Replies

I listened to the interview, and it seemed pretty clear to me that she was not happy with saying “boots on the ground”. She had just been asked about Obama, with a suggestion he might send troops into libya, and about a no-fly zone. She was for a no-fly-zone, but didn’t like the idea of sending our troops there. She did think Ghadaffi had to go.

So, on March 8th I’d put her in the camp of supporting the UN-approved no-fly-zone, plus the Obama-announced goal of removing Ghadaffi, but against putting troops on the ground to achieve that goal.

A little later, she also says we should have spoken more forcefully to Ghadaffi, used strong words; and that once you use strong words, you need to back that up.

The only thing she didn’t explain was what we have been asking ever since — how do you get Ghadaffi out simply by telling him to leave (forcefully) and implementing a no-fly-zone.

It seems clear that the no-fly-zone, which the UN authorized only to protect civilians, is a bad tool for getting rid of the leader of a country. That’s why those who believe Ghadaffi should go are arguing Obama has to do more, including possibly sending in ground troops.

Others think it’s stupid for the United States to have a policy of forcing Ghadaffi out. Their argument is that nothing changed in the past two months except the muslim brotherhood decided they wanted to push a more islamist state in libya, and remove a guy who has been helping stop Al Qaeda. Ghadaffi two months ago was seen as an ally in the war on terror, which doesn’t make him good.

But he made no threats against our country or our people, or the countries around him. He had an internal matter with his own people, and a lot of conservatives don’t think U.S. military power and money should be used simply to affect regime change or pick winners in a civil war, especially when the other side isn’t our friend.

So if I was to fault Sarah, it wouldn’t be for “boots on the ground” which I think she clearly opposed, but for her belief that Ghadaffi “had” to go, that this was a legitimate purpose of the United States, and that it could be acheived by harsh talk and a no-fly-zone.

"which I think she clearly opposed"

You think she clearly opposed it? Clearly? Really?

I watched it about a dozen times. When I hear someone utter the phrase - "I hate to say it...", I usually take that to mean that even though they hate it, they're still saying it. That's what that phrase means to me. I guess it could mean something else to other people.

Be that as it may, while I won't concede that she's saying clearly "no boots on the ground", I will concede that she's such a poor extemporaneous speaker that suffers badly from stumbled locutions, it's possible that she was trying to say she didn't support "boots on the ground", although I don't personally think that she was.

To me, she's saying that Ghadaffi has to go sooner rather than later, and if it takes American service men on the ground, then so be it - even though she'd "hate" it.

If nothing else, this is another demonstration of the remarkable imprecise manner in which Sarah Palin extemporaneously communicates.