she unlike Obama called for it for one reason and one reason only to kill the American murderer. the two policies could not be more different
Doesn’t seem to smart to help a large group of our enemies take control of Libya just to kill qdaffy.
The issue only came up because the europeans for some reason seem to want qdaffy out. I wonder, do the euros want qdaffy out because the revolutionary groups, i.e., muslim brotherhood, al-kada, etc., want to take over Libya (mb has large influence in u.k.), or did qdaffy say he would not sell euros oil ? At one point qdaffy did threaten to sell his oil to China and Russia.
Killing qdaffy should not trump all other American mideast policy.
She did? Uh. I'm not sure how you square that with her words - quoted from the Facebook entry just above...
"NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya."And, from Barry's own statement...
"Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians."
Now, how are those two "policies" different, again?
If the end result of either Palin's or Obama's position puts Al Qaeda in charge, what difference will it make why they held the position?