Gibson's Ass Kicked BY A GIRL!

Before anyone decides to jump on me for the post name, understand how I view Charles Gibson before you start you ranting. Mr. Gibson is one of those good liberals who (supposedly) believes that women are equal. So under this presumption, Chuck decided to viciously discredit Sarah Palin. Figuring that he is a good liberal who treated Sarah with proper respect by hitting her with tough questions, he did his best to nail Sarah to the wall. He made one big mistake; he assumed Sarah would not be able to handle the Great Media God, Charlie Gibson. Can you say, "oops?"

So why does this post point out that Sarah, a "girl," kicked Chuck's ass? Like I stated before, Chuck is supposedly a good liberal. Personally, I think he walks both sides of the line. I really believe Chuck didn't think a woman would be skilled enough to stand toe to toe with him. I knew Sarah could handle this joker, but what I did not know was how badly she would kick his teeth in. Forget John McCain, where was this woman back in the primaries?!?

Mr. Gibson (to be referred to as "Glib-son" and other variations on his name from here on) entered this interview with an agenda. This was supposed to be the one interview that shot the Palin effect to hell. Instead, Sarah shot Glib-son's credibility to hell. One of the best examples was when Glib-son decided to twist Sarah's words and stated,

"You said recently in your old church, our nation leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from god... are we fighting a holy war?"

Obviously, Chuck did not do his homework. That is not what Sarah said. Let me quote Sarah:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them our on a task that is from god."

Now sometimes the written words are not enough to explain, but if you listen to both Glib-son and Palin (Click here), you will hear clearly that Sarah is saying her church should pray that our leader is sending our troops on a task that is from God. In other words, pray that god is on our side, pray for God to protect our troops. As she said, "Let us pray that we are on God's side." Sarah's response was perfectly phrased to disarm Glib-son, but he didn't concede! He actually tried again to discredit her on this topic! Glib-son states:

"But you went on and said there is a plan, and it is God's plan."

Again, Sarah backs herself up by stating that she believes that there is a plan for this world and that it is a plan for good. In other words, she does believe God has a plan, and God's plan is good. She did not claim to know God's plan. Is this not obvious? What's the problem Chuck? You think God should have a plan for evil? This one was a T.K.O.! Chuck, stay down! NO! He is getting up.... He is punch drunk and swings wildly!!!

"But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?"

Oh my God! Are you serious Chuck? If you have not seen this interview, you need to go to ABC and see this pathetic interview... um rather attempted character assassination. I think this can be considered a body check, and Glib-son should stay down on the ice. But he doesn't. He gets up and comes back for more butt kicking....

This was not Glib-son's only screw up (are you surprised? I'm not), just my favorite. Where else did Glib-son throw the facts out the window? How about my second favorite self-inflicted wound, the Bush Doctrine? Chuck asked what Sarah thinks the Bush doctrine is. She knew she was being baited, and walked very carefully around the landmine that was laid for her. She quickly asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Chuck said the Bush Doctrine "September 2002, before the Iraq war." She stated that she felt President Bush, "attempted to... rid the world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation..." and admitted mistakes were made, but new leadership allows us to try to do things better.

For some reason, Chuck acquired foot-in-mouth disease. He stated that he felt the Bush Doctrine is that, "We have the right of anticipatory self-defense and we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." Though Sarah handled it perfectly and put Chuck in his place, I want to focus on the Glib-son factual inaccuracy.

Charles Gibson's futile attack on Sarah using his "NEW" take on the Bush Doctrine of 2001 was based on his ability to change facts that he stated! His exact words in 2001 were a perfect compliment to Sarah's! "...He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated." (Charles Gibson, 09-21-2001). So the moron was wrong about his own words in 2001. Let me bang my head against the wall as you continue reading....

You know I love Wikipedia. Not a perfect source, but a great place to find the sources to back up the facts. Wikipedia is not the place to find facts, but the cited excerpts are. "The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves..." (-Wikipedia). This is prior to the invasion of the Iraq war. The Iraq war started in March of 2003.

Now this is not Chuck's first rodeo. There really is not any excuse for his inability to ask questions that are pertinent while being accurate. His lack of accuracy is what I found most humorous, and therefore I have shown you how slanted this interview really is. The only other ploy Glib-son tried to use was asking the same question over and over to try to get a different answer. This is nothing new, and I do not begrudge him for trying. It was pointless and wasted a lot of time, but it did give Sarah the chance to reaffirm her standpoint.

The Iran and Israel questioning was a perfect example of this monotonous questioning. I have paraphrased the conversation below. You will have to listen to the interview (ABC edited interview) for the exact words.

Chuckle Head: What if Israel felt threatened and needed to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Sarah: We are friends of Israel and we should not second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Chuckles: If we wouldn't second guess (Israel), and they decided they needed to [take out Iranian nuclear facilities] because Iran was an existential threat, would we be cooperative or agreeable?

Sarah: We cannot second guess what Israel has to to do to secure its nation.

Laughing boy: If Israel felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Sarah: We cannot second guess the steps Israel takes to defend itself.

Strike three Chuck, you're OUT!