Please tell Michael Abromowitz that you don't like his changing Palin's words to suit her. [View All]

[AZBlue]

Abromowitz is misrepresenting Palin's words in her interview with Charles Gibson to make her look better.


He claims:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine."

"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied.

Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

and then he says:

After she asked Gibson to clarify what he meant, the anchor pressed Palin on whether the United States has "a right to make a preemptive strike against another country if we feel that country might strike us."

"Charlie," Palin replied, "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."

He may have excerpted a few quotes correctly in that he wrote the right words in the right order, but the actual scenario went like this:

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.

That's a very different exchange in my opinion, one that makes Sarah Palin look very different.

As for the various versions of the Bush Doctrine, while there may indeed be 4 different takes on it, Sarah Palin neglected to name one of them.



Michael Abromowitz, WaPo Staff Writer: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+abramowitz/

Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071
703-469-2500

Or write a LTTE to The Washington Post:
[e-mail]
(or to the address above via regular mail)



And if you've still got a little time, contact MSNBC and tell them not to copy such a misleading story onto their site:

Mr. Phil Griffin, Senior Vice President, News:
NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plz
New York, NY 10112
[e-mail]

Steve Capus,President, NBC News:
[e-mail]
(address above)

MSNBC:
[e-mail]
MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 3rd Fl
New York, NY 10112
[phone]


The media should NOT be covering up her stupidity and incompetence.
Thank you! :hi: