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.
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.
That last part is true enough.... but the question remains: since when is the present intervention in Libya about ousting Qadaffi? The "mission" such as it is, is to enforce a cease fire. The details of such a policy are, of course, quite muddled. But "regime change" is definitely not among the stated goals of this action.
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.
Apparently Palin disagrees with you: as far as her tangled syntax can be deciphered, she's staking out a pretty clear policy position -- albeit one that is characteristically short on details.
What's more interesting to me, though, is how Palin's supporters are still unwilling to accept critical analyses of what she says.
She is saying things publicly; she has pretensions of running for president. What she says, deserves dissection. If she can't be bothered to make herself clear, or if she says dumb things, then that's news.