Posted on 03/24/2011 8:59:28 AM PDT by Clyde5445
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well. All right, Governor, 20/20 hindsight -- should we have led this, participated in these air strikes over Libya?
PALIN: Well, I think the point is that we're not leading with the air strikes, and I think this is turning into much more than just allowing a no-fly zone to be enacted. I think there's a lot of confusion as it pertains to our foreign policy in Libya right now, and that's a frustrating for Americans, certainly frustrating thing for our troops. Our troops deserve better.
We've received different messages from our president and from his advisers as to what it is that we are doing there and what the mission is. And I think Americans are ready to hear, really, what's the mission. And are we really going to turn over command and control to the Arab League and to the British and to the French? And when do we reclaim our command and our control over our troops? So that's just one of the big questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“when do we reclaim our command and our control over our troops? So that’s just one of the big questions”
Another of the Big questions is when are we going to indict this usurper occupying our White House?
No, no, no. Don’t you read the liberal rags? We’re supposed to want Wrongney. Or Newt.
How about for once we should have kept out of it, due to being financially broke? If the UN wanted to command it, let the UN man it.
Ping ODH, for some truth.
Hmm, she sounds pretty clued in and wary of what’s happening. But you’d have us believe otherwise. Wouldn’t ya?
US policy should have been non-involvement in libya as qaddaffy was disposing of radical muzzies.
“Our troops deserve better.”
That pretty well sums it up. The mission is confused, it’s unclear who is running it, Obama is not doing his job, we are putting our troops under the control of who knows what leadership?
Personally, I would add that we have NO BUSINESS fighting against Kaddafi and helping the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. But I would agree that since Palin has no official position, she is quite right not to get into that. She is certainly entitled to say that the purpose and handling of the mission are unclear, confused, and contradictory. But it would be a step too far for HER to come out now and say that we are, if anything, fighting on the wrong side.
We should get out, NOW! Let the French screw up if such is their will. But we are helping to bomb and kill the wrong people.
Sorry dear, I posted that almost a 1/2-hour ago...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2693932/posts?page=23#23
If you think that rambling diatribe is reflective of “sounding pretty clued in”, then I don’t know what to say.
She says nothing about the complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East.
She says nothing about the significant presence of Al-Quada, and their material support of some of these tribal rebels.
She says nothing about the need to get Congressional approval, and she says nothing about how she would accomplish the one goal she outlined - the removal of Quaddafi.
But yeah, other than all that - “she sounds pretty clued in”.
The time to impeach Obuggery has arrived!
Think about it, before piling on the private citizen, Gov. Palin.
absitively
I copied this from a poster named Johnson from another site.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and I just flat out copied it, word for word.
She’s pretty sharp for an unelectable, unintelligent, mean-spirited, nasty quitter who has never done anything worthwhile and has no experience or knowledge of political affairs, foreign or domestic.
Wouldn’t ya say?
Re-elect President Palin 2012
ODH, allow me a speculation, if you will. I think her inattention to the details of the military analysis is deliberate. Asking a potential Commander in Chief what she would do in an extraordinarily complex situation like Libya is rather like asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice what she would do in a case presently before the Court. I would expect her to be evasive as a matter of respect for those who currently have command of the mission.
What she did focus on were those stump speech issues she’s been concerned about from the beginning, such as clarity of mission and American sovereignty. Her original take was never regime change per se, but opportunistic justice for a man who has been very bad to America, and the deeply humanitarian gesture of offering air cover to Libyan civilians in an effort to blunt a possible genocide.
I do not see that as anything but a reasonable defense of American interests and values, and it avoids both overreach and over-passivity, the twin terrors of foreign policy. Yes, her pattern of speech can be a little awkward at times, but from a policy perspective as well as a tactical campaigning perspective, she is right on target, if you will pardon the militaristic metaphor.
Females are required to smell better, shave unseen parts, cover blemishes, enhance eyes/lips/neck line, prevent age spots, wrinkles and frown/worry lines, walk funny, wear weird straps harnesses and tights, dye the gray out, manicure and pedicure nails, while maintaining her composure during a menstrual hemorrhage, birthing, rutting and a hot flash attack.
_________________________________________
Hence the phrase, Men are like, BEARS with furniture!! LOL!!
Sorry MEN!
But as a woman, I have always thought you had it way too easy. All you do is roll out of bed, shower, shave and dress in the same way. What is so hard about that??
Try being a woman for a day!!
Ha ha ha!!
“She says nothing about the complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East.”
She also failed to give a satisfactory explanation of quantum physics. What’s wrong with that woman?
Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Supreme Court nominees don't give specific answers to questions that might touch on pending cases because (and only because) such comments would say to potential litigants that the judge had already made up his mind before hearing the case at bar. Therefor, that justice would - per the Code of Judicial Conduct - HAVE to recuse himself from that case.
There is no such canon of ethics for presidential aspirants. In fact, quite the opposite. It's not only allowable for potential presidential nominees to speak specifically about such matters, it's incumbent upon those potential nominees.
"Her original take was never regime change per se, but opportunistic justice for a man who has been very bad to America, and the deeply humanitarian gesture of offering air cover to Libyan civilians in an effort to blunt a possible genocide."
I would point you to this March 8th article, that recaps an interview where she says in response to the Jeannine Pirror's question about our goal and if troops are needed to obtain that goal..
""Certainly a no fly zone," Palin said. "I hate to say, jeez, more troops on the ground. You know send more of our brave young men and women over there in Libya. When yes, 41 years of Gadhafi. He’s got to go."
I don't know how much more clearly she could say it. If you want to kill the man who is the regime, then you are for "regime change".
What does "quantum physics" have to do with US military action in Libya?
But, if you don't understand the importance of tribal dynamics in the oil-rich North African country as it relates to this "rebel" uprising, I understand why you might want to defend Palin. She doesn't seem to realize their importance either.
What’s wrong with that woman?"
For the life of me, I have no idea.
No, you didn’t post THAT darlin’. But you keep on hatin’ Sarah if that fits your agenda. It’s pretty obvious, so you really cannot do any harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.