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

[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:

[FSogol]

1. I think its obvious that Karl Rove wrote that article. n/t

[AZBlue]

2. Looking at his previous articles, you may be on to something.

According to the articles he's previously written, the DNC never even took place. He's a poltics reporter but he completely ignored the convention?

[AZBlue]

3. Here's my LTTE

As a longtime reader of The Washington Post I'm very disturbed by the obvious partisanship shown in the September 13th article by Michael Abromowitz entitled, "Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine.'"

The way Mr. Abromowitz represented the exchange between Gov. Palin and Charles Gibson seems intentionally misleading. The exchange as presented makes it appear that Gov. Palin was asking Mr. Gibson for clarification to which version of the Bush Doctrine he was referring. In reality, she clearly had never even heard of the Bush Doctrine and instead called it President Bush's "world view" when pressed for some sort of definition.

The U.S. media is supposed to report the facts accurately and legitimately, without cutting and pasting quotes and rearranging them to make the subject look better or worse. The facts speak for themselves and I would rather get them from now on without Mr. Abromowitz's obvious Republican spin. If I wanted to hear the day's GOP Talking Points, I could tune into Fox News. I expect better from The Washington Post.

One other item to note, since Mr. Abromowitz also conveniently left this out of his article: while there may indeed be differing takes on the Bush Doctrine, Sarah Palin neglected to name even one of them.

[FSogol]

4. Nice LTTE.

Its probably a waste of time, but send it to the Post's Ombudsman also.

[e-mail]

[AZBlue]

5. I will - thanks for the suggestion!

You never know which letter they'll actually pay attention to and I'll never stop trying. :D

[Cha]

7. Thanks for never stop

trying, AZBlue!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. Also, she said "His world view, you mean?"

Just those words make it clear she had no idea what the question was referring to. She wasn't picking among four answers, she was picking among none.

[DefenseLawyer]

8. Oh they are more than willing to cover up for her stupidity

I saw George Will this morning, the quintessential pompous conservative intellectual, whose stock in trade is to pretend he is smarter than everybody. Yet even he was willing to say that, just like Sarah Palin, he didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was either. Amazing how much shit these guys will eat to stay in the club.

[AZBlue]

9. Especially when you look at the club itself. Who'd want to be in that group?!

Who'd want to hang out with those disgusting people?

[DefenseLawyer]

10. Those who fear losing what they think they have

like power, status, money, inherited wealth, a preferred social position for one's religion or race. Fear of change, which is really fear of loss, is what keeps the club in business.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I'll get right on it....

Make sure you also send this post to Media Matters, and F.A.I.R.

Remember that list of Watchdog email addresses I had provided?

FAIR is especially good at following up via private correspondence with those who are being called on the carpet.

[AZBlue]

12. Yes and you're right - will do first thing in AM!

Thanks!! :hi:

[FSogol]

13. Here's my letter to the Washington Post ombusman:

"Ms, Howell.
I feel the Post's readers are owed an explanation for the extremely partisan article which appeared on A1 on the Post on Saturday. Abromowitz's article puts words into Gov. Palin's mouth in an attempt to explain her gaffes. There may be more than one part of the Bush Doctrine, but Palin had not previously heard the term and failed to discuss even one aspect of the doctrine. Abromowitz tries to construe the phrase, "in what respect" into "in what aspect." The phrases are not the same and his attempt to justify her non-answers smacks of partisan whitewashing. He attempts to mislead the reader by confusing her statement. In an age where the White House dictates the news to certain organizations, it is a black mark on the Post to see an article that outlines the Republican Party's daily talking points so concisely. I feel that this article came directly from the desk of Karl Rove. Very disappointing."

She replied that she plans on discussing the article with Abromowitz.

[AZBlue]

15. Nice! See, you can get results - that's encouraging!

Thank you!!

[AZBlue]

16. Done!

:D

[DeeDeeNY]

14. AZBlue -- Send this to Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/