First from The Anchoress:
Obama interview:How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?How does it feel to “win”?How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?Who will be your VP?Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?Will you accept public finance?What issues is your campaign about?Will you visit Iraq?Will you debate McCain at a town hall?What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?Questions about foreign policy-territorial integrity of Georgia-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO-NATO treaty-Iranian nuclear threat-what to do if Israel attacks Iran-Al Qaeda motivations-the Bush Doctrine-attacking terrorists harbored by PakistanIs America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
Questions Gibson asked Edwards in 2004 (less experience than Palin): (from Newsbusters)
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn’t they make you mad last night?
Edwards: (long useless answer)
Gibson: But were you mad?
Liberal icon, and former San Francisco Mayor, Willie Brown:
Heck, even I didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was when Charlie Gibson asked her about it the other night on her first national TV interview.
-- PoliPundit
We believe tough questions should be asked of ANY candidate, but why isn't Obama being asked about Ayers, Wright, his lack of experience, his comments about making him an instrument of G-d (that old religion question again...), etc. Fair is Fair and Gibson is not Fair or balanced.
Showing posts with label Charlie Gibson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Gibson. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Bush Doctrine "A bit of a sham"
L.A. Times rebukes ABC for distorting Palin remarksCharlie Gibson misquotes governor, assuming she saw U.S. in 'holy war'.
The article goes on to take Charlie Gibson to task for seeking sources that were not accurate (tantamount to 'blogger' bashing sources), distorted the truth and challenged journalistic integrity. Gibson was also challenged by the and editor of the Washington Post and Michael Rappaport for Gibson's challenge of the "Bush Doctrine" stating that "not anyone was really sure of what it was right now" and "it was bad journalism and bad reporting" form.
Richard Starr of the Weekly Standard noted, “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”
Bill Simmon reports, "Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”
Palin was defended in her response to the 'Russia' question. ABC was challenged for distorting the truth of her response, which was 'not so earth shattering at all.' according to Mark Hemingway at the National Review. She was just stating NATO doctrine, "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." Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Sun responded to cries that 'Palin would have already started 4 wars' noting that "Sen. Barack Obama held the same views."
Robert Kagan of Carnegie Institute for International Peace said, "since the US has an Article V obligation to come to the defense of NATO allies when attacked. If she had said no then she would not have stated U.S. policy. It's possible the journalists covering her interview do not know this."
Other distortions of the truth were challenged in the LA Times article including the original War on Terror and Sudam Hussein. Washington Post's Ann Kornblut took Palin to task for giving incorrect information at her son's Iraq farewell. The truth is, "Blumer says Kornblut "must have missed the news that Saddam Hussein, who was in power in Iraq on 9/11, is not only not in power, but also quite dead – executed by the current, totally unrelated Iraqi government. 'The war in Iraq' morphed from an operation to overthrow Hussein and capture or neutralize his lieutenants to a war against an al- Qaida insurgency at least four years ago."
The article goes on to take Charlie Gibson to task for seeking sources that were not accurate (tantamount to 'blogger' bashing sources), distorted the truth and challenged journalistic integrity. Gibson was also challenged by the and editor of the Washington Post and Michael Rappaport for Gibson's challenge of the "Bush Doctrine" stating that "not anyone was really sure of what it was right now" and "it was bad journalism and bad reporting" form.
Richard Starr of the Weekly Standard noted, “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”
Bill Simmon reports, "Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”
Palin was defended in her response to the 'Russia' question. ABC was challenged for distorting the truth of her response, which was 'not so earth shattering at all.' according to Mark Hemingway at the National Review. She was just stating NATO doctrine, "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." Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Sun responded to cries that 'Palin would have already started 4 wars' noting that "Sen. Barack Obama held the same views."
Robert Kagan of Carnegie Institute for International Peace said, "since the US has an Article V obligation to come to the defense of NATO allies when attacked. If she had said no then she would not have stated U.S. policy. It's possible the journalists covering her interview do not know this."
Other distortions of the truth were challenged in the LA Times article including the original War on Terror and Sudam Hussein. Washington Post's Ann Kornblut took Palin to task for giving incorrect information at her son's Iraq farewell. The truth is, "Blumer says Kornblut "must have missed the news that Saddam Hussein, who was in power in Iraq on 9/11, is not only not in power, but also quite dead – executed by the current, totally unrelated Iraqi government. 'The war in Iraq' morphed from an operation to overthrow Hussein and capture or neutralize his lieutenants to a war against an al- Qaida insurgency at least four years ago."
OBAMA--"Make me an instrument of G-d"----SCARY DUDE
With all the focus on Governor Palin we have forgotten comments made by B. Hussein Obama:
(Christina Corbin, Foxnews.com)
"Barack Obama has put his religion back into the headlines, trumpeting the power and salvation of faith and asking a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Corbin further notes, "Obama has written and spoken about being inspired by the preaching of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and his calls to “spur social change.” The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” which essentially launched his presidential bid, was taken from a sermon by Wright.
Baptized in Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama has been an active member for two decades, regularly attending services with his family under Wright's spiritual mentorship.
Some of Wright’s sermons, which often address themes of white supremacy and black repression, have come under scrutiny by those who interpret them as racially divisive. Such preaching, they believe, polarizes Americans rather than unites them.
“Wright’s preaching does promote a sort of racial exclusivity,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington."
Charlie Gibson slammed Governor Palin for quoting President Abraham Lincoln while praying in church "Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."
Palin, you will note prayed to not know G-d's will, but to DO G-d's will.
Obama, you will note asked YOU to "Make ME and instrument of G-d's." and to make our country "G-d's kingdom here on Earth."
Ummm, who do YOU think is scarier? So, in Obama's campaign comparisons have been made with him to JESUS (blasphemy) and he wants YOU to invoke HIM with G-d's power. That is ONE scary dude. Save us please.....................
(Christina Corbin, Foxnews.com)
"Barack Obama has put his religion back into the headlines, trumpeting the power and salvation of faith and asking a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Corbin further notes, "Obama has written and spoken about being inspired by the preaching of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and his calls to “spur social change.” The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” which essentially launched his presidential bid, was taken from a sermon by Wright.
Baptized in Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama has been an active member for two decades, regularly attending services with his family under Wright's spiritual mentorship.
Some of Wright’s sermons, which often address themes of white supremacy and black repression, have come under scrutiny by those who interpret them as racially divisive. Such preaching, they believe, polarizes Americans rather than unites them.
“Wright’s preaching does promote a sort of racial exclusivity,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington."
Charlie Gibson slammed Governor Palin for quoting President Abraham Lincoln while praying in church "Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."
Palin, you will note prayed to not know G-d's will, but to DO G-d's will.
Obama, you will note asked YOU to "Make ME and instrument of G-d's." and to make our country "G-d's kingdom here on Earth."
Ummm, who do YOU think is scarier? So, in Obama's campaign comparisons have been made with him to JESUS (blasphemy) and he wants YOU to invoke HIM with G-d's power. That is ONE scary dude. Save us please.....................
Barack with brother Malik Obama---Barack 'not a muslim' pictured as a muslim:
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ABC distorts facts in Palin Interview---Gibson shows obvious political bias in his reporting
Taking quotes out of context.
Getting basic facts wrong.
Engaging in distortionary hype.
And the reason we should watch the rest of this hatchet job is…what exactly?
Also: Guess this is good preparation for the kind of neutral, objective questions we’ll get during the debates.
***
From Michelle Malkin:
This is how Yahoo! News is promoting the interview:
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.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
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.”
What she actually said:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Allahpundit rips Gibson:
Totally untrue, but that’s what he gets for relying on the Associated Press, which took the liberty of bowdlerizing her quote mid-sentence in order to make it fit the narrative they were trying to build of her as some fundie who thinks she can read God’s mind. Here’s my post on the subject from last Thursday. Read it and see just how egregious the distortion here is.
More:
What’s missing from the AP’s version? Right — the beginning of what she said, the part that makes clear she’s not asserting that we’re doing God’s will but simply praying that we are. It’s the difference between me saying “McCain will win” and “I pray McCain will win.” The first is an assertion of fact/secret knowledge, the second is an expression of desire/hope. The AP actually stoops to picking up the quote mid-sentence to make it better fit the stereotype of the holy-roller yokel claiming divine inspiration for Bush’s Crusade.
Will Gibson acknowledge this egregious distortion?
Governor Palin held her own against a man with an obvious 'anti' bias. Gibson had the opportunity to be professional, get facts, and to learn more himself about a woman we ALL want to know better. Instead....he choose to be condescending, patronizing, and antagonistic. For shame ABC and for shame Charlie Gibson
Getting basic facts wrong.
Engaging in distortionary hype.
And the reason we should watch the rest of this hatchet job is…what exactly?
Also: Guess this is good preparation for the kind of neutral, objective questions we’ll get during the debates.
***
From Michelle Malkin:
This is how Yahoo! News is promoting the interview:
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.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
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.”
What she actually said:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Allahpundit rips Gibson:
Totally untrue, but that’s what he gets for relying on the Associated Press, which took the liberty of bowdlerizing her quote mid-sentence in order to make it fit the narrative they were trying to build of her as some fundie who thinks she can read God’s mind. Here’s my post on the subject from last Thursday. Read it and see just how egregious the distortion here is.
More:
What’s missing from the AP’s version? Right — the beginning of what she said, the part that makes clear she’s not asserting that we’re doing God’s will but simply praying that we are. It’s the difference between me saying “McCain will win” and “I pray McCain will win.” The first is an assertion of fact/secret knowledge, the second is an expression of desire/hope. The AP actually stoops to picking up the quote mid-sentence to make it better fit the stereotype of the holy-roller yokel claiming divine inspiration for Bush’s Crusade.
Will Gibson acknowledge this egregious distortion?
Governor Palin held her own against a man with an obvious 'anti' bias. Gibson had the opportunity to be professional, get facts, and to learn more himself about a woman we ALL want to know better. Instead....he choose to be condescending, patronizing, and antagonistic. For shame ABC and for shame Charlie Gibson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)