The World Newser is World News' daily blog. Here, you'll find our staff's thoughts on the day's news and the way we build our broadcast. Plus, we'll share reports from our team of correspondents in the field, as well as producers behind-the-scenes.
RECENT POSTS
- Clem's Chronicles: Toyota Recall/Afghan Speech/State Dinner Crashers
- Charlie Gibson...On this Thanksgiving
- Quotes of the Day: 'It is my intention to finish the job'
- Start Your Shopping Engines
- The Hajj and Women's Dress
- Clem's Chronicles: Afghanistan/WH State Dinner/Holiday Travel
- Photos: White House State Dinners Through the Years
- Are We Becoming A Nation of Know-Nothings?
- Quotes of the Day: 'President Obama has the information he wants... to make his decision'
- Clem's Chronicles: Jobs/Afghanistan/Health Care Reform/Deficit
- Child Safety: Crib Recall and Other Recently Recalled Kids Products
- You Buying Less This Holiday?
WORLD NEWSER CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Palin Interview (Updated)
September 11, 2008 9:10 PM
Charlie Gibson has just finished his first interview with Sarah Palin. It's a global tour -- Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Georgia and Russia, and America's place in the world. For all of you who were concerned -- Charlie asked plenty of follow-ups. There were also questions about her general qualifications to be Vice President. Or Commander-In-Chief. Here are a couple of excerpts. Much more on World News this evening.
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we'll be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
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 running mate.
****************************
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."
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.
GIBSON: 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.
****************************
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. 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 John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep... GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
GIBSON: 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 Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. 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 Russia, 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 Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO 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 NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, 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.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, 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 NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia 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 Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, 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 Russia and Putin 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 Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
*************************
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
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.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?
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 Iran.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: 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 Israel has to take to defend itself.
********************************
GIBSON: 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.
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?
GIBSON: 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 military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: 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.
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.
****STAY TUNED****
September 11, 2008 in Vote 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (646)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
how in the world could this ...this person...this Gomer Pyle mixed with Lucy from Charlie Brown be picked by any sane leader to be the "backup" for them
the back up to decide if we go to war
the back up to decide if we need to shoot down commercial airplanes with hundred of Americans on board over NYC
the backup and representatie to other nations
"what do you think of the Bush Doctinre?"
whaddya mean charll...
charlie I think we do ...terrorists are bad...and russia is bad and if they attack...someplace...we have to go to war"
this woman...this woman that was on this interview is going to be a heart beat away from being the leader of the freakin free world ! are yuo freakin kidding me!
this is worse than the worst decision a presidential candidate has ever made...
if you put that interview/scene in a clip in a comedy film about the presidency
people would say it was over the top...that no person could be that much like Tootie from facts of Livfe, the german commander from Hogan's Heroes and Gomer Pyle put together and be close to living in washington ...never mind the FREAKIN VICE PRESIDENT NOMINEE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
this woman might have access to decide whether nuclear bombs are launched on another country?!!!
scariest thing I have seriously and sincerely seen in my liffe that interview this evening.
holy cr@p
Posted by: dl | Sep 11, 2008 7:44:04 PM
Great interview. I got lost in her words also. A yes or no would have been appreciated.
Posted by: PNM | Sep 11, 2008 7:45:30 PM
Why are you people protecting this woman from questioning and possible criticism if she is so "tough" and "strong willed." Do you not think she would be subjected to even more scrutiny if she did become Vice President? Stop whining! If McCain didn't vet her, shouldn't someone else do it?
Posted by: G jordan | Sep 11, 2008 7:46:27 PM
Obviously, this is a ratings boon for you ABC. But, are you so gutless as a news organization that you will let yourself be used this way? Would you rather win some ratings than lose some truth - to paraphrase John McCain.
Maybe you can tell Charlie the tuna to get a little shark in him and ask her something that can't have a canned answer, like how she feels about Condi Rice's statement that the number of minority employees at the State Department is unacceptable. An open ended question, with intelligent follow ups, so we can see what's in that mind of hers.
I am an undecided voter, and to be honest am not on the bandwagon, because I don't know one thing about her. She has read the same speech over and over, that's all I know.
Stop being such a wuss.
Posted by: willy | Sep 11, 2008 7:46:33 PM
Go Girl!!! where are all the uhh, ah, ummms? oh yeah, that is barack obama that does that.
Posted by: amle | Sep 11, 2008 7:46:33 PM
I can't believe how people can change from from a Demoracte to a Republican because of an interview. You mean to tell me you would still rather pay high taxes, higer prices for food and fuel. In addition,watch your property value go down because there are so many foreclosure homes on youe block. What is this world coming to? How can you have a Bible and one hand and a gun in the other. Wake up USA? She's teaching these young girls that it is okay to make a mistake and have a baby, while in school. There are choices and options, in which they will not have if they are elected?
Posted by: 28205bj | Sep 11, 2008 7:48:11 PM
And when Vladimir Putin puts Palin through the mangle what blog are you republicans going to go onto to complain about him? This from the party 'tough guys'. Give me a break!
Posted by: Jack | Sep 11, 2008 7:48:29 PM
Charlie, Did she ever answer a question or did she just keep parroting the cliches taught to her over the last 2 weeks?
Posted by: JR | Sep 11, 2008 7:49:03 PM
Wow I shocked by Charlie it wasn't fluff. Her lack of knowledge is frightening and for all you McCain fans I assure you his camp is not doing handstands tonight. Her answers were bad and her body language was even worse.
Posted by: jim | Sep 11, 2008 7:50:35 PM
Charlie is asking tough questions and Sarah is "right on" with her answers.
Posted by: lea | Sep 11, 2008 7:51:14 PM
Gov. Sarah Palin did an excellent job answering questions about foreign policy. This information alone has solitified my support for the McCain-Palin ticket in November. I have no doubt that McCain and Palin will serve and protect or should I say "protect and serve" our country. GREAT JOB, SARAH PALIN!!!
Posted by: aryne Jordan | Sep 11, 2008 7:51:21 PM
And here I switched from the biased channels (CNN, MSNBC etc) to ABC and Charlie is no better.
Charlie, you were rude and should have just worn your Obama label on your forehead.
Democrate voting Republican and PROUD OF IT!
Posted by: GW | Sep 11, 2008 7:51:38 PM
How scary to think that she could be the president and make decisions without the blink of an eye. She may be great as a governor but in all honesty, she is in no way ready to be a Vice president or potential president. John McCain did not have the best interest of the country or its citizens when he chose Sarah Palin
Posted by: Linda Rodrigues | Sep 11, 2008 7:52:56 PM
I can't believe the media we need a tv station that is impartial if that is possible...why not say vote Obama? I give up on the networks and I am not alone....
Posted by: donna | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:01 PM
Well, one can tell the interview went well on both parts. Both the dems and rep are angered over it. Great job Charlie and Sarah.
Posted by: diva | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:09 PM
Every question that was asked of Mrs Palin has been answered by Mr Obama so far. I find it amusing that some people are upset she had to answer the questions that would be asked of her if she becomes the next VP or President.
I am not a supporter of either candidate.
Posted by: Allan John | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:10 PM
you people are blaming CHARLIE!
are you freakin kidding me!!!!!!!!
she ...she ...there are no words on how she could not answerr the most basic lowballs on freakin nuclear war and the freakin BUSH DOCTRINE
she DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS
how many people on here heard inundation of just the talk on the news
Charlie did an unbeleivable job..
He lives in this country too.
her answer sshould scare the **** out of ALL OF YOU!
John mcCain picked this woman to take care of our country in the threat of a nuclear war if something happended to him. do you get that!
do you get that she was horrific this evening!!!!
do you understand that this woman would be deciding military and economic policy issues if a 72 year old man who has had cancer twice ...didn't finish his term!
this woman...this clearly unprepared woman who does not have the knowledge base of any historical perspective on just the issues he asked tonight!
stop blaming Charlie for tryjing not to laugh and get loud ...
like saying "gov palin are you freakin kidding me"
when she avoided huge answers and obviously had no clue or basic knowledge of huge issues on some of those questions.
this is not my American idol contestant didn't get judged well
this is the Vice presidency of the United States of America.
Posted by: dl | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:14 PM
The thought of Palin being anywhere near the White House scared me from day one. NOW I am even more concerned. What a Chameleon she is. I am truely worried about this one.
Obama looks like a MUCH safer bet and will get my vote on election day!!!!!
Posted by: CJ Hanna | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:22 PM
Charlie Gibson was always a favorite of mind. After the way he went after Palin, I no longer feel the same. Even O'Reilly, who is a touch interviewer with Obama, didn't treat Obama the way Charlie did Palin. His questioninig was clearly an attempt trick her and then get her to say yes to things that would then turn to "policy". Obama wouldn't have given a flat out yes or no either, but has he or Binden been interviewed with such blatent biased opionion and attitude? I think not! O'Reilly was tough, but when Obama danced he did get so openly indignant. Clearly Charlie's agenda was to trip her up and ask her questions with a determination to "get her" seen through his body language and facial expressions. Is ABC following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN movement to the obvious liberal/left when reporting and interviewing? Thanks Charlie for finally showing ABC's true colors.
Posted by: JJ | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:32 PM
Charlie Gibson, I have a question for you. Why don't you invite your Candidate Obama for an interview like the one you justed performed to Senator Palin. I did not see her blink and eye or studder on her responses, whereas I bet you, if it were Obama, he would have touched your knees for so many times. You must have ssen O'Reillys interview to him. You TV anchors, reporters, &c. should not show personal preferences on candidates, you belong to the public, the Network ratings are because us viewers. Like someone said above, it is time to change channel. Good Bye ABC. The same goes to Oprah! Shame on ABC...
Posted by: Gladys Colon | Sep 11, 2008 7:53:47 PM
Post a comment

