Palin's interview was clearly doctored.
Sep. 16th, 2008 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beth_leonardOk, so I admit it, I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is. And neither does Palin, according to a recent interview. I wanted to see it for myself, and was glad when one of my friends (sorry, I forget who) posted a link to that portion of the interview: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/09/terrifying.html
She may not know what it is, but the interview was *clearly* doctored.
Look at second #1:40 in the video I linked to. Heck, here's the link directly so you can follow along at home:
Look at second #1:40 to 1:41 in the video. Pause it there.
Note the background, a brown piece of furniture over his left shoulder, a sliding glass window with green triangular drapes, a red plant, and no
center bar in the middle. (The furniture is the most obvious difference, aside from the fact that it looks like Palin's head is green-screened here.)
Now look at second #7 -- No brown wardrobe! A much more open room, no red plant, and square draperies.
I want everyone to see this, I'll just take screenshots for you:
I don't know what she said and when, but the interview was clearly doctored to change the question asked and her answer to make her look bad. The background in second #1:40 is the same as in #5 when he asks "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" but the background differences are more clear in second #1:40.
All of the questions are separate cuts from her answers, several have the interviewer's voice voiced-over a picture of her face (he could have been saying anything to her face)
Note second #47-58, when he says, "The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." The interview is showing her face, and not his. It's a voice-over. He could have been saying anything to her face at that point.
At second #1:11, where the question is again a different set of cuts from the answer. The audio track doesn't feel smooth (second #1:18) and feels as if a question and answer were stitched together to make her sound like she's answering the question he just asked. Notice how she doesn't mention Pakistan and Afghanistan at all in her answer to his question, "Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks from Pakistan to Afghanistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?"
There's the bit at second #1:40 where they clearly edited in (from an entirely different filming location) the first part of the new question.
And again at #2:07 where he presses her for a specific 'yes' or 'no' answer. That pressing question, they cut to her response of "we've got to have all options out there on the table" to make it sound as if she'd said "yes", but in reality she probably wasn't even in the same room with him when he asked that question to thin air.
So, in summary, the news lies. I don't know what she really said, but I'm reminded of a certain B5 episode.
Maybe the truth is that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but
I'm not convinced that that interview proves it.
--Beth
She may not know what it is, but the interview was *clearly* doctored.
Look at second #1:40 in the video I linked to. Heck, here's the link directly so you can follow along at home:
Look at second #1:40 to 1:41 in the video. Pause it there.
Note the background, a brown piece of furniture over his left shoulder, a sliding glass window with green triangular drapes, a red plant, and no
center bar in the middle. (The furniture is the most obvious difference, aside from the fact that it looks like Palin's head is green-screened here.)
Now look at second #7 -- No brown wardrobe! A much more open room, no red plant, and square draperies.
I want everyone to see this, I'll just take screenshots for you:
I don't know what she said and when, but the interview was clearly doctored to change the question asked and her answer to make her look bad. The background in second #1:40 is the same as in #5 when he asks "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" but the background differences are more clear in second #1:40.
All of the questions are separate cuts from her answers, several have the interviewer's voice voiced-over a picture of her face (he could have been saying anything to her face)
Note second #47-58, when he says, "The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." The interview is showing her face, and not his. It's a voice-over. He could have been saying anything to her face at that point.
At second #1:11, where the question is again a different set of cuts from the answer. The audio track doesn't feel smooth (second #1:18) and feels as if a question and answer were stitched together to make her sound like she's answering the question he just asked. Notice how she doesn't mention Pakistan and Afghanistan at all in her answer to his question, "Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks from Pakistan to Afghanistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?"
There's the bit at second #1:40 where they clearly edited in (from an entirely different filming location) the first part of the new question.
And again at #2:07 where he presses her for a specific 'yes' or 'no' answer. That pressing question, they cut to her response of "we've got to have all options out there on the table" to make it sound as if she'd said "yes", but in reality she probably wasn't even in the same room with him when he asked that question to thin air.
So, in summary, the news lies. I don't know what she really said, but I'm reminded of a certain B5 episode.
Maybe the truth is that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but
I'm not convinced that that interview proves it.
--Beth
