Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (What was cut out)

THE BOLDED & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW

: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked about you, and it is really the . Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just , but perhaps ?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about ? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

: Didn’t that take some ?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his .

: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very . When I asked about your national , he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that is close to . 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 and 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 Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, 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.

: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of , our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

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. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

: Let’s start, because we are near , let’s start with and .

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of . Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as ’s , that we will be committed to . And we’ve got to keep an eye on . For to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on , under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of shows us some steps backwards that has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on .

And, Charlie, you’re in . We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, , and . They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see from land here in , from an island in .

: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in ?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially . We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

on :

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with , previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

: Would you favor putting and in ?

PALIN: , definitely, yes. Yes, and .

: Because has said he would not tolerate incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in .

thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

: And under the treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if went into ?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But , I think, should include , definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very today.

: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, is worth it to the United States to go to war if were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for . The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against , if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on and and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through , that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

on and :

: Let me turn to . Do you consider a nuclear to be an existential threat to ?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

: So what should we do about a nuclear ? said the only thing worse than a war with would be a nuclear . John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear . Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about , we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

: So what do you do about a nuclear ?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

: What if decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what has to do to secure its nation.

: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that has to take to defend itself.

: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

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

PALIN: His world view.

: 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 , of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

: 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: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that will do that and I, as his , families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

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.

: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a strike, a last option.

: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

on God:

: 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.

: 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. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer

~ The Mark Levin Show.

Related posts

9 Responses to “Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (What was cut out)”



  1. 1 Ivan DeGroote

    This looks like a pretty good editing job to me. I just watched the interview on youtube, and almost everything in bold seems like a repeat of something Palin says elsewhere in the interview (there was quite a bit of that repetition, in fact). Actually, a biased editing would have left in the part where Charlie Gibson tells her he’s quoted her exactly, after she claims bad memory.

    Do we really want another president who acts without thinking? I point to Iraq: we invaded *without thinking* of what was really needed to stabilize the country after eliminating it’s entire government. We are still there today. Thanks to the *thinking* and *organization* of General Petrayus, we might actually be able to leave with some dignity.

    Also, how do you enact successful reform without thinking? Don’t you need a plan of what you will build after you tear down the old? And why do McCain’s policies look so much like Bush’s, if their going to reform government from the white house?

  2. 2 Sam

    Seems like she was just kind of throwing words at ‘Charlie’ until some of them stuck.
    ABC did her a favor editing some of that out; she came of as even more extreme after reading.

  3. 3 malagent

    re

    “Actually, a biased editing would have left in the part where Charlie Gibson tells her he’s quoted her exactly, after she claims bad memory.”

    There is a huge problem with stating they quoted her exactly, because they did not.

    I think these interviews should at least be available in their entirety, no matter who it is. Personally I want to know what Obama, Palin, McCain or whoever says. Whether it’s boring repetitious or whatever.

    If you think what Palin says in this interview makes her extreme, then Obama must also be extreme as he basically says the same thing in regards to NATO and was more definite on going into Pakistan. So when Obama says it its “Change, when Palin says it its “Extreme”?

  4. 4 Ivan DeGroote

    “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,”
    -Huffingtonpost.com, “Palin’s Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview”

    Malagent, I have to concede that while exact words were quoted, omission of the “Pray for” is significant, in that it significantly humbles the statement. Re-thinking the interview, Gibson does almost as aggressive as Bill O’Reilly in his interview of Obama, just not as loud.

  5. 5 malagent

    With soo much attention being paid to the remarks of Sarah Palin, I must wonder, is Obama a religious nut? If he extreme?

    Barack Obama:

    Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will,[1]

    Is Obama a warmonger seeking war with Russia?

    Rarack Obama:

    Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.[2]

    Barack Obama:

    But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.[3]

    I could go on and on, but I’m to busy right now, so I’ll end with this:
    What the hell people? Obama can ask to be an instrument of God’s will, but Palin can’t pray that the we are doing gods will?

    Obama can talk about Georgia joining NATO but if Palin does it she is trying to start WWIII?

    Obama can talk about going into Pakistan without their knowledge or approval but if Palin says we have to “keep all options on the table” - somehow she is a warmonger?

    Damn, I can disagree with Obama without having to make crap up and twist things around, when are people going to start doing the same regarding Palin?

    1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854654/
    2. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/obama_nato_membership_for_geor.html
    3. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/obama-if-mushar.html

  6. 6 malagent

    Regarding Palins “horrible” “holy war” remarks:

    PALIN(in chucrh, 2007): My oldest, my son Track, is a soldier in the United States Army now. … Pray for our military. He’s going to be deployed in September to Iraq. 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 them out on a task that is from God. 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.

    PALIN(interview): 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.

    compared to…

    Six Months in the White House with Abraham Lincoln, written by Francis B. Carpenter and published in 1867, not long after Lincoln’s death.

    The following is from Page 282 of Carpenter’s account:

    “No nobler reply ever fell from the lips of a ruler, than that uttered by President Lincoln in response to the clergyman who ventured to say, in his presence, that he hoped ‘the Lord was on our side.’

    “‘I am not at all concerned about that,’ replied Mr. Lincoln, ‘for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.’”

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/714/ et al

  7. 7 JR

    There’s a big difference between Obama praying to him an instrument of God’s, and Palin asserting that this war is a task of God.

    Obama’s statement is a request for wisdom and insight. Really it is a generic request, not even aimed at the war.

    Palin is putting a value judgment on this war saying that what is being done is good and right, because it is from God.

    Let’s not spin statements and complain that other people are the one’s being dishonest.

  8. 8 JR

    * to make him an instrument of God’s will *

    Darn missing words ;-)

  9. 9 malagent

    JR

    I interpreted Palin’s words to mean that she is praying to make sure that the war is the right thing, not stating that it is the right thing. I am not religious (yet I’m conservative, go figure), but I have no problem with any other persons religion or lack thereof.

    I honestly do not know how someone could perform the job of President of the United States or as the leader of any country without faith in something. The responsibility and consequences are simply too great (IMO).

    I was not judging Obama’s prayer, which I actually believe is none of our business. But since it is known, I still do not see a lot of difference between his and Palin’s words, except that she referenced the war directly.

Leave a Reply