ok. Where here is a update to the earlier transcript. regardless...nothing in there makes it seem like she has more experience that Obama or Biden. To me, it makes her sound ignorant and uneducated.
here is the full thing
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:
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.”
TO YOU GUYS, does this new transcript change the answer at all? What does she say/what experiences does she have that makes her the better choice? Even with all that in there I do not see it, but if you do, by all means post it.
