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 ...
Palin also said in the same interview that the rebels would probably kill Qadaffi.
However, here is the relevant excerpt...
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: What would you say or what would you like to see as the mission, the mission statement, so that we can work, you know, from there? What should we be doing?She says a lot of things there, but she says absolutely nothing about the direct question she was asked - "What should we do?"SARAH PALIN: Well, Qaddafi has the blood of innocent Americans on his hands. As we understand it, he's sanctioning the killing of so many Americans with the Lockerbie bombing, and he needs to be held accountable for that. So what happened all those years ago, well, now is our opportunity to make sure that he is held accountable.
So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion.
I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government, choose their own leader. And America, no nation building. We get out. We take care of our affairs elsewhere.
What would President Palin do on Libya, and where can I find that statement?
If she had not, she could have said "now that Obama has committed to the removal of Gadaffi we must save out credibility and do it. Or Obama's mission will be consider a failure and a defeat for the USA"
What is that quote from? It's not from the page linked.
She needs to fire McCain as her foreign policy advisor.
Actually there is an international agreement making it illegal to target the head of state from any country.
Do you think the coalition should go further than a no-fly zone against Libya?
23.2% Yes, we should take all measures necessary to oust Qaddafi
56.3% No, Libya is not a strategic interest and we shouldn’t be there at all, it’s a civil war
17.41% Maybe, I’m willing to do anything but boots on the ground
3.09% Don’t know. Qaddafi is a renegade puppet. Let’s put him back in place and use him to our advantage
“What is that quote from? It’s not from the page linked.”
Sorry - I thought I had included it.
http://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya
“What is that quote from? It’s not from the page linked.”
Sorry - I thought I had included it.
http://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya
“What is that quote from? It’s not from the page linked.”
Sorry - I thought I had included it.
http://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya
Palin said that she would fight to win. That’s enough.
Plus there's that pesky Constitution thing that I insist still matters a lot. But that's just me.
When Palin suggested the NFZ, the rebels had an intact military force. Aerial intervention at that point would have leveraged rebel ground strength.
But weeks of dithering by the Golfer-in-chief allowed Ghadaffi’s airpower to decisively alter the balance of force on the ground.
Ghadaffi’s planes are now grounded - but that doesn’t mean that the rebel soldiers get to rise from the dead.
What does that mean "fight to win"? Does that include ground troops? If so, how many? And, would President Palin insert these ground troops without additional UN Security Council resolutions, and without any further support from the Arab League
That’s enough.
It's mindless sentiments like yours that get us into unending military campaigns.
[Right. Neither do I. How do you square that with “Gaddafi must go”. How does she suggest that happen? ]
Here’s the problem for Republicans - none of our candidates would be in this position. They would either have moved quickly with congressional involvement), or they wouldn’t have been involved. Trying to get Palin or anyone else to say something cogent about a FUBAR situation is pretty difficult.
Yes Gaddafi must go, about twenty years ago. No, NATO can’t run anything but a squirrel factory. If you were going to war, Gadaffi should have been taken out the first week. And no, if Muhbarack hadn’t been tossed under the bus, you probably wouuldn’t have a Libyan revolt.
Re-engineering Obama’s incompetence is doomed to failure. Same reason Obamacare has to go.
Fighting to win means being there for at least as long as we were in Iraq, if not longer.
Why don’t you wait and find out.
And, be it noted that once we’ve committed our military to something Sarah will not be one to ‘down’ the mission. She cannot control what Obama is doing, but I don’t believe that she’s the type who will speak against something our troops have been committed to BY BARACK OBAMA. So, perhaps your criticism is best pointed at Barry.
Terrific post.
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.