I note that she says ‘if we turn over command and control of this mission’. I see nothing about ground troops.
Palin is full of crap on this one. Foolish statement. But this could mean she is running and looking at it from an establishment standpoint. Dunno.
I wonder how the libs feel that Obama’s on the same side as Palin
The title reads like she support the mission. Maybe she does, but here she’s simply stating a fact.
The American President said Qadaffi must go. Anything but complete removal from power will be an American failure.
The opposition had momentum and Obama dithered because he does not want to take responsibility for anything, he wants wiggle room!
This is not American leadership. When the American President says you have have to go, you have to go! his words, his words, HIS WORDS!
Mrs. Palin, I’m voting for you anyway, but this Libya issue is a no win scenarion.
It’s Gadaffi vs. al-Qaeda. Whoever wins means we lose.
It would be smart to just drop the whole issue and have no oponion of Libya.
Apparently, Old****Hand didn’t watch the interview entirely or at least the her main jest....so it would be irrelevant to inform him since his opinion about Palin has already been made up.
It won’t (necessarily) take troops to remove Ghadaffi from power. It just needs a lucky hit with a large munition or a paid-off bodyguard.
Ghadaffi is the acme of a “one-hit-wonder”: one hit and you’ll wonder what all the fuss was all about.
Now America has (honorable) issues with deliberately targeting Heads of State, even when they are CinCs of their military forces and wear garish uniforms.
This need not be a problem. A willingness to kack Ghadaffi is something that the Allies bring to the party.
The mission failed when it was started.
Sarah never says the words “Gadaffy must go.” That is just the misleading title. She says that if we hand over control of a war to a committee and he stays in power America will have failed.
That is a very different message.
Anybody advising Palin about Al Qaeda in Libya and Gadaffi’s role of keeping them under control? What’s up with that?
The only troops we put on the ground should be there to secure the oil and gas fields.
If we provide the air cover and airstrike power, the Libyan rebels and their arab buddies should do the rest.
Palin is right.
Once we commit ourselves to an achievable goal like removing an anti-American lunatic who is killing his own people and his removal will stablize escalating energy prices, why shouldn’t we do it?
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"
She needs to fire McCain as her foreign policy advisor.
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
Nope.
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.
The other thing to consider is that Palin does not have access to the same information that the White House does, so she is making her projections based on what she sees reported in the media, which as we know usually bears little resemblance to reality.