Coming Up Next Week: Fox 'Interviews' Palin

Just shocking, isn't it? Now gee, ask yourself why they chose Fox.

That should be interesting to watch. Anyone with a political ear knows Fox for their lack of credible reporting and their bending of the "news" in favor of entertainment news. Remember the several journalists that refused to write lies and took their news bosses to court? Those were Fox reporters. They had been told to bend the facts, they refused, they were fired. The courts sided with Fox in the case indicating that their bosses could demand they lie. Sigh.

Now, let's look at who is going to be doing the interview: Sean Hannity of Fox's Tuesday-Wednesday 9pm political news show, "Hannity & Colmes".

And what has Hannity said about Palin?

“She is a rock star, a rising star, a reform governor with more experience than Barack Obama ever dreamed of having,” he said the day she was chosen by John McCain."
--New York Times, 9/12/2008

These comments were made by Hannity without any review of Palin's positions, history or verifiable record.

Today, Hannity remarked on Palin's obvious flub on 'The Bush Doctrine'. Here's what he said:

“She answered it perfectly,” Hannity said. “I know the left-wingers. They just were looking for any little thing they can get. She understood what the Bush Doctrine was and what the Bush policy was and she answered it, I think, correctly.”
--News Hounds, 9-12-2008

If you have not seen interviewer Gibson's question, and Palin's "deer in the headlights" and incorrect response, watch this very short piece:

When I was watching the interview, I was personally flabbergasted at this gaff. This isn't too much sugar in cookies or even a typical McCain geographical flub or a Bush "Doh!" moment. This is a serious issue of national defense and security policy.

Let me put this is perspective for you. It is the Bush Doctrine that explains our invasion of Iraq. Remember all that great, provable evidence on how Iraq had WMDs? Well, that made it okay to invade Iraq. Not only was the information not true, but the administration knew it. But the point of the Bush Doctrine was to say, if and when we believe there is a potential credible threat to the security of the United States, we have the right to attack before we are attacked. In other words, if we get info that No. Korea is planning something and we feel it is a credible threat (and of course there is the other thing wrong with this--the credible threat part) we can attack. This is, of course, a radical departure from prior US policy. Can you just imagine what John Kennedy could have caused if he had used this approach with Cuba potentially launching the US into a war with the then Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

And this isn't being asked of someone on the street who isn't potentially in the position of having to make national security decisions v. decisions that might be equally important, but not to the extent that it could start a war or world war.

Remember what Palin, herself, said in 2006, published in 2007:

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices. [emphasis mine]

--Alaska Business Monthly, March 1, 2007

Let me try this another way. I am a lay expert in land use. When I am in a room listening to a land use presentation, I come away with a very different perspective than someone hearing the information. Why? Because I know the language, I know the laws, and the subtleties of this discipline. Could I garner what an M.D. could at a medical conference? Of course not. That is not my area of expertise. Could I match the understanding of a car mechanic or a computer programmer on the topic? Nope. My eyes, heart and brain will register one big zero. My zero moment.

The video shows you Palin's "zero moment".

Foreign affairs is not her area of expertise AND she has no interest in it. Had she, she could have no doubt run circles around interviewer Gibson. She didn't because she couldn't.

So, instead of putting Palin in front of the Sunday bunch who all know their policy, she is put in front of a self-proclaimed supporter at a news station that asks their employees to lie and dumbs-down real news to the level of entertainment.

Now, don't you feel better and have even more confidence than ever?