Just to be clear, here's what I was referring to from her facebook post:
If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take “unilateral action” against NATO forces who conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid.
Palin acknowledges that sometimes women and children get killed, and that NATO takes care to avoid that. Which is true enough.
But here she's saying something different (even if she didn't mean to): it looks like she's saying that civilian deaths are OK if we take out a "terrorist position" at the same time.
That's red meat for those who are already using civilian deaths for their own propaganda purposes. And at the same time, she's outright threatening Karzai and Afghanistanis in general for complaining about civilian deaths.
And what about this "immediate withdrawal" stuff.... didn't FReepers rightly lambaste the likes of Harry Reid and Obama for calling for the same sort of withdrawal from Iraq? Should Palin be somehow immune from criticism for making the same bad suggestion about Afghanistan?
Such dumbassery is a result of lack of schooling: she's not paying attention to what's happening and could happen over there, she's just reacting to what Karzai said. Even just remembering the situation in Iraq, circa 2006, should caused her reason to pause and reflect before speaking.
And her overal her comment is not particularly well thought-out, either.
I didn’t get quite that from the article on FB. I don’t think she’s threatening them for complaining about civilian deaths, nor do I get that she’s saying “civilian deaths are ok” if we take out terrorists.
I think she’s saying if the Afghan gov’t turns on us and views us as the enemy, then, yeah, we should go ahead and leave.
Not well thought out. Great self analysis of the drivel you usually post. Children were not mentioned in that paragraph but neither were elephants or zebras, so how do you know she wasn’t referring to the latter?