Palin Can't Explain What Should Be Done In Libya
Reported by Ellen - March 24, 2011 -
Sarah Palin got an extended platform with her BFF Greta Van Susteren to
boost her policy cred discuss her recent trip to Israel and her thoughts on the Middle East. So eager was Fox News for Palin’s thoughts that they flew Van Susteren to Florida to meet with Palin there. Van Susteren asked good, substantive questions but she let a host of inconsistencies and non sequiturs go by without comment. So, after Palin repeatedly assailed Obama for not identifying the mission in Libya, and then failed to offer any coherent solution of her own for what should be done with Gaddafi - other than to oust him or maybe kill him - even though she thought he was going to wind up dead anyway - Van Susteren acted as though Palin was making sense.
Palin told Van Susteren, “Americans are ready to hear, really, what’s the mission (in Libya)?”
But after Palin said that we should be “in it to win it,” meaning Gaddafi should “go,” Van Susteren asked for specifics. “In terms of going, there are a couple choices. One is, he steps down, he relinquishes power; two, he goes into exile… he actually leaves Libya; three, he’s captured and stands trial; and four, he’s killed. What’s ‘to go’ for you?” Van Susteren asked.
Uh-oh, Palin couldn’t answer. “I don’t know where he’s gonna go,” Palin said.
“Which should be the goal?” Van Susteren pressed.
“Um,” Palin began, then paused. “I think Gaddafi is going to end up dead through this mission, whether it’s at the hands of the rebels who have turned on him or whether it is at the hands of America and her allies.” Note: She didn't say that was the goal.
What she had just suggested is that our “win” (Gaddafi "going") was not much in doubt according to Palin’s own logic - that is, if you don't count what she had just said moments before about not knowing where Gaddafi was “gonna go.” But if Van Susteren noticed the wild discrepancy, she kept it to herself.
Palin went on to contradict herself again by saying, “America will have failed… if the mission of ousting Gaddafi is not fulfilled.” So now the goal was just ouster?
Later, Van Susteren asked Palin what she thought the role of the military should be. “Is the role of the military a humanitarian? Is it to protect our country? Is it both?”
Uh-oh, Palin couldn’t answer again. “Well, the U.N., obviously, wants this, the role to be of our military, just the humanitarian efforts, per the U.N. resolution that America has been a part of and that’s why we’re engaged in enacting the No Fly Zone. However, again, with Gaddafi having the blood of innocent Americans on his hand – and we have an opportunity to say, ‘OK, finally, you’re going to be held accountable. You’re gonna be gone,' ...which is beyond the U.N. (resolution) and that’s why the president seems to be confused and have confusing messages… No, our military’s role is to get in there, strike hard, hit hard, not allow Gaddafi to be left standing and then get out.”
But Palin had already (supposedly) told us what the mission should be; this question was about the broader role of the American military. Also, it's worth pointing out that her previously stated goal of "ousting Gaddafi" had just seemingly morphed into killing him.
This from the woman attacking Obama for not having a clear mission.
Without a trace of irony, Palin later said, “Real leadership is a president who will seek to be informed and seek to inform the American public.”
Memo to Palin: not even all of Fox News’ help can keep you from coming across as an arrogant ignoramus.