Palin splits with neocon advisers

Politico ^ | 05/03/2011 | Ben Smith

[trisham]

Thanks, Al B..

[MinuteGal]

This shows she's going to announce.

Professional campaign advisors, staffers and writers do NOT hire on with a candidate who will be announcing shortly he/she is not running for office.

They work to eat, like we all do......and will not engage in political games, indecision or lack of written contracts when they hire on.

Leni

[Bigtigermike]

[...] Michael Cohen has been Donald Trump’s is a business executive in the Trump business operations and apparently the chief political advisor to Trump’s feelers to run for President. Cohen is also a registered Democrat was a huge supporter of Barack Obama’s 2008 run for President and in 1988 was very involved in the Leftist campaign of Michael Dukakis’ run for President. [...]

[onyx]

Most impressive! He's spotted a smart and accomplished woman in Sarah Palin and they're a perfect blend. She has an eye for selecting her own team of learned advisers.

[Lancey Howard]

Paid advisors speaks more to the fact that you need to have someone tell you what to say.

Which is obviously something Palin has no need for, since she just unloaded a couple with whom she disagreed.

[Hawk720]

“Show me the written sourse or post a link to a video showing her saying that.”

Video at the link:

http://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya

“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.”

[Clyde5445]

Palin Doctrine? Sarah Palin spoke at a Tribute to the Troops at Colorado Christian University.

“The Soldier fights not because he hates what’s in front of him. But because he loves those and what’s behind him!”....G.K. Chesterton

1. We should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interest are at stake.

2. IF we have to fight, we fight to win. We use overwhelming force, we only send in our troop into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible: We do not send in our military to stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-define mission. NATION BUILDING is a nice idea in theory but it is not the main purpose of our Arm Forces, we use our military to win wars.

3. We must have clearly defined objectives before sending our troops in harms way: If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our Sons and Daughters should not be sent into battle. PERIOD.

4. American soldiers must NEVER be put under foreign command: We can fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officer.

5. Sending out our Arm Forces should be our last resort: We don’t go looking for dragons to slay, however we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who is sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense and it is appropriate, we will provide them with support to help them win their own freedom....But we can’t fight every war, we can’t undue every injustice around the World.

Palin: The Stronger we are the more peaceful the World will be under our example....We must vigorously defend ourselves but at the same time not wear down our arm forces with never-ending and ever increasing commitments. I believe that America though, must never retreat into isolation, the World will be less safe and less free without our leadership and we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead “TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN MUCH IS EXPECTED”.

We can not be the World’s policeman, granted or a door of ATM but we can lead by example, by our words and if necessary by our actions.....We need leaders that embodies the same standard that our men and women in uniform hold themselves...Remember, the true soldier fights for it is behind him. Behind him here is tradition, patriotism and it-—it is not a need for a fundamental transformation of America but a renewal for ALL THAT IS GOOD ABOUT AMERICA!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2714056/posts?page=82

[SWAMPSNIPER]

About time!!

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Paid advisors speaks more to the fact that you need to have someone tell you what to say.

And just last week I saw some of your PDS pals complaining that she was not serious because she had not hired more staff and advisors.

Funny that.

[Bigtigermike]

Awe COME ON! she says “I hate to say,jeez more ground troop” the video shows her saying that as a no! You twisting her words to mean something else

[mike09]

She didn’t. She advocated the no fly zone a month before it happened, i.e., when the rebels were on the verge of victory and Ghadaffi’s heavy weaponry were easy targets. She has shown greater skepticism (a) when people waited until the rebels were on the verge of defeat and (b) as it has become clear that there is no clearly defined mission or exit strategy.

[mike09]

I’ve never seen Palin as an instinctive neo-con. I don’t mean to be rude, but, like all governors, she was a blank slate when it came to foreign policy. McCain was a neo-con, he was surrounded by neo-cons, and she was asked to tow the neo-con line. Seems like an educated guess to say that she became friendly with Scheunemann and kept him as her resource on foreign policy questions . . .

BUT, I suspect her instincts are far more Reaganite, more the military exists to kick *** and chew bubble gum” and stay away from nation building. So, I see this move as a natural move to gravitate towards a foreign policy doctrine that reflects her personal beliefs.

Frankly, it’s not unlike when McCain asked her to tow the line on bailouts. Even as a supporter, I’ll say that she comes off as pretty unpersuasive when it comes to talking about things that she doesn’t instinctively embrace (neo-cons, bailouts, etc.). Hey, it takes a certain type of “flexibility” to do that.

BUT, when she talks about things that she does instinctively believe, she comes across as extremely persuasive and even, dare I say, knowledgeable (e.g., name some other politician who has provided in layman’s terms so forceful an indictment of QE2 . . . Ron Paul, yes, but in professorial terms).

[Alberta's Child]

If this is true, then an ideological change in the GOP might be afoot.

The worst thing the GOP ever did was give these "neo-con" dopes so much free reign in our military affairs and foreign policy.

[Gargantua]

Some people (mainly her detractors, but some supporters as well) have opined that, even though she is correct that right now may be too early to officially announce her candidacy in 2012, she should at least be making moves to shore up her inner-circle of advisors, planners, coordinators, etc., if she plans on running.

And they are right.

And now, we receive confirmation not only that she is doing it, she's doing it right!

Ditching the McLame campaign holdovers and Kristol acolytes is the best (structural) move thus far. Given her track record, expect a slew of additional brilliant chess-moves from our President-in-Waiting.

She is not only running, she's running circles around her competition and her detractors alike.

LMAO!!!!

8^D

[OldDeckHand]

'Show me the written sourse or post a link to a video showing her saying that."

First, notice the date of this story - March 8, 2011 - more than a week before the NFZ was established.

Palin continues to push no-fly zone over Libya

This is the relevant excerpt from a response Palin gave to Pirro about what should happen and how the US should make it happen...

"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'm not sure how else that could be read other than at leat a tacit call for "boots on the ground" if it's necessary to get rid of Kaddafi.

The entire interview can be seen here. The relevant section comes around 11:19 or so.

[Palter]

No Declaration of War in that doctrine?

[stormer]

Did you read the article? It was nothing she did, the advisors left her. Probably means one of two thing: They know she’s not going to run and don’t want to waste their time, or she was trying to tell them how to do their jobs...

[RED SOUTH]

OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE A BILLION , IT'S A GOAL. THATS WHY HE'S FLYING AROUND 19 MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION HOLDING FUNDRAISERS. MANY BELIEVE HE WILL NOT MEET THE GOAL AND FALL WELL BELOW HIS RECORD 2008 AMOUNT.

[Liz]

.........good move on Palin’s part separating from neocons. Enough of cockeyed nation building and attempting to scab democracy atop dysfunctional ME backwaters......Thanks to neocons the US was duped into even bigger messes in the ME that taxpayers will be paying for for years to come..........

N-i-c-e deconstruction. Could not agree more. The US adventure in the Mideast is o-v-e-r.

As ME dictators and butchers fall by the wayside, we witness another colossal failure of the pukeneos, who duped the US into sinking trillions of dollars into these antediluvian cultures with assurances that US trillions to dictators would hold back the aspirations of millions of starving Arabs.

We must also consider that the pukes colluded with enviros to keep the US in the Mideast---but telling tall tales about our being "dependent on foreign oil."

The US has vast energy resources but getting at them is an "environmental issue" they say. Baloney. Enviro issues are strictly agit-prop.

The stunning reality is that US energy reserves are huge--- offshore oil, natural gas, coal. Oil companies have had tremendous success unlocking big quantities of natural gas from dense shale rock formations in North America. We're talking about TRILLIONS of barrels of oil equivalent in shale natural gas.

We need to alert the PTB that we are onto the gross manipulation by those who are colluding, who want the US to sink trillions in the Mideast......including war profiteers getting rich beyond Croesus with our tax dollars---and by Mideast countries too stupid to govern themselves without US "foreign aid."

"America is dependent on foreign oil" is a knee-jerk reaction, a bunch of propaganda.......The Big Lie which forced America into invading three ME countries at a cost of trillions of US tax dollars.

===============================

REFERENCE The US gets 25% of its oil needs from nearby Canada----which will increase in the near future. The red-hot center of the 21st century's gold rush is the western Canadian province of Alberta. Spread under 54,363 square miles of boreal forest -- a little less than the land area of Florida -- lie proven reserves of 174 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia's.

What with engineering know-how, huge advances in technology, and the $$$$trillions to be made----a small $100 billion investment will get the Canadian reserves out of the ground in no time....

All in our own backyard, just down a country road, and over the bridge, from bucolic, peaceful New England.

[gitmogrunt]

Neo-Cons aren't they the ones who chose to side with Islamic Terrorists in the Balkans? Then a few years later we got 09-11-2001?