Posted on 08/30/2013 5:40:17 PM PDT by American Dream 246
Full Title: Sarah Palin obliterates Obama on Syria: “President Obama’s advertised war plan isn’t about protecting civilians”
This is Sarah Palin at her best, taking Obama’s plan to bomb Syria apart piece by piece and obliterating it:
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin
* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”
* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.
* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
- Sarah Palin
I think Republicans have so ruined their reputation with liberarians types and true constitutional conservatives that they will never win again, unless they change.
We need a new party.
I believe if we had some real leaders out front and organized NOW we could steamroller the liberals. People are fed up, they just don’t have a choice.
“You want to intervene in every little conflict and play World Cop when the overwhelming majority opposes it.”
That’s the only way you can make your argument look reasonable by comparison is to accuse non isolationists as wanting all wars, all the time.
Find quotes from me stating my support sending US troops for Bosnia, Africa, Egypt, Libya and other non-strategic and civil war conflicts.
You typify the reason I would never call myself a Libertarian. Like the “Lib” part of your ideology, you are a utopian who has no firm grasp on reality.
I thought I was on the ping list, but I haven’t received any pings for quite a while.
Please include me.
Sarah gets it! Again . . . How does Cruz/Palin 2016 sound?
Gasp! I am sorry eCSMaster
I didn't know, I shall add you right away.
Sarah has always been worth supporting. I make it a point to send her gas money for her bus regularly.
BBBBTTT
Big, Bad, Beautiful Bump To The Top.
“People are tired of war.”
Not the arabs and islamofascists.
” >>This is why there’s a huge libertarian drug-addled, baby-killing, packer/muncher movement going on this country... “
That’s why Bill Maher said he’s a libertarian.
“While Zer0 is wagging the dog, Iran is getting ready to mount a Super-EMP nuclear warhead on their fourth-generation Fateh 110 missile destined for launch over the eastern U.S.A. Lights out Zer0!”
but some here will still call for congressional authorization to deal with that missile...after Congress has a BBQ of course!
You show me a packer, and I'll show you a pederast.
Soooo, I guess you missed the baby-killing, boy-raping part...
Or were you planning to defend that?
It appears that Palin is more and more separating herself from McCain. I say go Sarah.
Please put me on your ping list. Thanks!
“Soooo, I guess you missed the baby-killing, boy-raping part...Or were you planning to defend that?”
Uhhh, I’m not a member of the LP. And I don’t consider myself a libertarian, either. While I’m sympathetic to many of their views, particularly on guns and reduction of the size of government, their party’s official insistence in supporting infanticide is a nonstarter for me.
That said, there is a sizable minority of Libertarians within the LP who are pro-life. And I suspect that the majority of those who identify themselves as libertarian but who choose to not join the LP would cite infanticide as an underlying reason. Here is a link should you wish to further educate yourself: http://www.l4l.org/
I’d rather not.
Just like the pro-life democrats. Maybe they should differentiate themselves as pro-life or small "l" libertarians, otherwise they'll be labeled as such.
Of course that still leaves the "drug addled and boy-raping" position intact. Why would anyone want to create civil rights for the "gay death-style" child molesters?
“Maybe they should differentiate themselves as pro-life or small “l” libertarians, otherwise they’ll be labeled as such.”
They do. Most libertarians on this website are very much of the small letter persuasion.
“Of course that still leaves the “drug addled and boy-raping” position intact. Why would anyone want to create civil rights for the “gay death-style” child molesters?”
Well, let’s start with “drug addled.” Not a big issue for me: I don’t use illicit drugs. I’ve never viewed it as the government’s function to prevent people from engaging in their own folly. If people want to drink a bottle of drain cleaner, then I don’t think the government’s responsibility to stop them from doing so. Perhaps they should tell them it’s a really stupid idea, but it isn’t a law enforcement issue in my view.
The more sinister aspect of drug prohibition is the excuse that it gives the government to engage in all sorts of liberty destroying actions. Like smashing down doors, seizing assets, intrusive monitoring, killing family pets, etc. All in all I favor legalization at the Federal level not because I’m all that in favor of legalization per se, but because I view it as a state’s rights question. And it removes some of the incentive/excuse for law enforcement to act in an egregious manner.
As for “boy raping”, I’m not aware of any political party that is advocating that. So I assume that what you’re talking about homosexuality. Again, it’s not something that is all that big of an issue for me: I’m not homosexual. I disagree with the push to normalize so-called gay “marriage” but have repeatedly noted that the problem, in addition to moral rot, is that Christians have anything to do with the state licensed marriage scheme. A state issued license is NOT required to be married in the religious sense. I think that Christians will do better to simply reject state licensed marriages and let the state license scheme wither away.
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.