[backwoods-engineer]

Attention Sarah Palin bashers:

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.

[OldDeckHand]

"She says if we are going in, we should be "in it to win it", and Qadaffi being gone is part of that."

To be clear, does that mean "in it to win it" just like it does in Afghanistan or Iraq?

"She said she also thought the Libyan rebels would kill Qadaffi, taking the question of what to do with him off the table. "

Just like the Afghanistan tribal rebels got bin Laden, Mullah Omar et. al?

[tsowellfan]

Those rebels are extremists and believed to be supported by Al Qaeda. There is blood on their hands and the trail follows them all the way from New York City to Aghanistan to the USS Cole (yemen hmm), and the trail of American soldiers blood follows these "rebels" all the way from Iraq to where they stand now in Libya.

[wtc911]

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A) Please cite when/where she said this. She may have said it but since you seem to know where/when please cite.

B) Since nobody know exactly who is funding/leading/supporting the rebels or what their goal is or what their agenda toward the US and Israel will be why in God's name should we support them?