Re: The Tragedy of Sarah Palin

Yeah, I was talking about the "what do you read" question.  

Mike F.  




________________________________
From: Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 2:13:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The Tragedy of Sarah Palin

I have heard that the raw footage of palin and Couric was a lot different.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 12:09 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The Tragedy of Sarah Palin

Thanks for posting that.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that answer.  Oh she
didn't directly answer Gibson's exact question?  What a shocker - someone
running for political office doesn't directly answer a question and gives an
answer that sets forth their own position or answers in a way so as
inconsistencies with another's position aren't taken advantage of.  


Say what you want about the Couric thing, (I think we've been through that),
but the Gibson interview characterization was nothing but a hatchet job.

Mike F. 




________________________________
From: Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 2:02:44 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The Tragedy of Sarah Palin

>>> But is he referring to the Charles Gibson one with the Bush Doctrine 
>>> question?  No one knew the answer to that and it turned out Gibson 
>>> didn't even know it - there was no formulated Bush Doctrine and 
>>> different people described it different ways.
>>
>> Ah, but did Palin know that no one knew?  No.
>>
>> And when Gibson *did* offer a definition, Palin's response betrayed 
>> her ignorance, too.  I'm not even sure that her response made sense 
>> in relation to what Gibson actually said.
>
> **Id have to replay it

As I recall, Palin made significant use of the word "imminent" in her
response.  But as we all know, kind of the whole *point* of the Bush
doctrine -- however we define it -- is that Bush didn't sit around waiting
for threats to become "imminent".  So Palin's answer was a non-answer.

***not really.  Once he actually clarified the question her answer was
legit.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? 

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? 

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? 

PALIN: His world view. 

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?

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.



--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot