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 ...
Nope.
I think that Palin was more specific, that winning in this case means getting rid of Ghaddafi, and getting out.
Wait and find out? From whom? Sarah Palin just had a lengthy, sit-down interview. It seems that she an ample opportunity to speak specifically about this Libyan endeavor, and endeavor that she WHOLEHEARTEDLY endorsed LONG before there was even a UN Security Council resolution.
"She cannot control what Obama is doing.."
I don't think anyone is asking her to control "what Obama is doing". At least, I'm sure not. What I am asking is for someone to point me to a statement - either written or spoken - from Sarah Palin that articulates what her policy on Libya would be.
Does she think Congress should have to give approval? If so, why didn't she say that when she first called for the imposition of a No-fly zone? And, if not, then why not?
What price would President Palin pay to remove Moamar from power?
Only now since we started bombing Libya. At least before Gadaffi had the upper hand over them and was not at war with us. Since then, We made Gadaffi weaker and he's now a mad at the US.
If Gadaffi succeeds with a terrorist attack against the US or he falls and Al Qaeda takes over Libya there will most likely be a GOP candidate reminding Sarah Palin that she supported Obama's involvement that resulted in the turmoil.
Palin may toast. She should fire her advisors now and replace them.
Henry just said on Greta’s show the other night that he is not for any intervention in Libya. He said was of very low importance and a strain on US troops that may be needed for something far greater.
Typical response from you. I would expect nothing else. Instead of defending or criticizing Palin’s words, you attack the person who POSTED Palin’s own words.
I’ll remind you of FR posting policy...
“Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.”
Is that simple enough for you?
Come on, dude. You’re just doing a Palin hit piece.
Did you address my statement that Sarah will not ‘down’ a mission that troops have already been committed to? No. She’s NOT Biden or Reid.
I’m sure she’ll take care of the rest of it on the campaign trail. What’s Mitt or Huck got to say about this? Anyone know?
She has said that if you start something like this(On either a different interview or at a different point in this one)you are "in it to win it" else you get your tail out.
She has not said we should put boots on the ground, nor is she saying we should flatten Libya, she is saying Bozo is a terribly weak leader, especially if, after having started this thing, he hands over leadership to other countries.
I suggest you take a course in comprehension of the English language.
McCain isn't her advisor. She makes up her own mind, ex-wife troll.
Right on. THAT is what she said.
Then what?
Statement falls right in line with it is time to elect ovaries, not ready for prime time.
There it is - you win the award for the first to say "Palin hit piece".
One more time. Sarah Palin was the first potential candidate to call for the implementation of a no-fly zone. She's on record, several times, that Qadaffi must go.
How must Qadaffi go? When must he be gone? Who's going to do the "getting"? And, how will that "getting" be done?
"I’m sure she’ll take care of the rest of it on the campaign trail."
That's convenient. After this is all over, she'll tell us exactly what should have been done. I agree, that's EXACTLY when she'll talk about it.
Thanks for the information. It’s a legalism which seems to be avoided on the ground by a form of words.
For instance: when a Tomahawk is fired it’s launched at “Ghadaffi’s command center”.
Wherever Ghadaffi is, that is also where Ghadaffi’s command center is, so I can see how he might end up as collateral damage.
So we should go with testicles who’ll go along with the resticles?
That is what we were supposed to do in Iraq. We have been there since 2003.You can't just kill the leader and leave if there is no form of government that you can safely rely on. Does Palin know who she would be working with? Does she know who the rebels are? Nobody else seems to know. They seen to think it is Al Qeada.
Deep down, you KNOW that Sarah Palin is exactly right when she says that Qadaffi has innocent American blood on his hands. She says if we are going in, we should be "in it to win it", and Qadaffi being gone is part of that. What is wrong with that? Reagan believed the same. She said she also thought the Libyan rebels would kill Qadaffi, taking the question of what to do with him off the table. So all America is left with is dealing with whomever replaces Qadaffi.
Her foreign policy stance is certainly more about America's interests than Obama's is.
Keep up the sexual references, pal. Your buddy pissant got zotted for his potty mouth on Palin, too.
No Palin supporter on this thread supports her just because she has "ovaries", and you know it.
Those rebels are extremists and believed to be supported by Al Qaeda.
How can we fight Al Qaeda in some countries while acting as their airforce in another?
Our soldiers died fighting them. They went to Iraq from Libya and now back in Libya. American blood is most likely on their hands. Their group is directly responsible for September 11th. How can anybody suggest that we now fight with them and for them?
Don't you think it's strange that all a sudden in these Muslim countries the "civilians" are suddenly getting brave against their dictators? I mean, one country I can see. But all the pro-American (relatively speaking) anti-Al Qaeda dictatorships like Egypt, Lybia, Yemen...this is orchestrated.
You have no clue who her advisors are you fool. Are you in her head? I don’t think so. That is why you always resort to name calling.
So here’s one for you. You are a no nothing apologist dope.
Now run off and blubber to the mods before your diaper gets too wet.
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.