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.
Statement falls right in line with it is time to elect ovaries, not ready for prime time.
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.
Sounds like you think he’s a bigger threat than Saddam was. Did you support action in Iraq?