Thread: Why is the Associated Press deliberately twisting Palin's...

Why is the Associated Press deliberately twisting Gov. Sarah Palin's words on foreign policy?
Posted by: Jeff Emanuel

Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 08:12PM
17 Comments

For a sense of how badly the Associated Press tried to twist some of Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-AK) words on foreign policy from this evening's interview with Charles Gibson, please bear with me through the following example.

The police in this country are charged with enforcing laws - if an individual, say, murders one of their fellow men, then the police are expected (required) to arrest the perpetrator for murder.

Now, let's say a policeman (let's make him a chief, just for fun) sits down for a media interview about, among several topics, police homicide policy. The reporter conducting the interview asks the chief about his department's responsibilities when it comes to arresting an individual when, in fact, they have murdered another individual.

The chief, of course, speaks a bit about the investigative and evidentiary processes, and concludes by acknowledging that a known guilty party would, in fact, be arrested for murder.

Just to see how consistent this policy is, the reporter asks the chief, "Even if the murderer were, say, the President of the United States?

"Of course!" responds the law enforcement officer. "Our responsibility is to enforce the laws of our respective jurisdictions to the best of our abilities and in accordance with our oaths, regardless of the personal identity or position of a person who commits a crime.

Now, imagine for me that the Associated Press shot this over the wires as fast as it could, with the following headline:

Police Chief leaves open option of arresting President of United States for murder

Scratching your head yet? Yep -- I was too, when I saw the equivalent of the above example come over the wires from the AP this evening. In her interview with Gibson, the story says,

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally. "We will not repeat a Cold War," Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain's vice presidential running mate two weeks ago.

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: "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," she said.

That response -- which was an absolutely correct promise that the U.S. will support its allies abroad (those few we have left, according to Obama&Co.) and not shirk its oaths and treaty obligations -- garnered the following headline from the AP:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

What is the AP so afraid of in Governor Sarah Palin that they see the need to resort to headlines as blatantly fake as this?

Update: Then again, I suppose Palin Accuracy is not the AP's strong suit these days anyway....http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-131473.html

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/jeff_em ... tely-twis/

Simply the press and the far left wing thought they were a shoe in this election when Palin came on board all that changed now they will attack, similar interview with McCain on "The View" this morning totally outrageous and I'm not that big of McCain supporter, this is the worst media bias I've seen in my 40+ years of voting. I do hope Americans see this for what it is and turn out in great numbers to vote against Obama.

In fact, I believe that is correct. Conservative Pat Buchanan pointed out on "The McLaughlin Group" (PBS) that the purpose of the formation of NATO was to protect Europe from the power of Russia after World War II.

He contends that one of the many disasters of the "neo-con" policy makers for our country has been to push many of the small nations of what was the former Soviet Union into NATO, giving them what Buchanan himself calls "a war guarantee" with Russia together with the rest of Europe.

This evidently is all about oil, natural gas, and the foreign policy of Israel. Russia is an oil rich nation, and many new discoveries are being made in now independent republics of the former Soviet Union. Further, it was reported that Israeli industrialists played a large role in supplying arms to the military in Georgia, and that the Israeli military was planning to use the air force bases constructed there with U.S. funding to lauch strikes against Iran.

Remember that McCain wanted to name Joe Lieberman as his vice-president, and certainly will name him either to his cabinet or as a major policy advisor. Bush has been talking about war with Iran in every way possible for months now, and it is he and his "neo-con" advisors who have established the precedent of the "preemptive strike".

Unfortunately we seem to have our choice of national bankruptcy through Marxist domestic social policy (Obama) or national bankruptcy through continued world-wide war (McCain) under the dubious slogan of "preventing terrorism"!

oldguy wrote:

this is the worst media bias I've seen in my 40+ years of voting.

If the attack on Palin continue with the current intensity for much longer, I'm going to be forced to agree with you. Obviously the liberal media feels Palin is a huge threat because they are attacking her with extreme prejudice.

If we can be accused of racism and xenophobia, why can't the liberal media be called sexist?

Originally Posted by zeezil

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

What is the AP so afraid of in Governor Sarah Palin that they see the need to resort to headlines as blatantly fake as this?

Because Palin is not a CRF member. Maybe they are putting pressure on her, in effect letting her know they will stop the fake headlines if she gets on board?

Originally Posted by MW

If we can be accused of racism and xenophobia, why can't the liberal media be called sexist?

I don't think it is sexism, it is globalism, she is not on board their globalist agenda. It's the same reason the CFR went after Romney by paying Huckaby and Thompson to run and take votes away from Romney.

Originally Posted by Texas2step

In fact, I believe that is correct. Conservative Pat Buchanan pointed out on "The McLaughlin Group" (PBS) that the purpose of the formation of NATO was to protect Europe from the power of Russia after World War II.

He contends that one of the many disasters of the "neo-con" policy makers for our country has been to push many of the small nations of what was the former Soviet Union into NATO, giving them what Buchanan himself calls "a war guarantee" with Russia together with the rest of Europe.

This evidently is all about oil, natural gas, and the foreign policy of Israel. Russia is an oil rich nation, and many new discoveries are being made in now independent republics of the former Soviet Union. Further, it was reported that Israeli industrialists played a large role in supplying arms to the military in Georgia, and that the Israeli military was planning to use the air force bases constructed there with U.S. funding to lauch strikes against Iran.

Remember that McCain wanted to name Joe Lieberman as his vice-president, and certainly will name him either to his cabinet or as a major policy advisor. Bush has been talking about war with Iran in every way possible for months now, and it is he and his "neo-con" advisors who have established the precedent of the "preemptive strike".

Unfortunately we seem to have our choice of national bankruptcy through Marxist domestic social policy (Obama) or national bankruptcy through continued world-wide war (McCain) under the dubious slogan of "preventing terrorism"!

The purpose of the formation of NATO was to contain the Soviet Union and form a military alliance against possible Soviet aggression towards the West. It is a common and ongoing mistake to confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was only rarely run by Russians for Russian benefit. One of the world's bloodiest and longest ruling dictators, Stalin, was not Russian. He was Georgian. Gorbechev, for another example, was Ukrainian. A former foriegn minister of the Soviet Union, Shervadnadze, was also Georgian and was for a time, the head of the newly independent Georgia.

Russia has been in Georgia, in the region of South Ossetia, since '91 keeping the peace there and protecting Ossetians, who want independence, from Georgian aggression. Georgia launched a military assault on the Ossetian city of Tskhinvali which gave us the present situation where Russia no longer holds a peacekeeping role in Ossetia or the other region in Georgia seeking independence, Abkhazia. They are there strictly there in terms of military defense. And while they have made noises about leaving the Georgian territories ringing these two territories, they are not going to be leaving South Ossetia or Abkhazia anytime soon, if ever.

If Georgia is to join NATO, it is going to come in as a country that has already launched a full scale military aggression against a neighbor and its own people.

The foriegn policy of Israel has very little to do with the current situation in Georgia. All the Israeli military advisors that were in Georgia were private contractors who were all retired military. Georgia wanted Merkhava tanks from Israel and Israel turned them down. Many of the weapons that the Georgians used were Serbian and for a while Russia accused the Serbs of arming the Georgians until they found out it was the Albanians who were moving these weapons they seized from the Serbs when they split from Yugoslavia.

The resources issue has to do with pipelines running through Georgia from Azerbaijan and really has nothing to do with Georgia at all, Georgia has no resources of its own to sell.

The idea of the US attacking Iran is based on another perverted report of what actually is most likely to happen and really needs to happen. A ground war against Iran is complete idiocy and nobody in his right mind is suggesting such a thing. However, Israel wants to bomb Iran's nuclear arms program, just like they bombed the Syrians and the Iraqi infant nuclear weapons programs. But the US will not grant them the fly over of Iraq.

You would think that Palin might be a little more sensitive to what is going on with Russia, since Alaska is not only right next door to Russia, but was at one time a Russian colony that the US purchased from Russia to help the Czar pay off some gambling debts.

Oh well, I guess having five kids and being a governer is enough to swamp anyone.

Originally Posted by 4Bear

You would think that Palin might be a little more sensitive to what is going on with Russia, since Alaska is not only right next door to Russia, but was at one time a Russian colony that the US purchased from Russia to help the Czar pay off some gambling debts.

I am surprised the Russians have not taken a page out of the reconquista playbook and illegaly immigrate to Russia, claiming "This is Russia, it was stolen from us".

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.â€

4Bear: Thank you for your comprehensive explanation in response to my entry. You are especially correct in calling me down for inaccurately using the term "Russia" at the beginning as if it were interchangeable with the former Soviet Union. The article below might be of interest.

"Distant Drums Mar Palin's Party" 09/04/08 by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www .vdare .com/buchanan/index.htm