Kick the Anthill

In watching Good Morning America! this morning, Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper commented on what Governor Sarah Palin said in her interview with Charlie Gibson last night.  Well, Jake…  You really need to listen to what she said before casting her in a bad light.  Like Charlie, you made several mistakes.

There were three comments that Sarah made that Jake commented on.  Only one of them he marked “True” (the one about whether or not you can see Russia from Alaska–which you can).  The other two, he marked “False.”

What were the two he said were false?

The first one was whether or not she has ever met a foreign head of state.  Here is what she said (emphasis mine):

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.

And he marked this as FALSE because, quote

But if you were to ask every living vice-president, they would say she’s wrong (enter the gigantic FALSE rubber stamp, smacking the word over her face).  Palin will be the first vice-president in thirty two years to have never met a foreign head-of-state. 

And then he goes on to say how Cheney, Bush, Quayle, and Gore had all met these HoSs. 

My comment to you, Jake, would be this:  Listen to what Sarah just said.  She didn’t “in the last thirty-two years.”  She said “If you go back in history.”  She didn’t say that none of the vice-presidents will tell you that they’ve never met a foreign HoS.  She said many of them could say that. 

Hannibal Hamlin, VP to President Abraham Lincoln, could potentially say that he had never met a foreign HoS before he became VP.  I say ‘potentially,’ because there’s zero evidence of him doing so before he was appointed the Ambassador to Spain in 1881 by President James Garfield.

Alben Barkley, VP to President Harry Truman (also the same guy who cointed the phrase “Give ‘em hell, Harry!”) could also say that he had never met a foreign HoS before he became the VP.  At least, there’s no evidence of him ever doing so before he became the VP.

Cactus Jack–er, John Garner–VP to President Franklin D. Roosevelt could also tell you that he had never met a foreign HoS before he became the VP.  Again, if he had, there’s no evidence of him doing so.

So, Jake, Buddy.  You really need to pay attention to what she’s saying.  Go back in history and “ask.”  Sure, you can’t physically ask them, but you can do a bit of research and draw your own conclusions–not that they might be correct.  But you can certainly give it an educated guess.

The second one was whether or not she believes that Global Warming is man-made.  She was asked if she’s flip-flopping on whether or not global warming is man-made.  Here’s what she said (emphasis mine):

I think [Charlie Gibson is] a cynic.  I have not said that.  I believe in science, and have such great respect for what they are telling us.  I’m not going to disagree with the point that they make that man’s activities can be attributed to [global warming].

I’d put the rest of the statement in there, but Jake decided to start talking over her this morning, so I couldn’t get it down word for word.  But be that as it may, he said that it’s FALSE (again, in the great big red rubber-stamp over her face).

You see, according to Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, on December 4, 2007, she said

I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.

Jake, buddy, you need to–again–listen to what she has said in both cases.  She never once said that she believes that global warming is entirely man’s fault, a la Al Gore.  She said that she’s not going to disagree with the scientists who say that man’s activities can be attributed to global warming.  Not is.  But can. 

Listen.  Conservatives don’t say that global warming is not man’s fault.  We–or, rather, most of us–say that it’s not entirely our fault.  I mean, how many other contributing factors are there out there?  How many other scientific experiments have been done to show that there are other factors?  The funniest one that immediately springs to mind is the one on Cow Farts.  In it, they attribute cow farts to being partly responsible for global warming, because of the shear amount of methane gas that gets emitted on a daily basis by cows.

Oh, and, guys?  That’s because of the fact that cows are herbivores.  The act of digesting vegetation produces methane gas.  Anyone who’s ever owned a horse can tell you that they fart every bit as much as a cow farts.   Llamas do it, too.  So do sheep, goats, buffalo–or bison if you will–and the list goes on.  So, animals are also to blame for global warming, too!

Jake, dude, you have got to start listening rather than just hearing what you want to hear.  A lot of us have to do the same thing–I’m just as guilty of it as the next person, so I’m talking to myself, too.  But still.  The point is, you’re saying she’s wrong when, in fact, she’s right.

I guess someone might still be chapped over Troopergate coming out in her favor?  (Yes, she had her ex-brother-in-law state trooper fired.  Big deal.  She did it for many reasons, including the fact that he tasered his 10yo stepson.  I personally would have tried to do worse than just fire him.)

Jake, you need to turn those “False” stamps to “True.”  She did speak the truth.  The whole time.

I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation. - VP-to-be Sarah Palin 

YOU GO, GIRL!  YOU ARE DA MAN!!!!

Quick comment:  She pronounces “nuclear” just exactly like Bush does.  How I love this woman!

UPDATE:  Here’s the interview (in which Sarah, IMO, kicked butt!), broken into a couple pieces:

UPDATE 2:  Michelle Malkin (God Bless Her!) has posted this outstanding article about the interview itself.

Update 3: OK, I’m sitting here, rewatching this interview, and something struck me as odd. It’s not something that I noticed last night, but then, whenever you have a house full of children ages 2 months to 8 years, you don’t necessarily get to watch television as much as you get to listen to it.  So, anyway, what struck me as odd?

He asked her about her thoughts about the Bush Doctrine, and then sneered at her whenever she asked for clarification–which he refused to give to her.  That’s such a crappy (IMO) question.  For starters, there’s no such thing as a “Bush Doctrine.”  That’s something that the MM has come up with, and isn’t something that the Bush Administration created.  PLUS, it encompasses a large variety of things, of course she would need clarification.  If *I* were asked my opinion about the Bush Doctrine, I also would ask for clarification. 

For example, the Bush Doctrine talks about pre-emptive strikes against other countries in order to stop an immenant attack on the United States.  Which, honestly, is something that I so agree with.  I personally believe in being proactive, rather than reactive.

The Bush Doctrine also talks about that we–as the United States–have the right to treat any country that openly harbors terrorists as being terrorists themselves.  I agree with that, too.  It’s like harboring a fugitive here in the US–you do it, you are guilty of the crime, too.

It also supports spreading Democracy around the world–especially in the Middle East–as a way to combat terrorism.  That’s a no-brainer.

So, she was correct in her response that Bush is trying to rid this world of Islamic extremism.  It fits perfectly with the Bush Doctrine.  After all, that’s one of the bases we used for going into Iraq–we felt that there would be another attack on us, so we went after a country that supports and harbors said terrorists.  We are trying to rid this world of Islamic extremism.  What part of that is not part of the Bush Doctrine?  Oh, wait, I forget.  The Bush Doctrine is vairly vast, so there was no way on the planet she was going to be able to give a satisfactory answer.

Speaking of which–apparently, I’m not the only one who noticed how badly ABC butchered the interview whenever they were editing it for time.

And about the not second-guessing Isreal’s attack on Iran–should they feel the need to take out Iraq’s nuclear facilities if they feel that there’s a very real threat against them from Iran–is exactly the same as part of the Bush Doctrine.  You pre-emptively attack in order to prevent you from being hurt.  Not that Israel would be hurt anyway.  I mean, seriously.  If Iran were going to attack Israel, they’d get their butts handed to them nine ways to Sunday.  But they will eventually do so regardless.  It’ll be their loss.

Exit Question: When will Charlie say to Obama “And you didn’t say to yourself ‘Am I experienced enough? Am I ready?’ Doesn’t that take some hubris?”