If anyone deserves a punch in the face it's Gibson during that interview. What a smug smarmy a-hole.

Too bad Sara just didn't grab ol' Charlie by the balls, saying "Here's a quote for ya Charlie - THIS IS GONNA HURT!".

GarandFan, you must be confused. How could Governor Palin grab that which does not exist?

Still get moonbats screaming "she didn't know the Bush doctrine!", and when asked what THEY believe the Bush doctrine to be, you get different answers. Even Krauthammer, who coined the "Bush doctrine" phrase and is no great fan of Palin said Gibson got it wrong.

Bill Maher looked like the biggest douche when he attempted to slam Palin on that... and his audience of stocked lobotomies just drool and clap.

Then on the same Maher show, has-been "comic" Janeane Garafolo lectures about how Republicans are all intolerant and should be locked up, apparently unaware of the irony of her statement.

At least they closed the segment with expert political analysis, Roseanne Barr... that made up for everything else, cuz she's the sage most people turn to for astute political observation.

I only hope Matt Damon and Lindsey Lohan give us their opinions throughout the campaign cycle so we don't get lost along the way.

"They weren't her complete words and he knew it."

It would be great to directly confront Charlie Gibson on this issue. The psychologists at my University have been doing ground breaking research on memory modification by question. It works and it works well. Assuming Gibson understands this process it is possible he was knowingly attempting to modify Governor Palin's responses. Such a tactic is always questionable, and often borders on the criminal. Search "Elizabeth F. Loftus" at UCI to find out more. In one of her experiments she showed a film of an auto collision to test subjects and was able to modify the memories of the severity of the crash by asking different questions to different groups of people. It is possible that a staff writer pulled Palin's quote in complete innocence, but Mr. Gibson should honesty address this issue.

Every patriot should watch this and then, every member of the lamestream media should go on a deep undercover investigation in search of their conscience.

charly gibson, what a pompous, and very apt representative of the media elites.

At the end of the first Gulf War, the first President Bush had a golden opportunity to ask for the complete and unconditional surrender of the Saddam Hussein government and bring this tyrant to trial on a wide array of charges, but failed to do. But instead after 12 years of international economic sanctions on Iraq declared by the UN, which mainly hurt the people of Iraq, but not Saddam Hussein or ruling members of his government, the Bush Administration created a number of phony WMD pretenses for a new invasion of Iraq mainly to put Iraq's oil supply under "international control" according the words of Paul Wolfowitz. Some estimates believe that this resumption of violence in Iraq has caused as many as 1.2 million Iraqi deaths in the resulting cycle of violence and an additional 2 million more left as refugees. No real evidence of WMDs was found in Iraq other than a few marginal examples of some old shells left over from the 1980's Iran-Iraq War. Does God support widespread mass human death and suffering to achieve goals when more peaceful alternatives were clearly available?

WWII or struggles against Soviet Communism involved real struggles against evil that enslaved persons or even went nation by nation eliminating groups such as Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, etc. The American Civil War was largely about an evil elite Southern oligarchy of business and government interests who wanted to preserve slavery as a means to free labor to make profits and live wealthy. Both of these wars were real struggles against real evil. The Iraq War was largely just a war to justify the U.S. controlling more world oil assets because the U.S. has just 3% of the world's oil, but consumes 25% of the world's supply because Americans like to drive big SUVs or cars and consume like crazy while many people of the world live in deep poverty where even clean drinking water is a luxury. Is this indeed a comparable situation to the WWII or Civil War? Does God see it that way?

The morality of war is a complicated issue. It deserves much more thought than a few sound bites as well as more thought when to go to war and when not to.

Newt is a class act all the way.

Gibson, condescending jerk on that interview.

But Right shall find a way.

NoBama, No way.

Y'all excuse me. I'm about to break
my own rule of civility.

Hoosan: You.Are.Full.Of.Shit.

After more than a week of no power, and reading
more of your inanity is just too much.

But my lights are now back on!

Paul -

Have you or your family any history of mental disorders? Because crazy crap like this makes me think you're nuts, especially when you post it in a completely unrelated (except in your mind) thread...

The Iraq War was largely just a war to justify the U.S. controlling more world oil assets because the U.S. has just 3% of the world's oil, but consumes 25% of the world's supply because Americans like to drive big SUVs or cars and consume like crazy while many people of the world live in deep poverty where even clean drinking water is a luxury.

And what's Pelosi's answer to that? Become even more dependent on on foreign oil? Is that her super-top-secret plan to take care of us?

We're the world's worst when it comes to conquering countries - we haven't kept the damn things since the very early 1900s, we keep rebuilding them and giving them back to the inhabitants! Some global conquerers WE are!

And our NOT using oil will get clean water to poverty stricken people... how?

"The morality of war is a complicated issue. It deserves much more thought than a few sound bites as well as more thought when to go to war and when not to."

As opposed to the "no war at any time, for any reason" thinking the left seems to prefer?

You seem to be very stuck in those sound-bite thoughts, Paul. As well as having an almost pathological need to derail anything you're not controlling. You ought to stay over on the Blue - you and Lee can play with each other to your heart's content.

I'm sorry. Did Paul say something?

I'm sorry. Did Paul say something?

Yes, Oyster, he did.

It can be summed up as: "Pay attention to ME!"

Paul:

Any definition that Saddam Hussein was less than evil is just plain stupid and ignores the record. He built up the mantra that he had WMD and then paid the price when the rest of the world believed him. This especially after he gassed his own people. Perhaps we would have been better off letting Iraq and Iran slug it out. I dunno. The picture of Iran sending thousands of its kids to clear mine fields isn't really one I enjoy except for the thought that the mullahs could have sent them with suicide bombs into our malls.

Frankly Paul, I would rather have the nutcases slug it out with our armed troops in Iraq than looking for the weak spots in our security over here with repeats of 9/11 every few months. It does look like the 200 Billion barrels of reserves in Iraq is coming on line just in time. Too bad John Kerry and a couple of other Senators derailed who is going to get the contracts. Oh well, China needs oil too.

Paul, one of us is deluded. I am sure you think it is me. On the other hand, you might grant that I am not a solipsist like your buddy Lee Ward. I have this vision of Lee strapping on a vest because someone disagreed with him.

Paul:

One final thing:

"At the end of the first Gulf War, the first President Bush had a golden opportunity to ask for the complete and unconditional surrender of the Saddam Hussein government and bring this tyrant to trial on a wide array of charges, but failed to do."

Correct. And we have Colin Powell to thank for that. We also had a ton of people from your end of the thought spectrum saying the same thing as Powell. A failure of Bush 41 to resist the pressure from left wing anti-war types in Congress and out, left the job to be done another day.

Larry and JLawson, nation's have to carefully choose which wars they fight because modern wars tend to be small difficult to end conflicts in which superpowers often lose world community prestige as well as bring disastrous effects on their economy's in most modern cases.

The U.S. assumed because of WWII that small ideological-based conflicts in Korea and Vietnam were winnable. But at best, Korea became a draw, and Vietnam became a clear loss with disastrous inflationary effects on t5he American economy as the government printed huge amounts of money to cover the budget breaking monthly war bills and every American watched their money quickly lose value as a result of this war.

The Soviet experience in Afghanistan was a similar disaster that helped to bankrupt the old Soviet system. Mr. Gorbachev began to give in allowing political dissent because opposition to this war at home was so strong, and this further helped the Communist system to crumble. Likewise, the recent Russian government invasion is Georgia has also brought about a lot of new foreign policy problems for the Russian government, although with an immense oil wealth economy, they should be able to weather-out this storm with oil sales to China and elsewhere in the world where Western world or NATO opinion of the Russian government holds little real weight.

Iraq is much like the Vietnam problem economically for the U.S. It helped to create uncertainty, not stability in the world oil markets and drove world commodity speculation up from around $30 a barrel to almost $150 a barrel at one point due to supply fears and fears that Iran could somehow become involved in the conflict. Iran only loomed as a larger threat to the world oil supply as a response to the Iraq War mess.

We don't have to worry about small bands of terrorists wrecking the U.S. as much as bringing down our own economy with the high oil prices that wrecked our own economy as a result of the misguided Iraq War. In fact right now in Iraq, we pay over 80,000 potential terrorists a monthly salary of $10 not to kill others or blow things up. Terrorists are easy to pay. But massive economic problems from the war not so easy.

Even though the U.S. has just 3% of the world's oil supply, although 25% of the entire world production is consumed by the U.S. there is no good reason to assume that world oil supplies are short solely for this reason. It is of course OPEC that controls world output levels. and American oil companies are perfectly happy to charge nearly $4 a gallon for gas rather than $1, $2 or $3.

Why some American oil representatives even wanted to go after Iraqi oil is a perfectly good question. Plenty of oil is easily purchased from Canada or Mexico for example without having to pay for a process of about 10 years of permits, exploration, building oil drilling rigs and new refineries. Many American oil refineries aren't even working up to full capacity levels now, and oil companies hold the mineral rights to huge amounts of American territory that they are not even using. So why even want to go after Iraq oil. Just like the war itself, it makes no sense at all.

Hearing disgraced former Speaker Of The House, Newt Gingrich, invoke the name of God to justify his latest political nonsense is nothing new. Wacky evangelist, Tony Alamo, involved in a very serious criminal investigation, today invoked the name of God to justify marriage to 10 year old girls in a crazy interview on FOX News. Some of the worst people invoke the name of God to justify the worst of nonsense sometimes.

It also makes no sense for Gingrich to attempt to sour the press on McCain. McCain has classically received highly favorable news coverage from the press, and Gingrich is a darn fool to attempt to spoil that relationship.

Anyone can make a video. I made a couple that are posted on my Progressive Values website using songs from my old band as the music. Gingrich can invoke the name of God and wave Old Glory as much as he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still a disgraced former Speaker Of The House who resigned from office in disgrace.

I know it probably doesn't do a lot of good to attempt to discuss important war and peace issues like an adult here, when some others understanding of the world consists of brilliant thoughts like the first two comments on this thread talking about "punching" Charlie Gibson "in the face" or grabbing "Charlie by the balls". But some things such as loosely invoking the name of God to justify any and all wars is just so offensive to me and anti-intellectual.

When to go to war, and when to ask for God's blessings are indeed serious issues that deserve some real thought and sincere prayer.

The post is about Newt Gingrich defending Sarah Palin, and Charles Gibson misquoting her, hyper. That is why Gingrich is a class act. That is the topic.

Paul, you are a deluded, idiot. I am not usually that harsh, but your revisionist history and adjectives show how you have no real argument. Just your party line. Of course you have the inside scoop on what is moral and what is not. You sound like an Ayatolla. Cheesh! Please hang on WizbangBlue. It is a morality issue. It is better for everyone here. ww

Paul -

You're a useful idiot. I'm sure you know what that means.

You also should look up what usually happened to them.