In its Dunkin' Donut-sponsored Web poll of the day for September 12, Time.com misrepresented Gov. Sarah Palin's position on the Georgia-Russia conflict, perhaps to paint the Alaska governor as a trigger-happy novice at foreign affairs:
Do you agree with Sarah Palin that the US should go to war to defend Georgia if necessary," asked the poll. That suggests Palin is urging the United States gear up for war with Russia, a misrepresentation of her views.
But a look at the interview with Charles Gibson in context shows Palin was merely expressing a commitment to defend Georgia as a NATO member if that nation should join NATO. That is perfectly in line with Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which reads:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Here's the relevant portion from the Gibson interview:
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
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.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I am so disgusted with the
September 12, 2008 - 09:34 ET by jay_1975I am so disgusted with the media. My wife, who does not follow politics much, says she would rather vote for McCain and Palin because they are real people with military families as opposed to a "community organizer" and a career politician. We are from the Chicago area and know what "community organizers" are. They are the ones who offer you help when you are down and tell you how evil America is for putting you in that situation. They encourage homosexuality and cry about how racist America is. If my wife represents the average American, Obama can go home right now.
Here is another way to twist that interview
September 12, 2008 - 09:43 ET by c5thenPoll: Do you agree with Charlie Gibbson, of ABC News. that the US should only defend allies that 'make it worth our while' rather than what the treaty says?
Russia is specifically trying to intimidate the US into not supporting the admision of the caucus countries into NATO. Why? Becasue of that pesky Article 5. How are they ever going to be able to put the USSR back together under the Russian Federation flag if the US is going to defend all these little annoying democratically elected governments they are surrounded with?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
INTERVIEWS: AN UPGRADE
September 12, 2008 - 09:46 ET by reelman46INTERVIEWS: AN UPGRADE
Are you as tiired as I am of seeing a known strident liberal TV newsperson interviewer grill a Republican?
Tired of hearing 2nd and 3rd hand thru spin filters what was actually
said and actually meant? Tired of a snippet here and there?
How about this proposal?
Every TV interview be by 2 questioners for national candidates…one
known to be sympathetic to secular socialism and one to conservatism
(small gov-ment-lower-taxes-basic morality). The interviewers take
turns with 2 questions and a follow up (if desired) each…say about 3
minutes each as an alternate to a number of questions.
Now its the frowning agenda-driven hammering looking for a gotcha.
Don’t tell me this can’t work. What we have now is both sides rolling
their eyes because the interviewer is showing bias with sins of
omission or commission or body language or tone or attitude.
At least put both sides before the voters at the same time. A bonus is that it would be a lot more interesting.
You can bet the liberals would reject that approach…they detest balance.
Imagine Hannity and Mathews interviewing any of the 4 on the national tickets. I like.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
We have that now
September 12, 2008 - 11:02 ET by ArcherBIt comes on at 8:00 PM CST on Fox News. The name of the show is Hannity and Colmes. Unfortunately, it usually ends in a shouting match as both sides try their best to spin everything their way.
What I think would be better is if there are two sets of cameras, one belonging to the media outlet, the other belonging to the campaign. Agreements would need to be made that if the media outlet misquotes or edits the interview in such a way as to make the candidate look bad, the campaign is free to release the unedited clips to other media outlets.
I new this was comming,
September 12, 2008 - 09:46 ET by general companyI new this was comming, these folks are depicable. They will stop at nothing to get the chosen one elected. Mrs. Palin did just fine, even when the questioning seemed a little tense. I also watched McCain and Obama on Fox last night talking about civil services. McCain first and Obama second, McCain I thought was great, and Obama must had thought so to, because he agreed compleatly with him.
Obama seemed to be afraid to dissagree with McCain.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Hardly Surprising
September 12, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Kirk TurnerIt has been a long time since Time's advocacy of the democratic party surprised me. I subscribed to Time for years, but around the middle of the Clinton fiasco, I realized that Time had taken sides.
Time went with what I consider to be an immature, highly theoretical short-term view of what is good for America.
Now, Time is just a publicist for the democratic party. Their articles look like press releases, their views are party doctrine.
When a Time phone bank employee caleed my house to inquire as to why I had discontinued my subscription, my wife told them that I had outgrown Time, which is true.
ABC
September 12, 2008 - 10:03 ET by rick007I just hope the Rep's were smart enough to cover their asses. Their own video against the propagandests of the MSM.
The biggest problem that faces the Democrats is that most in this country finished high school and can see through their B--S---.
The real question
September 12, 2008 - 11:07 ET by CobraManThe real question being asked by Time is: Do you agree with Sarah Palin? The rest of the poll question is a failed attempt to appear objective.
On edit: Oops, that Time and not WaPo. They are so much alike that I sometimes have trouble differentiating between the two.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
What folks like Gibson
September 12, 2008 - 12:48 ET by ckc1227What folks like Gibson don't seem to grasp is if Georgia were already a member of NATO, Russia would likely never have invaded.
Oh, and another thing Charlie: America isn't the only country in NATO, so it's a bit disingenuous to say America would have to go to war with Russia.
JFK - 1961 "Let any
September 12, 2008 - 12:53 ET by FlashmanJFK - 1961
"Let any nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. This much we pledge - and more."
GIBSON – 2008
“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.”
The left is truly lost.
Of course, this survey
September 12, 2008 - 13:23 ET by SmartypantsOf course, this survey question is misleading, but what do we expect from Time? (I also noticed a little article in the morning newspaper which blasted the idea that Palin is ready for war. What a joke.)
The question itself is more than misleading in that it ends with the phrase "if necessary". Well, by the very definition of the term "if necessary," doesn't that answer the question? If something is deemed to be "necessary" then we should be doing it, whatever "it" is. How else should someone respond to this? The issue here is whether or not Palin would consider war necessary under the circumstances. The phrasing of this question shows exactly how much thought, or lack thereof, went into it. Palin, or any leader, would be considered negligent if they refused to undertake something that was "necessary".