Having missed the Sarah Palin-Charlie Gibson interview of last night, I awoke this morning eager to gobble up analysis of this much-anticipated event. In my morning reading, I found two sources with distinct spin on the news here are some key excerpts from an account in the Washington Post.
*”Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks…The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.”
*”In the interview…she was confronted with questions about the U.S. relationship with Russia and her fitness for office, and she appeared to struggle when asked to define the “Bush doctrine” on foreign policy.”
And herewith some excerpts from an account in the Washington Times:
*Headline: “Palin touts readiness in 1st interview”
*”Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Thursday she is ready to be vice president and warned the U.S. needs to be vigilant in the face of Russian aggression, including being ready for war if it means defending NATO allies.”
*”Mr. Gibson at one point implied Mrs. Palin was stumbling over the question, telling her he was getting ‘lost in a blizzard of words there’ when she was fumbling over how far the U.S. could go to pre-empt an attack.”
*”[S]he did stress that during her recent trip she also met with wounded U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany – something Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama failed to do during his recent overseas travels. And at another point, she noted she has been in touch with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.”
Which story does a better job of capturing the utter truth of Palin’s coming-out interview? Is the Times too nice, the Post too critical?