Skip to comments.Palin Pushes For War On Iran
Posted on 02/08/2010 10:52:46 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Self-confessed bulldog with lipstick and conservative hero Sarah Palin has started her 2012 campaign on a combative note. War with Iran and soon. This comes in the wake of Tehran yet again getting up the Wests noses with regard to their uranium enrichment programme.
Palin advocated war with Iran in a recent interview with Fox news and added that the war card may well be Obamas safest bet for re-election in 2012. "Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do," she said on Sunday.
She also added that she felt Obama would not be re-elected were the US to go to the polls today.
This comes in the wake of her comments at a Tea party Convention this past weekend where she criticised Obamas hope-y change-y policies and asked what had they done for you.
Palin who seemingly went to ground following her and Senator John McCain electoral loss to Obama in 2008 has recently become more publicly active, joining Fox News as an analyst and commentator and speaking out more on current political events.
That and rumours that she has a pool of advisers helping her analyse and speak out on policy has fuelled rumours that the Republican party is preparing her for a major assault on the polls in 2012. A frequent criticism of Palin during the last electoral race was that while she appealed very well to her conservative constituency her grasp on global affairs was embarrassingly limited and her views were too hardline to appeal to the crucial moderate voter pool.
Three sets of sanctions have already been imposed on Iran. Despite other countries which have veto power in the UN Security Council, China has insisted on continued dialogue to resolve the issue.
The US, which has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, has also threatened the Islamic Republic with war to force Tehran into halting its nuclear activities.
The war drums are being beaten as new reports have revealed that the Israeli navy has dispatched two ships armed with missiles into the Persian Gulf.
“Palin who seemingly went to ground following her and Senator John McCain electoral loss to Obama in 2008 has recently become more publicly active, joining Fox News as an analyst and commentator and speaking out more on current political events.”
Who wrote this, Baghdad Bob?
Okay, now they’re just making stuff up about what she said. By the way, it’s probably a blog saying this, although I don’t know because I won’t dignify it with a hit.
I don’t recall her advocating for war with Iran...anyone?
LOL she never said she wanted to go to war with Iran..she was making a hypothetical statement that if Obama has ANY chance in winning in 2012, he would have to show he is tough on terror, and if Iran has nuclear weapons and is a threat to Israel, that he might show some balls and attack Iran. Obama will NEVER do it because Obama is butt buddies with terrorist leaders
"There are no American tanks in Baghdad!"
Iran had their revolution in 1979. The U.S. is going into another Depression. Let’s take care of US for a change.
I think she Quoted Reagan “ We win, they Lose”
Patently false to what Palin said. She was speculating to what would happen to Obama’s future political fortunes if he did indeed declare war on Iran. Nowhere did Palin mention her own personal preference towards Iran except in the same comment she hoped that Obama would begin to form a tighter relationship with Israel.
Look out Iran, President Palin will declare war on you in 2013.
Well, we have two choices. Iran with nuclear weapons or war with Iran (not necessarily total war, but, you know, in the very least blockades and such). I’d love the discussion to be framed that way, instead of the old “We’re trying diplomacy, too, but our diplomacy is better than yours!”
I wonder what her husband’s views on this are?
It looks to me like the “which” refers to the closer of the two clauses, the one about support for Israel.
But hey, if you want to alienate the young, anti-Ahmadenijad opposition, kill innocent people, and send billions of dollars down a sinkhole fighting yet another war, you are entitled to.
Minnie Pearl once again should be careful when she speaks.
Writer = english as a second language.
I suppose the actual quotes were unavailable to this presstitute?
In the Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, she specifically said she didn’t think Obama would “play the war card”. Adding:
“I’m saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years —”
Any theory that Palin wants to go to war with Iran is a result of too many bong hits by the author.
Demint/Daniels???? LOL, seriously???
And then you wonder why we don’t take Palin-bashers seriously.
“Well, we have two choices. Iran with nuclear weapons or war with Iran (not necessarily total war, but, you know, in the very least blockades and such).”
How about a 10 minute war, where we just nuke the crap out them and turn the place into a glassy topped parking lot for everyone to contemplate?
I completely agree with your comments regarding Iran and Israel, but Minnie Pearl??
Is that you Mit?
Nope. She said nothing even close to it.
I strongly suspect this thread was started by a RON PAUL supporter. I recognize the name as being on many other threads critical of Palin.
“Minnie Pearl’s pseudopopulist babble may have fooled those who are easily swayed by rhetoric and the need to have our own celebutard candidate, but they won’t sway those outside of the cult, at least not for long.”
Which proves you know NOTHING about what Palin accomplished in Alaska.
Clean up corruption and revamp the ethics rules? Done
Cut spending and reprioritize budgets? Done.
Begin weaning AK off fed $? Done.
By ramping up their energy production with the gas pipeline project? Done.
And that’s not even talking about what she got done for her town, and the whole Mat-Su Valley, which became the state’s fastest growing region under her leadership.
You like DeMint/Daniels? Fine. Promote them. But don’t belittle their potential competition in the process.
Notice I did not downgrade your potential candidates here.
She parenthetically said she’d like him to defend Israel better. Anyone who knows anything about Sarah or read the intonation of her comments understands she wasn’t also talking about liking him to bomb Iran. In fact, in her comments the night before she said she’d like him to impose sanctions on Iran.
“We should instead be supporting the opposition within Iran to undermine the Mullahs.”
Bad move, in my opinion. How often do popular uprisings make for better government? 1989 was a miracle. 1789 is the rule. Even the American Revolution resulted in a soon-to-be all-powerful central government under the Constitution.
2ndDivisionVet is a RON PAUL supporter. He spends allot of time searching headlines critical of Palin and post them on FR. I got tired of buttin heads with him for he’ll be back again tomorrow with another post.
“How about a 10 minute war, where we just nuke the crap out them and turn the place into a glassy topped parking lot for everyone to contemplate?”
I figure certain moral qualms would rise with that strategy.
She will beat the pants off of Jim and Mitch and have them begging to be her VP.
If they try to prove otherwise, these two will fair worse than Fred Thompson.
You will have to abandon the lamestream talking points or sit this one out since Sarah is the future of the Republican Party.
No true conservative can quibble with the fact that she is completely Conservative. The criticism is based on nonsensical talking points that insure we only elect far-left libs.
I still favor internal change, even if it would lead to a civil war (which would distract any faction within Iran from doing anything stupid outside their borders). If a Civil War broke out (which I doubt) you would also see the various ethnic divisions (Persians having only a slight majority of the population) come into play, making the breakup of Yugoslavia look like a game of squash.
No point - Jim D wants to be Mitt’s VP. I take it neither of these two aces were involved in the team cuddle with Obama recently? That stroke of GOP genius helped Obama stabilise his cratering poll numbers.
I've seen the Sarahlian insurgency compared to the Goldwater insurgency of 1964. A major difference was that Barry had a huge family warchest of his own, and key supporters in the oil and mining industries. His biggest weakness was the lack of recruiting strong campaign advisers/managers, despite the enthusiasm from his core supporters, most of whom were ordinary folks like you and I who spent countless hours knocking on doors, putting up posters, etc.
Bet he’ll kiss their arses first.
“I figure certain moral qualms would rise with that strategy.”
Shoot...I was hoping we would adapt the “Coulter Doctrine”
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” - Ann Coulter
You’ve GOT to be kidding! It sure would be nice for folks to check for accuracy and context before making accusations left and right.
Here is the actual transcrip of that interview:
“WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.”
Where does she actually stand on Iran? Here in her own words from Saturday night’s speech:
“We need a strong national defense. I think you would agree with me, as — as Reagan used to talk about that “peace through strength.” And in that respect, I applaud the President for following at least a part of the recommendations made by our commanders on the ground to send in some more reinforcements to Afghanistan. Now, though he, we must spend less time courting our adversaries, spending more more time working with our allies. And we must build effective coalitions capable of confronting dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea. Its time for more than just tough talk. Just like you — probably just so tired of hearing the talk, talk, talk. Tired of hearing the talk.”
“Its time for some tough actions, like sanctions on Iran. And in places in the world where people are struggling and oppressed and theyre fighting for freedom, America must stand with them. We need a clear foreign policy that stands with the people and for democracy — one that reflects both our values and our interests, and it is in our best interests, because democracies — they dont go to war with each other. They can settle their differences peacefully.”
“So invading a country at the behest of the extra chromosome wing of the Knesset (and their largely Christian supporters in the US), which is opposed by most in Israel and the United States, would be a better alternative?”
No, I never said I advocate the war option. Just said there were two options: let them have nukes or go to war. Then there’s your fantasy third option of “new people who are nice and democratic and not interested in nukes taking power”. I don’t have a lot of faith in it.
Besides, isn’t fostering a coup/revolution a form of waging war, anyway? If you give material support, yes. Are you talking about nothing more than moral support? Send them some good vibes? That’s an option, I guess. When I said there are only two options, I left out miraculous intervention propitious to U.S. policy. Doing nothing, to me, fell into the “let them have nukes” category. But things always could just happen to happen how we’d have them happen. It happens.
“The ‘realist’ solution of a non-expansionist dictatorship would be better than the invasion scenario.”
Everyone, or most everyone, likes to call their solution “realist,” don’t they? Those idealistic anti-Ahmadenijad revolutionary youths couldn’t possibly be like the revolutionaries that ousted the Shah, right? Because if you remove bad people, you therefore must be good. And democratic. And non-expansionist. Certainly the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, both of whom toppled evil, old war-waging empires, were sick of expansion. (/sarcasm)
Frankly, I’d have more trust in a palace coup, in the manner of Kruschev’s ouster, wherein Ahmadenijad is ousted for overreaching. Not that the Soviets didn’t go on overreaching. It just wasn’t as dramatic.
“I still favor internal change, even if it would lead to a civil war (which would distract any faction within Iran from doing anything stupid outside their borders).”
Once again, I cannot stress how common it is for things to come out worse. But it’s not the worst plan, if you want to prevent them from attaining nukes. I’d say fostering civil war in Iran, by the way, falls under my previously stated option two (namely, war).
Make use of that 6th grade education, Jethro, and do some research.
I don’t understand why we have not taken a couple flights of B2s armed with 2000lb JDAMs and cut off the head of the snake all at once. They would never know what hit them. We certainly know when the mullahes meet and where...if not, CIA can ask Mossad....Nobody needs to go in on the ground...just decapitate Iran.
I respectfully disagree and hope to get the chance to vote for her.
Local news broadcast (KTVU, SF/Oakland) said the same thing last night, that Palin would declare war on Iran.
The left and the MSM (same thing) flat out make up lies about Palin, which the ignorant public believes.
I used to think the MSM was ignorant.
They’re not. They’re complicit.