Posted on 03/24/2011 8:07:45 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
On Fox Wednesday night, Sarah Palin said U.S. intervention in Libya will be a failure if Muammar Gaddafi remains in power.
"America will have failed if we turn over command-and-control of this mission, and the mission of ousting Gaddafi is not fulfilled.
It will be failure."
video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.thehill.com ...
Actually, she specifically does not come out and say she supports sending in ground troops to do so. She does say that ol’ duckbreath needs to go, I’ll grant, but she stops short of saying that she’d commit troops to do that beyond a no-fly zone.
Contrast to Obama who specifically said that the mission statement was to remove Quaddafi, before he said otherwise.
I agree. But my fear is that during the GOP primaries when the debates are on and this issue comes up those GOP candidates who have been well ahead of Palin in the intelligence collecting department on this issue will most likely be reminding her that she was with Obama.
Yes, I do. She has said who they are. I met one of them.
That is why you always resort to name calling.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I call you "the ex-wife troll" because you admitted you were somebody's ex-wife, which is exactly the breed of nag you act like, and you are an anti-Palin troll who shows up every pro-Palin thread to attack her.
So here’s one for you. You are a no nothing apologist dope.
No dope is involved. I do not apologize for being an apologist (that's called humor) for Gov Sarah Palin; she is a good Christian, conservative, Constitutionalist leader whose values comport with my own.
I only hit "Abuse" on you for your physical threats and constant harassment on another thread. You know you were in the wrong.
Um, I don't think it is. In the interview from which this title is derived, Palin says this...
" Well, the U.N. obviously wants this -- the role to be of our military just a humanitarian effort per the U.N. resolution that America has been a part of and that's why we are engaged in enacting the no-fly zone. However, again, with Qaddafi having the blood of innocent Americans on his hands -- and we have an opportunity to say, OK, finally, we have -- you're going to be held accountable. You're going to be gone."emphasis added
If you don't think that squares perfectly with "Gaddafi must go" as a title, then English may not be your first language. Just saying.
You taking the ex-wife nag troll's side, eh? There was no quote, jerk. It was my opinion. But trolls like you have negative signal-to-noise ratio, anyway.
I don't know how anyone could read this statement...
"Certainly a no fly zone," Palin said. "I hate to say, jeez, more troops on the ground. You know send more of our brave young men and women over there in Libya. When yes, 41 years of Gadhafi. He’s got to go."
And not accurately read it as (at least) an implication of support for ground troops, and given the context of the statement, an explicit call of support for ground troops. She says, "I hate to say..more ground troops..", and then goes onto call for a result that would absolutely require ground troops.
Your fear may indeed be justified, but when that comes up in the debates she should let the record show a) she was out in front of Obama on the decision to implement a NFZ, b) Obama dithered on whether Qadaffi had to go, and c) Obama isn't "in it to win it" unlike Palin would be.
So there is definitely distance between their position.
You are simply reading more into than she says, in order to fit your preconceived notions.
What you conjecture may indeed be her position, but the quotes you are relying on don’t support you to the extent you are trying to portray them.
The point about who we would find ourselves working with is well taken.
Nevertheless - if the aim is to remove Ghadaffi, then the time to impose a NFZ was then. A NFZ at that stage would have allowed the dubious rebels to depose Ghadaffi without any more work from us. Then we could have dealt with (made deals with) the winners.
But now: removing Ghadaffi requires a NFZ, a NTZ (no Tank zone) and boots on the ground - OR it requires my favoured strategy, a NGZ: (No-Ghadaffi Zone). The whole job just got MUCH tougher, thanks to Bambi.
And as another poster has pointed out, this whole problem might never have come about if Obama hadn’t left Mubarak twisting in the wind - or (better) if he had helped the Iranian revolutionaries.
Decision is a huge factor in war and politics. Even when Obama’s intentions aren’t actually evil, his aims are confused and dilatory and make everything worse. That at least is a mistake that Palin won’t make.
ML/NJ
Would you please tell us what "in it to win it" means, as it's said by Sarah Palin?
How many troops does that take? How much money would that cost? Should Congress have to approve that?
You know, the little things.
Very well stated, your #109.
To the extent that's true, Sarah Palin has only herself to blame. As I said in an earlier post to someone else, she had ample opportunity last night to give some specificity or clarification to her earlier statement(s). She didn't.
That last part is true enough.... but the question remains: since when is the present intervention in Libya about ousting Qadaffi? The "mission" such as it is, is to enforce a cease fire. The details of such a policy are, of course, quite muddled. But "regime change" is definitely not among the stated goals of this action.
The mistake being made by some commenting on this thread is conflating separate statements and comments Palin has made into a policy position she has never actually put out there.
Apparently Palin disagrees with you: as far as her tangled syntax can be deciphered, she's staking out a pretty clear policy position -- albeit one that is characteristically short on details.
What's more interesting to me, though, is how Palin's supporters are still unwilling to accept critical analyses of what she says.
She is saying things publicly; she has pretensions of running for president. What she says, deserves dissection. If she can't be bothered to make herself clear, or if she says dumb things, then that's news.
I give GWB credit for getting Congress behind him before he committed to Iraq. He also went the the UN & Nato before he did anything.
Palin comes across from the very convenient position of “Armchair Quarterback”. From a military standpoint, it is not even close to being that simple. Which is why one of the requirements to being Commander in Chief, should be prior Military service.
Post my physical threats right here, right now weasel.
Lets see them so we can all see you for the unChristian liar you really are.
It speaks to intentions before logistics. It speaks to commitment. It's about counting the cost beforehand, not dithering once you've launched a few Tomahawk missiles.
You're a Christian, right? You know the story Jesus told about the man who went to build a tower, but didn't have the wherewithal to finish?
That's NOT the way we should plan any military action. Our leaders should count the cost BEFOREHAND, and lay it out to the American people. We want to see clearly defined objectives, with measurable results, and a true exit strategy.
For example, enforce a no-fly-zone and protect the rebels until they did the work to oust Qadaffi, then support those rebel factions who weren't al-Qaeda or Iran-influenced (there have got to be some) so that they form a new government, not the whack jobs. Go in, do the job, shake hands with the winners we pick, tell them we will buy their oil, and get out.
I'm not saying that's exactly the way it would go. I think that's close to what Palin has in mind. Whether that's actually it, who knows. But she is clearly trying to advocate counting the cost before we go in, not dither like Obama once the missiles hit their targets.
Best case scenario is, if Obama does decide to not go any further and all returns back to it was without Gadaffi now trying to get revenge against us.
Worst case, Gadaffi falls and Al Qaeda takes over Libya and we have to go in (which we will have to)and we’re in the middle of an Iraqi like war in Libya (probably by ourselves this time) in the middle of the GOP Primaries. Those other candidates want to be President too and if they have something to say that will hurt Palin, they will do it.
Even worse, Gadaffi falls Al Qaeda takes over Libya and Obama does nothing.
(I just feel we need to save our resources - for Iran or North Korea)
Go back and read them for yourself, ex-wife troll. You wrote them. Do you make your hen-pecked hubby do everything for you, too?
Since there is nothing. You are a liar. That makes every word you utter a lie.
I can easily understand why you have an ex wife. Women hate unprincipled liars.
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.