"ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview"

[IEATV8S]

A 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. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

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

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

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: 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 politics 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.


Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

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. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia 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 Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. 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.

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.

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

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 Russia. 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.


We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:


PALIN: 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.


Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

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.


That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

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? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

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

GIBSON: So what do you 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 and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran 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.

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

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.

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.”


Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.


ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview | NewsBusters.org

[MY T FAST]

ridiculous.
yet another example of our fine, 'unbiased' media in action. if these media fools get any farther up obama's ass he's gonna sneeze em out.

[GNBRETT]

Thats quite a bit of additional information and to be honest with you not very interesting either. Not saying the topic is not important, just saying it was kinda boring to read.

The media edits interviwes all the time to shorten up what is going to be broadcasted or printed. That is nothing unusal.

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by GNBRETT

Thats quite a bit of additional information and to be honest with you the topic is important.

There, I just edited your response to shorten up what was printed.

[BlownZ]

Good thing the Right controls the media huh Goth.

Shameful......yet you're all jacked up over the Democrat party.

[GNBRETT]

Originally Posted by The Blob

There, I just edited your response to shorten up what was printed.

If you were an editor then you would have done your job.

[Agent86]

The Palin interview was truly so cut-up, at times, it was almost unbearable to watch. Did they do this for Obama too?

[GNBRETT]

Originally Posted by Agent86

The Palin interview was truly so cut-up, at times, it was almost unbearable to watch. Did they do this for Obama too?

I doubt Obama could have spoke that long. He is a terrible public speaker IMO and can't read from a teleprompter very well either. But she is just as full of sht too when she speaks so choose the lesser of two evils I guess. Whichever that is...

Im to excited about her position on Roe vs. Wade. If she had anything to do with it she would be lobbying for a chief justice replacement that is pro-life. Some of those justices are pretty freaken old. There is a good chance one or more would be replaced in the next 8 years possibly.

She has made it very clear she is pro-life. I think that goes against her base and I think she is going to loose quite a few women voters as a result. Maybe im wrong but thats a sore spot for a lot of women and that could hurt McCain in the end. She dances around coming straight out and saying she is against abortion but her interviews are very clear which side she is on.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by GNBRETT

I doubt Obama could have spoke that long. He is a terrible public speaker IMO and can't read from a teleprompter very well either. But she is just as full of sht too when she speaks so choose the lesser of two evils I guess. Whichever that is...

Im to excited about her position on Roe vs. Wade. If she had anything to do with it she would be lobbying for a chief justice replacement that is pro-life. Some of those justices are pretty freaken old. There is a good chance one or more would be replaced in the next 8 years possibly.

She has made it very clear she is pro-life. I think that goes against her base and I think she is going to loose quite a few women voters as a result. Maybe im wrong but thats a sore spot for a lot of women and that could hurt McCain in the end. She dances around coming straight out and saying she is against abortion but her interviews are very clear which side she is on.

You should get out more often, or, at least visit some other political sites then this one!

First off the chief Justice, John Roberts IS PRO-LIFE!!!!!

Secondly, the PUMA websites and PRO-Hillary websites have mostly made up their minds that it is MORE IMPORTANT to them to have a woman in office, then it is a similiar view on abortion. Their thinking is that SARAH will break the gender barrier, and make it easier for a Hillary to get into those Executive positions next time around. Expect to see a woman on the Democratic ticket, in 2012, as I'm fairly sure Sarah/McCain are an easy winner now!

[GNBRETT]

Originally Posted by IEATV8S

You should get out more often, or, at least visit some other political sites then this one!

First off the chief Justice, John Roberts IS PRO-LIFE!!!!!

Secondly, the PUMA websites and PRO-Hillary websites have mostly made up their minds that it is MORE IMPORTANT to them to have a woman in office, then it is a similiar view on abortion. Their thinking is that SARAH will break the gender barrier, and make it easier for a Hillary to get into those Executive positions next time around. Expect to see a woman on the Democratic ticket, in 2012, as I'm fairly sure Sarah/McCain are an easy winner now!

Where in this post did it indicate that ANY of the Chief Justices were not Pro-life? Did you even read the post or just interpretate how you wanted to?

Apparently you need to do a little research on who the PRO-LIFE issue affects. It's women a hell of a lot more then men. Whether or not the PRO-Hillary followers want a woman in office is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with what I said.

Of course women would want a woman in office. Your just figuring that out now? Maybe if you took the time to actually read the post you would see that I stated it could HURT McCains vote considering she is a woman. Not eliminate the chance of a woman voting for her. McCain needs the woman vote just like Obama does.

Do you really think if the Republican party could choose between SARAH being Pro-life or not they would choose for her to be Pro-life? Not in a million years. The MAJORITY of women are Pro-abortion and believe that a woman should have the right to do what she chooses with her body. Men do as well. Will that be the deciding factor in the end for women? It will be for some.

What percentage of women believe that they should NOT beable to choose what they do with their bodies? Have you even researched that? If you had you would know that women find that to be a very important issue and will undoubtely result in SOME women voting against her as a result of her position on abortion.

Where did you read in the post that women do not believe SARAH could not break the gender barrier if she got into office? That is obvious and common sense. I simply said her view on abortion hurts her more then helps her and if she got into office she would lobby for "A REPLACEMENT CHEIF JUSTICE" that is Pro-Life because the Supreme court is the only place that can reverse Roe vs. Wade. The fact that she is woman is another issue all together and has nothing to do with what the post read. Wow... You came to this conclusion on what PUMA and Pro-Hillary websites say? I hope ur joking....!

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by GNBRETT

Where in this post did it indicate that ANY of the Chief Justices were not Pro-life? Did you even read the post or just interpretate how you wanted to?

Apparently you need to do a little research on who the PRO-LIFE issue affects. It's women a hell of a lot more then men. Whether or not the PRO-Hillary followers want a woman in office is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with what I said.

Of course women would want a woman in office. Your just figuring that out now? Maybe if you took the time to actually read the post you would see that I stated it could HURT McCains vote considering she is a woman. Not eliminate the chance of a woman voting for her. McCain needs the woman vote just like Obama does.

Do you really think if the Republican party could choose between SARAH being Pro-life or not they would choose for her to be Pro-life? Not in a million years. The MAJORITY of women are Pro-abortion and believe that a woman should have the right to do what she chooses with her body. Men do as well. Will that be the deciding factor in the end for women? It will be for some.

What percentage of women believe that they should NOT beable to choose what they do with their bodies? Have you even researched that? If you had you would know that women find that to be a very important issue and will undoubtely result in SOME women voting against her as a result of her position on abortion.

Where did you read in the post that women do not believe SARAH could not break the gender barrier if she got into office? That is obvious and common sense. I simply said her view on abortion hurts her more then helps her and if she got into office she would lobby for "A REPLACEMENT CHEIF JUSTICE" that is Pro-Life because the Supreme court is the only place that can reverse Roe vs. Wade. The fact that she is woman is another issue all together and has nothing to do with what the post read. Wow... You came to this conclusion on what PUMA and Pro-Hillary websites say? I hope ur joking....!

I read your post and what I said is what I took away from it! Perhaps you should write clearer. There is NO unbiased poll out there about how ALL women view the Pro Life controversy! Everything is from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other very biased sources!

I quote the PRO Hillary women because it is a MAJOR issue with them (one reason they back Hillary) BUT will put this issue on the back burner in order to get a women in the Executive office! This isn't a small movement, it's men and women, and estimated to be as many as 6 million voters, approx. 1/3 of all that voted for Hillary in the primaries. That is approx. 5% of all voters that voted in 2004! A HUGE number!

How would this HURT McCain's vote because she is a woman? We've seen McCain go from 3% down to 3% UP, simply by adding SARAH!

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Rasmussen: Women shifting to McCain

Sorry, I disagree with you on SARAH being PRO LIFE! She has core values, has followed those values, and even had that little Downs Synd. baby. Perhaps you just don't equate MOTHERHOOD into your equation. There are many more women that are mothers, then ones that aren't!

Why would she LOBBY for a PRO LIFE chief Justice when there is one on the bench already???? I come to my conclusion by READING everything I can, pro and against, and on her view on abortion, I disagree with you. It, IMHO helps her immensely, simply by showing she WALKS the WALK, not just talking the talk! That baby proves it and women still take to honesty, over ideas!

Suggest you do look at those sites and see what they say, and how many there are!

[SFITurbo]

My opinion on the media...
Remember in high school the kids that were in journalism classes? Dweeby little punks that were social outcasts and would do anything for recognition from the regular guys or jocks, always getting shoulder checked into lockers and lurking around the girls social circles for gossip for the school newspaper. THEY GREW UP and are exacting their revenge on us.

[henschman]

yeah, at my undergrad institution, every last person i ever knew who was a journalism/broadcasting major was a hardcore liberal. i wouldn't say they were so much dweebs or whatever, but mainly slutty girls and effiminate guys.

i actually hung out with them some... some of those girls threw some pretty good parties! they were very liberal with their alcohol, too.

anyway, stuff like this whole ABC thing makes me glad I rarely ever watch tv news. it is all so full of ****. you can get all the major headlines in several minutes by clicking on a few websites, which are usually a lot less biased, rather than sitting through hours of drivel and celeb gossip just to get the actual scoop on TV.