It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I for one will not allow your efforts to go unnoticed, thank you for taking the time to research the transcripts and interview.

With Republicans like him in Maryland, no wonder we lose that state election after election. Hopefully he will return and retract his statement and then call Levin with an apology.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Great catch guys, and I loved the Yahoo banner that followed the next day; "Sarah Palin tries to defend views in interview. "

The MSM has lost it, truly lost it.

I will NEVER watch Charlie Rose again.

Jason



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
That's all well and nice that they edited out some statements she made, but noticed how they all went to affirm that parts that where left in? She sincerely thinks Russia invaded South Ossetia & Geogia...seriously? She wants the Ukraine and George in NATO but doesn't want a new Cold War? What would we do in America if Russia decided to put missiles via a treaty with Mexico on the Mexican Border in the meantime started negotiating the same thing with the Dominican Republic or Haiti? Not to mention this is the administration that gave us that "Bush Doctrine" or "Preventive War" concept. Mean while US was training Georgia on how they where going to take South Ossetia and Russia knew about it and sent the Georgians packing. South Ossetia doesn't even want to be part of Georgia and the US citizens are crying about the evil Russia....meanwhile in Iraq!
...



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by loamA transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context...

In all fairness to Gibson, I think he genuinely tried to be impartial but still be a "hard hitting" journalist. The questions he asked were very similar to those he asked Obama in the past (e.g., is thinking that you can be President hubris?) and he was trying to have a poker face.

That being said, he couldn't hide his bias against her. For example, the Roe v. Wade question is always thrown around as if being "pro-life" is about forcing women to carry babies that are the result of rape or incest. But the Doe v. Bolton case (heard along with Roe v. Wade) struck down Georgia law that allowed for abortions when (a) the health of the mother was at risk, (b) the baby may have disease or malformity, and/or (c) was the result of rape or incest. So, this is a blatant example of media bias, and Palin answers that "it should be left to the states" because it should have been.

So, I think this interview is about as good as it gets with the biased media. And to an extent, I am glad because now the hypocrisy of the left is exposed in a way that cannot easily be denied.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
That's all well and nice that they edited out some statements she made, but noticed how they all went to affirm that parts that where left in? She sincerely thinks Russia invaded South Ossetia & Geogia...seriously?...


On this point, the McCain/Palin machine needs to be very careful because Georgia is not a NATO member, and admitting them to NATO is antagonistic on our part. This is where Palin's inexperience really does show (as much as I like her, she cannot be all things to all people). I don't know many Americans who want to stir up wars all over the map. South Ossetia was playing both sides, and for the Bush adminisrtation to come down with such harsh words was really stupid, IMHO.

So, this part of the interview was fair, and Palin was destined to sit on the hot seat sometime. Why not now?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
How easy it would be to type up a transcript and claim this or that was edited. She flopped and flopped hard because she has lousy ideas and nothing new, only what the hand above her head has. There is so much corruption occurring and people complain about how Palin was misrepresented in an interview!? Give me a break, her answeres were unbelievably disgusting and unintelligent. This isn't a game, even though lots seem to pretend it is!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


I had a long discussion with a Russian friend of mine as this whole thing was going down. He said we will NEVER know the truth about what happened there. He said watching the news here makes him feel more comfortable about what is reported in Russia. In either case he doesn't think the truth is ever reported. He also said he can't wait to move back, he likes the opportunity to make money here, but he can't wait to move back.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I did not know this, but apparently this promo graphic had also been used to hype the interview:






In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “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?”



In other words, the "Holy War" term was in Gibson's question and never used by Palin.

But the promo paints an obviously different impression.




A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.



Source.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Wow... what a hack job!

They edited out the best part of the answers and tried to make it look like she was evading the question. That is just sad. All the highlighted parts (the stuff edited out) is the best parts of the interview!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't get ABC, so I didn't see what they actually aired, but I saw a lot of clips online and I KNOW I saw several of the underlined (edited) paragraphs in the OP. Particularly, the paragraph starting:

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against.

So, maybe they were edited for TV, but at least parts were still available on line.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I'm not questioning that there was a lot of editing done on this interview. But just so I understand, the underlined bold sections of the transcripts represnet the parts that were cut out? Because I distinctly remember hearing those words come out of her mouth during the interview. I'm not taking sides with either party right now; I just want to be clear here.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

reply to post by JT1971
 




Transcript


The video I posted was added September 11th. Play it and follow the transcript. If you heard pieces of this, you may have heard it in the other installments. I have not checked all of those, but I know there are supposed to be examples where a few of Palin's answers were tacked on to entirely different questions.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Conservatives can do this better. I don't know why Palin granted this idiot her first interview after getting nominated for VP. I think it would have been smarter to just completely snub the left-leaning Main-Stream Media and only grant interviews to conservative outlets. Sean Hannity, Newsmax, hell, even Glenn Beck come to mind.
Someone mentioned this was comparable to the hatchet job on that movie "Running Man". I agree.
As for Charlie Gibson, he himself didn't even know what the current "Bush Doctrine" is. He's still stuck on #3. (Bush is at #4) His condescending look was enough to disgust me. Feminists should be screaming about this (but they're not since Sarah is "Pro-Life"). WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Why does this surprise anyone? We all know who's side the MSM is on. 80% of all reporters are registered Democrats. They wept like babies at Obama's speech. But none of this matters - its all smoke and mirrors. The real power is in the hands of the elite money men who have no allegiance to any nation. Call them the "NWO" architects if you like. They are building continental superstates with the full complicity of our world leaders. The political sideshows of the West are the bread and circuses of the modern era. The North American Union will be upon us before we know it, and we will have absolutely no say in it. Europe was the logical starting point for the march to a one world government - nationalism has been systematically eradicated there so the process was easier. Asia remains a good deal too chaotic for the "Illuminati" to pacify just yet. They are focusing now on destroying America's financial and cultural integrity as the precursor to the NAO. The North American Union will be the lever with which the Illuminati will move the world. The ultimate goal, IMO, is to create a caste-driven global society where they can openly rule. The problem is that when they've finally achieved their dream their will be room for only a single emperor. The last vestiges of the old nations will be swept away in the war that follows. What comes after that is anyone's guess, although I could easily see an Antichrist entering the scene at this point.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I dont see why anyone is surpsised by this, Fox news would do the same thing just to her advantage of course.
Theres a media backlash a brewing against Palin, it seems they've realized she is just a 'pig with lipstick'. Cry sexism all you want it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a women if anything being a women has helped her career.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Thank you!
The type of scary stuff that doesn't filter very easily...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I'm glad you started this thread, starred and flagged. It was obvious from watching the interview that they did a hatchet job on the editing, and most of the edits seems to be aimed at saving Gibson's behind. He came off as very condescending, expecally with how he asked the first question, how can you claim to be ready to become president, with the look the American people in the eye BS, that came off as a total slam. Has anyone asked Obama if he thinks he has thought through his qualifications to be president, and then brow beat, questioning him if he understands the requirements of the job the way Gibson went over and over with Palin?

As far as Russian having the right to complain about U.S. relationships with Georgia, maybe they can think back to the time when they were trying to put Nukes in Cuba. If Russia was justified with their invasion of Georgia, then I guess the U.S. would have been justified invading Cuba backing Cuban rebels. While Georia made a mistake in the way they went after S Osseta, Russia came in too heavy handed. Let's not forget Russia's overly aggressive claims on the Arctic Ocean.

What really gets me is how the press has pretended that Palin didn't understand the Bush Doctrine, she clearly got it, much better than most liberals seem to understand that the war against terrorism is a very serious war. I thought this exchange by her really nailed the situation on the head when it comes to the war against terrorism.


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.

GIBSON: 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.


This last statement is exceptionally well stated and clearly shows that she understands the situation. That is the right answer. Gibson was lost in some supposed avalanche of words, or maybe it all just went straight over his head.

It seemed to me that after this exchange she took over the interview from the old pro, the body language clearly show this, she is leaning forward and he is sitting back with his hand over his mouth, like he is afraid to speak.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I took a close look at the transcript. Given the tone of the OP, I was expecting some pretty dramatic differences between what was aired and what was actually said.

I don't see anything like that. The tone of the interview was preserved. I think this OP is too defensive.

In my opinion, there are some minor redaction, probably to keep the interview more interesting and to cut the interview down to fit particular time.

They need to fit the interview into a particular time slice, so they eliminate some redundant words that don't contribute much to the discussion. I don't think there is anything unfair or remarkable in this practice.

#

Look -- if I wanted to -- I could be arguing that this editing process was actually bias towards Palin and not against her. For example, I was struck by the fact she said she was so easily "overwhelmed"



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.


Hey -- I don't want a president or VP that is easily overwhelmed by something relatively minor like that. But maybe that is not what Palin really meant, in which case it was a good thing it was edited out, before it confused me or someone else.

Do you get my point?

Edit: People are capable of arguing and taking offense at anything. It is all a matter of sensitivity and viewpoint.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fathom
This is the end of the msm, we will all look back on this election as the year the media died.
How can they have any credibility after what they have done on the last two presidential elections?

This Gibson screw up will also help to bolster Palin/McCain's numbers.

Honestly I kind of want them to keep screwing up and getting caught.


YA sounds like you thought of that line all by yourself,maybe you should sell it to Hanity?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Setting aside the editing for the moment;

I felt the questions were good. As the questions were representative of what the public was asking. I didn't feel Gibson was "slamming" her as another poster suggested. I felt he was just relaying what was on everyones mind (well a lot of people).

Seen the Tina Fey SNL skit? I laughed my arse off. They played off the fact she felt being able to see the Russia land mass from her house gave her insight into Russian politics. Loved that. Also, her response to the question about the 'Bush Doctrine! Too good.

Sorry I feel different about her then you guys do. I am not a Dem, I just think she is an absurd VP choice. I truly don't understand how some people think she qualifies as the President.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join