Replies

She didn’t change anything.

Her statement on Libya wasn’t incoherent at all. She was saying that it’s 6 weeks in and Ghadaffi is still there and civilians are still being killed and the rebels show no sign of toppling him any time soon. So, what exactly is going on? What are we doing there at the moment? What is the goal? What is the endgame? Given that Obama hasn’t said a word about Libya since his brief speech on Mar 24, it’s a valid question.

She’s clearly been for removing Ghadaffi. She was for it way before Obama was. She mentioned it Feb 22, way before the March 19 date that the balloon went up. On the first day or so after we started bombing she said we should take him out.

2nd, what is Rubin talking about with more or less American firepower in Libya. Right now there isn’t any US firepower in Libya so it’s hard to be for less.

3rd, there has never been a war to remove Ghadaffi so how can Rubin demand she be for or against it?

She’s been pretty clear if you look at what she’s said. She was all for getting rid of him and for being way more aggressive in doing so.

Then, to compare her to Ron Paul is absurd and really makes me question Rubin’s motives.

Her 5 points such as they were are pretty much standard among most military figures. Does anyone think there shouldn’t be clearly defined objectives? Has anyone ever advocated for a policy of using force for vaguely defined objectives?

Has anyone ever said nation building should be the main purpose of US policy? In fact, Mr Neocon himself W said in 2000 basically the same thing Palin just did.

Here’s W from the 2000 debate:
I mean we’re going to have kind of a
nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is
meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do and when it
gets overextended, morale drops.

and from the same debate:

BUSH: Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.

Here’s Palin:
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

Pretty much 100% the exact same thing, using many of the same words.

Here’s W from 2000:
But I’m going to
be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our
vital interest. The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy
obvious.

Here’s Palin:
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Again, pretty much 100% the exact same thing even using many of the same words.

Also, she talked about US troops under foreign command. Is that from Ron Paul? Does anyone supoport US troops under foreign command? Has any democrat ever ran on that? No one supports that. It’s not controversial or isolationist in the least.

Moreover, her 5 points she listed were basically the exact same 5 listed by that well known isolationist and Ron Paul follower Caspar Weinberger who was none other than the SecDef for that other well known isolationist Ronald Reagan. Weinberger listed his 6 criteria for using force in Nov 1984 right after REagan won a landslisde victory and it’s safe to assume he spoke for the President. His 6 were virtually the same as Palin’s 5. In fact, it’s probably fair to say she simply reiterated his list rather than came up with some epiphany on her own. Google Weinberger Doctrine and you’ll see the connection.

So she basically said something that echoed 100% what W said in 2000 and what Reagan’s SecDef said in 1984 and now she’s Ron Paul? Please.

Then she mentioned her parting ways with former advisers who were “neoconservatives”. Well, who did she bring on board? Peter Schweizer. Who’s he? Obviously a former Ron Paul staffer, right? No. He’s affiliated with that well-known isolationist think tank the Hoover Institution and perhaps best known for a book called Reagan’s War(subsequently turned into a documentary) that details Reagan’s life strong struggle against Communism and the USSR and how he used his Presidency to finally bring the USSR down. Sounds like an isolationist to me.

Other books include Victory: The Reagan Administration’s secret strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Bushes: A dynasty. Sounds like a real Paul-ite to me. He also wrote a book called The Next War in 1998. It talked about potential future wars the US may be involved in. His co-author was Cap Weinberger. Guess who wrote the introduction? Some woman from England with the initials MT, not a bad prson to have write your introduction. (Given this guy’s ties with Weinberger it’s now beyond obvious where many of those 5 points came from).

So she bring in a guy who is best known for writing about Reagan’s anti-communist policies and how he went after the USSR. A book that received praise on its back cover from Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Caspar Weinberger and Newt Gingrich. Isolationists all. In fact, Newt’s blurbs says “If you want to know how to win the war against Islamic extremists...read this book”. And she just hired the author to advise her.

This post by Rubin was totally off the wall. She’s usually pretty good but in this case she just really messed up. The facts are plain for anyone to see. Gov Palin has never been isolationist or with Ron Paul on foreign policy. In fact, Rand Paul even mentions in his book that she had two questions of him before she would endorse him. 1)Was he pro-life? 2)Did he support Israel? Doesn’t sound very isolationist to me.

She just listed 5 points for military force that were straight from the Reagan administration’s official policy. She just hired a guy as an important adviser who is involved with a number of conservative think tanks including the well known Hoover Institution(a veritable alumni club for the Reagan administration, and the Bush and Thatcher teams as well), who had a close relationship with Reagan’s SecDef, and who wrote a rather hagiographic book and later made a documentary about Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy and how he was able to defeat the USSR and win the Cold War. Just sub in the war against Jihadists for the Cold War and you can see the connection.

Any thinking person would not draw the conclusions Rubin has. In fact, they’d raw the opposite.