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 ...
The article title is misleading but you probably knew that.
I beg your pardon then.
I watched the video at the link
Good heavens, what a mess of a statement.
_________________________________________
Which is exactly why she would have been smart to just shut up about it. But...
That's a fair statement.
Rush: “The French have finally found somebody they can beat up on.”
- JP
It matters not. You are propagating a lie: that Palin supporters support her because of her sex. I have not found that to be true, and it is CERTAINLY not true in my case.
In my faith community, women generally stay home and raise a family. Many of my fellow believers say Palin should, too. However, I believe Palin to be one of those women who is gifted for leadership -- gifted by God, if you like, the source of everyone's gifts -- and I support her because I think she is an effective leader who wants to return us to a path back toward a Constitutional republic.
A twitter message on that is in work. With a facebook post to follow, providing additional detail.
Palin lives in 0bambi’s mind, rent free!
Now that SOMEONE has stated a mission objective, and what constitutes failure, 0bambi is on the hook! LOL!
... but you couldn't resist putting your oar in, could you?
Palin can comment without having special classified information just like any other commentator. Saying she should "shut up" because she doesn't have special inside information has to apply to EVERY OTHER PUNDIT AND COMMENTATOR, or else you are making a special standard that applies only to Palin. Which I believe you are anyway, with your documented history of trashing her on FR.
I would agree that we needed more intel before we started doing sorties for people we had not yet positively identified as friend or foe and is believed to be Al Qaeda.
Yes would agree most definitely
Still did not read the thread did you, stable the attack dogs and try it, you might learn something.
Then take that up with the Commander-in-Chief. As much as I want it to be, it isn't Sarah Palin. It's Barack Hussein Obama, mmm-mmm-mmm.
Since the President of the United States said it was, before he changed his mind.
The point being: if you are going to put troops in harm's way, it must be for a specified objective. To say that the mission is one thing, and then to backtrack on it days (or even hours) later is a tremendous disservice to those putting their butts on the line. It's one thing to change the scope of the mission based on serious deliberation and reflection on any changes in the situation, it's quite another to say "oops, never mind".
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. She advocated for a no-fly-zone as humanitarian support for the rebels -- certainly a position that can be (and has been) argued about in its own right. However, her comments about "in it to win it" are not necessarily indicative of any policy position that says she would have ordered troops in to remove Quadaffi (pick a spelling, any spelling) in the first place, but rather that if the POTUS makes that a "go" mission that he then follows through with seeing that the mission be completed.
Now, it's quite possible that Palin may indeed believe that committing troops to remove Quadaffi is the right thing to do. But if so, it's not a position she has stated or advocated for in public, and anyone who suggests that she has is making a logical leap without foundation.
Give me a link to a thread and I will read it. I will ACTUALLY read it, which is more than you do for my comments.
No, I'm actually arguing that we not do sorties for those suspected of being supported by Al Qaeda before we know who they really are.
Actually, it is exactly something that she has publicly stated, and a Freeper has provided a link to that statement in post #75, of this very thread.
We have no business being over in Libya bashing heads of people who hate us just to end up with people who hate us even worse in power. Libya is a sovereign country who poses no threat and laid down its weapons of mass destruction. That ought to count for something.””
That’s pretty much the bottom line after kissing and making up with this guy. We walked away from Iranian internal strife and refused to deal with potentially the world’s biggest terrorist who has made no secret of his intentions.
Q is a cold-blooded murderer, but that hardly distinguishes him in that part of the world. The options (assuming his removal) aren’t all that attractive.
Too much easier to talk crap I guess.
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.