Saturday, 31 August 2013

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” - Sarah Palin

I've always had a soft spot for Sarah Palin. Okay, she may be a bit fuzzy when it comes to world geography, but, unlike Barack Obama, I suspect she knows the US doesn't consist of 57 states and probably doesn't imagine that Hawaii is in Asia. She just posted these comments on her Facebook page (here) regarding the proposed plan to bomb Syria  - it all makes sense to me:


* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

- Sarah Palin


  1. Does The Whitehouse actually know where Syria is.President Obama confused The Falkland Islands with The Maldives the other day so if they do decide to bomb,and I hope they don't,lets all hope a suitable Atlas of the World is at hand.

    1. Details, details - I'm sure the Obamessiah simply "mispoke" himself. Probably tuckered out after yet another round of golf. Takes it out of a guy, smacking that little white ball around all day - especially if he's got a world to run in his spare time. If Bush had made this sort of gaffe, on the other hand, it would have been proof of the sort of terminal imbecility that simply cries out for impeachment.