's) doctrine encompassing his global response to 9-11 being much different from these previous models.

Plus, I don't see the following quote by Froomkin holding much water.

Actually, these determinations are generally made sometime after a President leaves office.

Plus, when you talk about this "non-existing" "Bush Doctrine"....it really depends on your INTERPRETATION of events and YOUR interpretation of the "general philosphy", as to determining what the so-called "Bush Doctrine" is.

quote:

Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I understand that Palin's next TV interview is going to be with Sean "Slanthead" Hannity, whom I'm sure will challenge the governor with relevant, hard-hitting questions.

Maybe next time, Palin can interview with an actual journalist instead of an RNC waterboy.

I'm hardly a fan of his, but at least Bill O'Reilly is capable of handling a respectable interview - despite his tendency to raise his voice, and become agitated at times a la Obama.

I'd be interested to see how he'd interview Palin.

quote:

Sarah Palin doesn't need to know what the Bush Doctrine is -- she is the Bush Doctrine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I agree the editing job on that ABC interview was awful, but can you give me an example of a question Gibson asked Palin which was disrespectful?

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I hate to break this to you, but Vietnam is technically classified as a "police action" due to no formal declaration of war having been declared by Congress.

By comparison, Grenada was a weekend at Club Med.

I can read.

quote:

And since you are numb to the ABC inteview edits, it's no surprise you take a distorted view of history as well.

quote:

I agree the editing job on that ABC interview was awful

quote:

And if you want to understand the history of the term police action as it does not mean a club med excursion as you imply or else the Korean War would also have been one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I agree the editing job on that ABC interview was awful, but can you give me an example of a question Gibson asked Palin which was disrespectful?

quote:

Sure, how about when he asked her if it wasn't hubris for her to think she was qualified for the job? Do you think he would ever consider asking Obama that same question?