Sunday, September 14, 2008

Half Smart

I wasn't going to bother noticing on it. But Krauthammer does, so I'll take that as my springboard. Charlie Gibson, whoever that is, interviewed Sarah. She was flawless. Yet certain factions of the MSM, like all of it, pan her. How very queer.

"Whatcha think about the Butch Doctrine?!?" Gibson ejaculated. "In what respect, Charlie?" "Boy are you so stupid, you dummy! Don't you even know that? I can't believe you. Sheesh!!! I guess that weren't included in yer Bible study notes, huh? Right, Moose Lady, with yer retarded baby? Right?" he said by way of follow up. I'm sure I'm getting the quotes right. At least as right as Charlie did.

The question was ambiguous. That was clear to me even as he asked it. She wanted a bit more precision. And from this fact, the MSM has soiled its pants in over-excitement. Krauthammer goes through the four iterations of the so-called Bush Doctrine -- which is a media creation, rather than an official statement of policy. Gibson chose one, as if it were The One. Sarah, more knowledgeable, and more organized in her thinking, demurred. This is somehow seen as a mistake.

Gibson helpfully explained that the BD was "that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." Krauthammer notes that the most recent and dominant definition is "the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world." Both are correct, and Sarah would no doubt agree with both of them. She could have answered his sloppy question with a simply and unhelpful "Yes." Unhelpful, like Charlie was with his "impatient school-teacher" instructions. Then again, Charlie did try to be helpful, to his agenda. See? We can have it both ways.

Here's the thing -- another of them. Who doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is? Even if it's a wrong one? I think of it as allowing no safe haven for terrorists -- no pirates' harbor. Any informed person has some idea. So what's the left doing, by assuming this invinsible ignorance on Sarah's part? Assuming that sort of incompetence is in itself incompetent. They just can't help it. They've lost the election, and they know it as their shameful secret truth.

Gibson did the same thing about this being a holy war approved by God. “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

“You know,"
said Sarah, "I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,”
he interrupted.


Her "exact words" were: “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 OUT ON A TASK FROM GOD.*** <----- That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” It would have been too much trouble to consider the context. Hers was one of humility. Gibson's was one of arrogance. It couldn't be more clear. What kind of deviant would see this quote in its context, and have heart palpitations at the thought of what it could be made to mean? How slimy.

Throughout, Sarah maintained her poise and elan. I might have been a trifle abrupt. I'd still make a great VP though.

Charlie, though? Charlie? Scum. You can quote me on that. Exactly.


1 comment:

Jack H said...

Scum. Not existentially. Just in this specific context, although not necessarily solely in this context. The twisting, which must have been deliberate, was scummy. Like any cheap lying trick. Maybe in many other ways he isn't scum. I wouldn't know. We are what we do.