Replies

there is a lack of that “decision making” process that goes with the Presidency. (Sorry Sarah...just my opinion)....Sacajaweau

Let’s look at a current foreign policy matter, Libya. On Feb. 22nd the rebels were gaining and Ghaddafy was threatening to use his air force against them. On Feb 22nd, Gov. Palin reacted to the rebellion in Libya by saying that Ghaddafy needed to be replaced and that the people of Libya needed protection from his thuggery and aerial assault by imposition of a no-fly zone by NATO. ...excopconservative

Repalced by whom?

Does she know?

In 2008, Sarah Palin did not even know what the al Sadr militia was:

"Palin couldn't explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations. ..... Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank. Later, on the plane, Palin said to her team: 'I wish I'd paid more attention to this stuff'."

On Drudge, her comments about the No-Fly Zone are being hyped as "The Palin Doctrine".

A No-Fly Zone is not a "Doctrine". It is merely a single tool in the military arsenal which was used by George H. W. Bush, by George W. Bush prior to 9/11 and even embraced by Bill Clinton as a fig leaf that he was actually doing something about Saddam Hussein during his entire 8 years in office.

To describe the mere mention of the No-Fly Zone tool as a "Doctrine" is analogous to labeling a surgical operation "The Smith Procedure" because Dr. Smith suggested starting the operation by cutting the patient's skin with a scalpel.

The term "Doctrine" means "A principle or body of principles". The term "Procedure" means "A series of steps taken to accomplish an end".

The use of those terms implies a coherent series of principles and steps that say, "In situations such as X, we will use the tools at our disposal to accomplish Y goal because of Z reasons"

Neither one of those terms just simply means "Let's use Tool X."

"Okay, (Doctor/Governor), after using the (scalpel to cut the skin/No-Fly Zone in Libya), then what? Why are we entering (the patient's abdomen/Libya) in the first place? Why are we doing it at all? What, exactly, are we hoping to accomplish and why? What are the stakes involved if we succeed or fail or stay out of (the patient's abdomen/Libya) altogether? What, exactly, are the issues and potential problems involved? What are we doing beyond that first step? "

In regards to the idea of a No-Fly Zone in Lybia which Palin mentioned on Hannity on 23 February, if such a thing is going to be inaccurately called a "Doctrine", it should be called the "Ibrahim Dabbashi Doctrine".

Ibrahim Dabbashi was the Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to UN and he called for the implementation of the No-Fly Zone on 21 February, two days before Palin repeated his suggestion:

Monday, 21 February 2011 20:06 ...... "We are calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."

What this means is that Sarah Palin, or at least one of her staffers, was actually bothering to read the daily news in regards to foreign affairs before that Hannity interview. This, at least, is a great improvement in comparison to 2008:

"Palin couldn't explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations. ..... Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank. Later, on the plane, Palin said to her team: 'I wish I'd paid more attention to this stuff'."

Unfortunately, that did not appear to be the case before her Christian Broadcasting Network interview.

When asked by David Brody, "What would YOU have DONE DIFFERENTLY in the Egyptian Crisis?", here is Sarah Palin's evasive, rambling answer that TOTALLY dodged the question, "What YOU would have DONE DIFFERENTLY in the Egyptian Crisis?":

“It’s a difficult situation, this is that 3 AM White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House it it seems that that call went right to um the answering machine. And nobody yet has, no body yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I’m not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from DC in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet."

If you can find a "Palin Doctrine" in there somewhere and can explain what Sarah Palin would have "done differently" in regards to Egypt, feel free to point it out.

All I see is an unprepared politician totally blind-sided by a simple, softball question tossed by a friendly interviewer. All I see is that politician furiously tap-dancing to avoid actually answering the question of what she would have "done differently". All I see is a politician killing time until the interviewer says, "Thank you. Next question ...."

That is not a politician articulating a "Doctrine". That is just Obama without a TelePrompter. That is just an "Empty Suit".

You want an example of somebody who was NOT an "Empty Suit"?

Here he is:

From 1975 to 1979 Ronald Reagan gave more than 1,000 daily radio broadcasts, the great majority of which he wrote himself. .... These addresses .... revise our understanding of the late 1970s - a time when Reagan held no political office, but was nonetheless mapping out a strategy to transform the economy, end the Cold War, and create a vision of America that would propel him to the presidency. These radio programs demonstrate that Reagan had carefully considered nearly every issue he would face as president.

Who are you working overtime for, really? Fess up. Mitt or Huck?

Listening to her disjointed syntax and slangy speech is one of the reasons people find her “nails on a chalkboard” irritating. She also won’t do much of anything to shore up her weaks points. She is intellectually lazy. Furthermore, the Zero himself is proof that there are plenty of sheeple around just dying to slobber over some cute “dear leader” figure. Our side has its share of them too.