Diary

AP Taken Apart Line By Line, Part 2 (UPDATED)

AP:

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s assertion that she believes humans play a role in climate change — made in her first major interview since joining the Republican ticket — is at odds with her previous statements.

Palin said she didn’t disagree with scientists that the problem can be attributed to “man’s activities.”

Show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that,” Palin told ABC News in an interview broadcast Thursday and Friday.

However, in the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. … I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

Let’s try to explain it to the clearly simple-minded folk over at the AP. She previously said that she does not believe that global warming is man made. In the ABC interview she denied ever saying there was absolute proof that nothing man has ever done has had any effect on the environment. Which is true, she never said that there’s absolute proof that man hasn’t contributed to global warming. There is a difference between believing something and having proof of it.

In addition, the fact that global warming may not be attributed, in toto, to man, doesn’t mean that they haven’t had an effect on it.

Even the AP doesn’t see these statements as a contradiction, they just say that ABC does:

ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement.

What does the AP think, is it a contradiction or not? Why quote ABC, the statements are available for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions. Not trying to cover your rear end from a demonstrably false comparison, are you?

AP continues:

Palin also said that while she had not met any foreign heads of state, many other vice presidents may not have, either. However, the vice presidents who have served since 1977 — George H.W. Bush, the former ambassador to China and CIA director; Dick Cheney, chief of staff for President Ford and defense secretary for Bush; and Sens. Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle and Gore — likely would have met heads of state and other foreign leaders because of their extensive experience in the federal government.

Did Gov. Palin say since 1977? Here’s the quote.

“GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not. And I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.

Even Obama’s talking points aren’t this stupid.

Further:

Questions about Palin’s knowledge of foreign policy dominated the interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson. Palin repeated her earlier assertions that she’s ready to be president if called upon, yet she sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief.

Here’s the actual quote:

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage, in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government. And it’s about putting government back on the side of the people. And that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie. And that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years, as the governor of this state, that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. That I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conversation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas developments in our state, to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: National security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is. But – but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

The question was not whether she had sufficient national security credentials, she already answered in the affirmative when she said she was ready to be president. The question was whether being “commander of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia’ is enough of a credential. To which she answered, specifically, yes, due to her extensive experience in energy policy which is a foundation of national security. She did not sidestep the question and her answer is 100% correct. Even Sen. Obama says so on his website.

It’s a realization that for all of our military might, our economic dominance, the Achilles heel of this country is the oil that we cannot live without.

Every single hour we spend 18 million dollars on foreign oil. It doesn’t matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes, havens for madrassas that are planting the seeds of terror in young minds; they get our money because we need their oil.

The point is that our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don’t take this threat as seriously as the bombs that those enemies build, or the guns that they buy, we’re going to be fighting this war on terror for a long, long time.

If we are serious about our environment, if we’re serious about our economy, and if we are serious about our national security, we are going to make this the new Manhattan Project; we’re going to make this the new priority for the 21st century.

Back to the AP:

Palin, 44, has been Alaska’s governor for less than two years and before that was a small-town mayor. Asked whether those were sufficient credentials, Palin said: “It is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.”

Once again, that’s not what she was asked. Here’s the exchange for those who missed it the first time.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage, in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government. And it’s about putting government back on the side of the people. And that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

The AP just looks for any opportunity to push in the “small town mayor” thing. I challenge anybody to find a similar question asked of Obama when he started running.

More AP:

Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.

Essentially? Is the AP hinting that they themselves are not sure what the Bush Doctrine is?

Wikipedia isn’t quite sure what the Bush Doctrine is:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5] This represented a dramatic shift from the United States’s Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president’s unilateral approach to national missile defense.[6]

Gov. Palin had Gibson clarify exactly what the Bush Doctrine meant to him. How stupid and ignorant she must be.

BTW, Gibson said that the Bush doctrine was “enunciated in 2002, before the Iraq war” which is incorrect. As the Wikipedia article notes, it was enunciated right after 9/11 and was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan (and according to Krauthammer, even earlier). Some of these policies were codified in Sept 2002. Seems like Gibson himself is not as familiar with the Bush Doctrine as he claims to be.

A typical hit piece on Gov. Palin of which we can expect many more. History will judge the media’s handling of this campaign as biased to the point of absolute absurdity. Although considering who writes the history books, I’m not so sure.

Update: AP has now changed the tone of their article substantially, including removing the VP part, as can be seen from the above link. Even they realize they went too far.