Posted on 05/03/2011 8:24:13 AM PDT by Hawk720
Sarah Palin has parted ways with the neoconservative foreign policy advisers who had been writing speeches and advising her on policy since she joined the McCain campaign.
An aide to Palin, Tim Crawford, confirmed that Orion Strategies' Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb are no longer working for her PAC. They parted, both sides said on good terms.
"Randy flat out said, 'We can't give you the time,'" Crawford said.
(snip)
Crawford said they've been replaced by Peter Schweizer, a writer and fellow at the Hoover Institution who blogs regularly at Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace.
The personnel shift carries an ideological charge. Scheunemann, the former executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, is a longtime neoconservative stalwart, as is Goldfarb, a former reporter and protege of Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They crafted for Palin a policy platform and voice reflecting an eagerness to use American force. The pair, who helped Palin with press and debate prep in 2008, were also something of Palin's last link to Washington's political establishment.
But Palin parted ways with that aggressive internationalism in a speech yesterday, condemning U.S. involvement in Libya and laying out a more cautious philosophy of the use of force. Schweizer has articulated a more skeptical view of the use of American force and promotion of democracy abroad.
"Egypt does a lot of things wrong, but they have also been pro-American on a lot of levels," he wrote of Obama's support for protesters in Egypt -- which was being roundly criticized by neoconservatives for being insufficiently vigorous. "When protests broke out in Iran earlier during his tenure in the White House, Obama was not willing to openly back them, at least until he came under considerable fire. But now he is supporting them in Egypt?"
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
No i don’t think most people are anti-isreal and antijewish and you will never hear Palin tlaking about 9/11 being the pushback for American foreign policy.
Yuo can keep Ron Paul the crank.
Ignoring your fallacious straw man argument entirely, I would love to hear how you made the leap of logic that putting boots on the ground in Libya is the same as capturing or killing the world's most wanted terrorist in Pakistan.
Please, I'm all ears. Was Muammar Gaddafi on the US most wanted list for the better part of two decades? Did the US Congress authorize the use of force against Muammar Gaddafi like they did against Osama bin Laden?
Are these thing unimportant to you - and apparently to Sarah Palin, I guess?
A return to Reagan foreign policy.
Good news. She at first reflexively bashed Obama for not taking action and establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. I’m glad to see she’s recovered from that error and though I hope she won’t go all Ron Paul on us, I believe there’s still room for her to bring home a more modest military ambition.
Sound a lot like Mr. Ralph Peters:
"When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell! (Do – don’t talk!) ). This is war, not law enforcement."
Let's get it done...and get out.
Like Al B. told me earlier,
“Peter Schweizer on her team is HUGE. Looks like the true Reaganites are starting to coalesce around her. Big, big, BIG.”
************************
Indeed it is, Onyx. That massive rumbling sound that feels like an emerging earthquake? It is the conservative engine being turned over for the first time in over twenty two years.
Americans will no longer remain silent. Puke propaganda duped our nation. They contravene US interests, keep taxpayers in servitude and undermine US ntl security.
In any other nation this would be tantamount to treason with swift and sure penalties launched at Mach One speed.
Here in the US they are a protected class.
Oh well---one consolation might be that they invested w/ Madoff. ROTFL.
Yeah ;-)
This is precisely why I trust her completely. Her judgement will be crucial when picking the 'best' to lead us out of the sewer we are in.
We have to consider that the pukes are going into hiding-—and will resurface later.
They’re like the ghouls in Night of the Living Dead-—beat ‘em back and they keep on coming-—looking for new flesh to gnaw on.
I listened to the interview, and it seemed pretty clear to me that she was not happy with saying “boots on the ground”. She had just been asked about Obama, with a suggestion he might send troops into libya, and about a no-fly zone. She was for a no-fly-zone, but didn’t like the idea of sending our troops there. She did think Ghadaffi had to go.
So, on March 8th I’d put her in the camp of supporting the UN-approved no-fly-zone, plus the Obama-announced goal of removing Ghadaffi, but against putting troops on the ground to achieve that goal.
A little later, she also says we should have spoken more forcefully to Ghadaffi, used strong words; and that once you use strong words, you need to back that up.
The only thing she didn’t explain was what we have been asking ever since — how do you get Ghadaffi out simply by telling him to leave (forcefully) and implementing a no-fly-zone.
It seems clear that the no-fly-zone, which the UN authorized only to protect civilians, is a bad tool for getting rid of the leader of a country. That’s why those who believe Ghadaffi should go are arguing Obama has to do more, including possibly sending in ground troops.
Others think it’s stupid for the United States to have a policy of forcing Ghadaffi out. Their argument is that nothing changed in the past two months except the muslim brotherhood decided they wanted to push a more islamist state in libya, and remove a guy who has been helping stop Al Qaeda. Ghadaffi two months ago was seen as an ally in the war on terror, which doesn’t make him good.
But he made no threats against our country or our people, or the countries around him. He had an internal matter with his own people, and a lot of conservatives don’t think U.S. military power and money should be used simply to affect regime change or pick winners in a civil war, especially when the other side isn’t our friend.
So if I was to fault Sarah, it wouldn’t be for “boots on the ground” which I think she clearly opposed, but for her belief that Ghadaffi “had” to go, that this was a legitimate purpose of the United States, and that it could be acheived by harsh talk and a no-fly-zone.
BTTT
I concur!
Be.
Still.
My.
Heart.
She hasn’t missed a single foundational principle of what should be United States foreign policy.
Colonel, USAFR
btw...thank you for the continued pings.
did the US Congress authorize Reagan’s bombing in 1986?
The 1986 United States bombing of Libya, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, comprised the joint United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The attack was carried out in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing.
As far as a “strawman argument” Palin has called for his removal. As the beginning and the end of military action in Libya Next to OBL Gaddafi is one of the biggest American murderers in the world. With mor ethan 300+ American souls on his hands.
So yes i would place him as one of america’s most wanted.
Who fired who. This reads like it wasn't her idea to boot the NeoCons.....
Thank you for your insight! But for the PDSers around it won’t matter
You think she clearly opposed it? Clearly? Really?
I watched it about a dozen times. When I hear someone utter the phrase - "I hate to say it...", I usually take that to mean that even though they hate it, they're still saying it. That's what that phrase means to me. I guess it could mean something else to other people.
Be that as it may, while I won't concede that she's saying clearly "no boots on the ground", I will concede that she's such a poor extemporaneous speaker that suffers badly from stumbled locutions, it's possible that she was trying to say she didn't support "boots on the ground", although I don't personally think that she was.
To me, she's saying that Ghadaffi has to go sooner rather than later, and if it takes American service men on the ground, then so be it - even though she'd "hate" it.
If nothing else, this is another demonstration of the remarkable imprecise manner in which Sarah Palin extemporaneously communicates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.