Sarah Palin: Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan: We're In It to Win It
Via Facebook:
Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice.
At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.
This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”
We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.
- Sarah Palin
Posts
151 comments:
I have to say, for once, I'm kind of disappointed in her posting. There was no "win" or "victory" in Obama's speech or his strategy. It is all retreat and withdraw, using this "surge" of troops as more support in being able to pull back. Also using the troops as a political ploy to appear macho.
<span>
<p>By the time the less-than-requested troops get over there, they’re already at their limit of the timetable and will be brought back home.
</p><p>McChrystal said we had 12-months to win the war. That time frame started three months ago. All the less-than-requested troops won’t be in Afghanistan until well AFTER that time frame. They’ll be there for a few months and then the drum will be pounded on, in time for the 2012 election, to bring them home. As the saying “there is no there there” goes… This is no surge surge.
</p></span>
<span>I have to say, for once, I'm kind of disappointed in her posting. There was no "win" or "victory" in Obama's speech or his strategy. It is all retreat and withdraw, using this "surge" of troops as more support in being able to pull back. Also using the troops as a political ploy to appear macho.
<span>
By the time the less-than-requested troops get over there, they’re already at their limit of the timetable and will be brought back home.
McChrystal said we had 12-months to win the war. That time frame started three months ago. All the less-than-requested troops won’t be in Afghanistan until well AFTER that time frame. They’ll be there for a few months and then the drum will be pounded on, in time for the 2012 election, to bring them home. As the saying “there is no there there” goes… This is no surge surge.
</span></span>
<span>I have to say, for once, I'm kind of disappointed in her posting. There was no "win" or "victory" in Obama's speech or his strategy. It is all retreat and withdraw, using this "surge" of troops as more support in being able to pull back. Also using the troops as a political ploy to appear macho. </span>
<span><span>
By the time the less-than-requested troops get over there, they’re already at their limit of the timetable and will be brought back home.
McChrystal said we had 12-months to win the war. That time frame started three months ago. All the less-than-requested troops won’t be in Afghanistan until well AFTER that time frame. They’ll be there for a few months and then the drum will be pounded on, in time for the 2012 election, to bring them home. As the saying “there is no there there” goes… This is no surge surge. </span></span>
Yeah, I kinda get why she is saying this but I dont agree with her. I never heard Obama say victory at all. SHe is taking the easy approach here, I dont agree with her. Oh well, we cant agree on everything. But I Do agree with her opinion that talking about an exit stragedy here only sends word to our enemies that they can wait us out
Basically what she is saying is. "Mr President I appreciate you finally going along with what I told you to do three month ago, I support your decision but remember I’m right behind you and I’ll be watching"
I'm fully on board with this statement.
Though Obama's speech was lifeless and delivered without any passion, the actual substance of his policy is not that bad and probably the best we can hope for from an anti-war Democrat.
Obama not using the words "victory" or "win" are stylistic failures on Obama's part but his actual policy does appear to put us toward the path of victory.
That is waht she is saying: As long as we;re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground...."
She's made it very clear that she's not happy with his vision but she can't always go on the attack, she went after him in a positive way.
Yeah I hear ya..I guess I was expecting her to go after Obama, but I understand why she did not
She did say that talk of an exit date risks sending the wrong message. She makes it very clear...as long as we are in it to win and troop level decisions are based on conditions of the ground and the advise of our military commanders...then and only then does she support the President's decision. I don't think he'll adhere to any of those points. I agree with Sheya, Sarah supports the troop level increase, but she's sure keeping an eye out for the Obama's next step.
Maybe I'm more disappointed in the title of her statement than the actual statement, because nothing Obama stated--in speech or the strategy--tells me that "we're in it to win it."
Sarah said typed the right thing - period
IMO, what Sarah is saying is win the war, don't set a timetable. And she is right. I have my doubts about Obama, and Sarah does too. Still, Obama is the first democrat in forty years to put boots on the ground, and as much as I can't stand the guy he does deserve some credit for taking action - albiet minimal since he is not deploying the full 40,000 and Sarah calls him out on that too. Sarah is giving Obama praise while holding his feet to the fire. Smart move on her part, I think.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/12/01/1-million-copies-2-weeks flood the comments
Sarah typed the exact correct words on the issue
Presidential. Very Diplomatic of Sarah to give her support to the President on his decision so long as he has the resolve to see this through. For Sarah its not a matter of politics, but of national security. It is good as well that she aligned herself with the very informed foreign policy judgement of John McCain. I look forward to more statements, op-eds, and speeches on foreign policy so that she can gain confidence to speak on these issues, so that the American people can have confidence in her judgement on these issues. It would be wise early on for her to do these op-eds in conjunction with McCain, Liebermann, DeMint, Davis Hanson, Bolten, and others on various foreign issues and then write her next book that would include her vision for American foreign policy. But tonight, an appropriate response.
You don't jump down a President's throat when he's speaking to the Nation on issues of war and peace. You send a message of Unity. Now is NOT the time for Partisanship from Republicans.
This is exactly the right tone for her to strike at this point in time!
She is advocating victory, quoting John McCain and getting out in front of other Republicans to prevent any kind of Isolationist, Buchananite, run for the exits just because a Democrat is in power. Nevertheless, she is signalling to the Party that it is okay for support to be conditional in the long run.
In other words, the minute he turns into Lyndon Baines Obama, and he will, you all have Sarah's permission to rip his lungs out. Read the last paragraph over again. And again. Sarah knows exactly <span>what she wrote tonight. </span>
Smart girl, that Palin woman.
Exactly!
I think when it comes to the war, it is not healthy to be a rabid partisan. McChriystal is on record saying the president has given him what he needed. So is Palin going to nitpick the whole strategy on a speech devoid of the word victory and win? She just added those words, where the president didn't and focused really on the troops and the mission. She is now in the position to hold the president to be resolved in this endeavor and to keep him from playing politics. She is setting the ground rules for how she will attack the President if he doesn't follow through. But as of now it is wise to support the troops and hold the president's feet to the fire.
Someone posted this on FreeRepublic..interesting theory
This was a smart move on her part. She’s calling Obama out to win the war and she’s driving his base crazy because they are not happy he’s adding troops plus now he’s set a policy that even Sarah Palin agrees with. Heads must be exploding right now over at DU.
OK, I had the chance to read Obama's speech. I'm getting discouraged with having a president whom I've only agreed with twice since he took office. I agree with his opinion of Kanye West and his choice to have India for his first state dinner. I'm trying to be more objective towards his speeches and policies for my own sense of optimism for our country. We'll see houw that goes.:)
The speech was bit better than I expected. Honestly, 30,000 troops was more than I would have expected from him, which indicates he is being at least a little pragmatic, and he is not completely trying to play to the Left. Substantively, I wish he would have given Bush the credit for the successes in Iraq, but he used the word we (he voted against intervention in Iraq, so he in no way can take credit). I wish he would have actually given all of the troops that McChrystal had requested, and been a bit more clear on the exit strategy. I know that you don't want to give too much info on this, but there do need to be goals met that would justify the return of the troops back to America. Also, although he NEVER would do this, I wish he would have acknowledge the role of al Qaeda in the Ft. Hood shooting. This would be an additional reason to have success over there. I realize that there may not be a good way to discuss that with the circumstance of the event, but still. I also wish he would have given a clearly picture of why he took so long to deliberate.
Stylistically, it was more of the same from him: no use of the words "victory" or "win" and the over use of the word "I". The last several paragraphs of the speech he seemed like he was trying to paint himself as FDR 2.0 or something, and he spewed a blizzard of words, but didn't really say much substanitive.
On Sarah's note, it was a bit more moderate than previous notes, but that's not all bad. I think her last paragraph is right on. She wants what is best for our country and is cautiously optimistic towards Obama when there is even a glimmer of potential in a policy decision he makes.
Section 9: totally agree with your assesment. She paints obama in a corner by supporting him " as long as we're in it to win" Clearly we know obama is incapable of securing our nation and will ultimately fail.
She also blasts obama for setting a timetable. Typical Cuda attack.....head on....with a smile.
That was the important point. It is not to dominate but to allow Afghanistan to shape its own future. It is not a football game, it is the future.
She is trying to be pragmatic in a sense all the while boxing him in if he cut and ran (which he will do!)”
Yep, she’s setting him up PERFECTLY. Brilliant move. This was a smart move on her part. She’s calling Obama out to win the war and she’s driving his base crazy because they are not happy he’s adding troops plus now he’s set a policy that even Sarah Palin agrees with. Heads must be exploding right now over at DU
I said that!
Logistically, how long would it take to get 30,000 troops to Afganistan if we started in January? And then he is going to start withdrawing troops in 18 months. Sounds like once we get there, we will start planning on getting them out. Doesn't make sense...
And doesn't congress have to approve the funding for this? We all know how long that can take...
At this point would you really want her blasting his strategy? She said all that needed to be said. She can't undermine the president and thus undermine the troops at this point. You can question the motive, timetable, politics etc., but don't undermine the plan going forward without allowing it to develop.
I think this was the perfect response to a pathetic speech. Why call him out? He showed himself to the troops and the American people. If you can't see the insincerity I feel sorry for you. BTW, did you see the Chris Mathews response to the speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbJcixsLq8&feature=player_embedded
West Point is now the Enemy Territory.
Did he use the word victory at all?
People,
She is up front before other GOP politicians except for McCain in stating that:
1) Obama is basically following her push to surge.
2) She is paying respect to the opinion of McCain to show she can be a team player even as an outsider.
3) She is pointing out that the timetable thing is foolish.
It is a pretty good post in that it re-emphasized that she has not given up, she doesn't believe in timetables and that they need to surge and get the job done.
Generally, you don't as a national figure go off on the sitting POTUS on a speech like this.
And remember, Sarah was hoping that the commanders would get more troops because she has not given up yet and we know that is truly what she believes.
She is not a daily liar like O-man.
That's entirely my point. It's going to take 6-9 months, at minimum, to get all the troops over there (it took us 5 months to get troops in Iraq positioned, and they have better roads / access to shipping ports). All the troops are finally going to be positioned near the end of 2010, and then we're just going to turn around and bring them right home without achieving anything because of this timetable and the need to keep promises for the election.
I agree about the title. I think if she put a ? at the end, I would have liked the title better
Nope.
Her response was indeed Presidential. There's another aspect to this as well. The morale of the troops has to better if they know that Sarah at least somewhat supports this decision. I'm sure most of them are aware of what she is saying, and are looking forward to the day when she is Commander-in-Chief. It would have been really depressing for them if she had slammed Obama on this. I think Sarah knows the importance of troop morale.
When I first saw her response I was inclined to be a bit disappointed, but then I remembered:
I was disappointed when she announced her resignation. I was wrong.
I was disappointed when I heard she was going on Oprah. I was wrong.
I'm learning.....
Yep, and I can see the helicopters filled to the brim leaving the US Embassy in Kabul which will not look good for O-man. He will be the one who flounders in Afghanistan or abandons it and becomes the loser of the war. That is why 30,000 more troops may not BE enough and could work to his political demise.
The terrain there is some of the most rugged in the world and tough to get at. Remember what happened to the Soviet Union there.
Andrew,
This subject is very close to my heart, so I was very anxious to read what Sarah had to say since she has much at stake also.
I really didn't care either way what Obama decided..either in or out of Afghanistan.
If staying though, Obama needs to give whatever his generals need to win and to keep our solders as safe as can be.
I had to read through her statement a couple of times myself cuz I wasn't sure if I understood or agreed with her or not. I'm still kind of confused.
I guess she thinks this is better than not doing anything, is thankful he's at least doing SOMETHING and is letting him know that.
She is also letting him know that she's keeping her eye on this so he better stay true.
Well, at least I THINK that's what Sarah is trying to say.
I agree. She could have been critical of him in this post, but I don't think it is a good idea. We need to keep the amount of politics down when it comes to our national security. There is too much at risk both here and abroad to politicize the issue further.
Sarah is being pragmatic.....You can't always go shooting it out all of the time attacking the President, She is setting him up!!
What in the World will the guys at DU do now that Sarah supported their Guy?
They are going ravaging mad and loco!!
I just heard that Mathews' clip on Greta. Nothing surprises me. Do these anchors ever listen to themselves?
I appreciate her statement on this. She is expressing kind of how I feel, a conditional support of the Presidents decision. He has to be in it to win it. If not there goes my conditional support. I agree too that fewer troops mean more risk, and that talking about an exit date is a wrong message. I actually really liked that little jab about being " glad he mostly heeded that advice." Mr. President you are being seriously watched on every matter but especially when it comes to the welfare of our troops.
very 'Cuda llke :)
The commanders have spoken and appear to be satisfied with only 30,000 more troops and apparently think they have a good chance to win this thing. If that is good enough for them, then it is good enough for Sarah, but her last paragraph is excellent in that she is in if they are trying to win but disagrees with the timetable and the hope it will give to the enemy.
I only had the chance to read not watch his speech, did he pronounce Taliban and Pakistan like they were Pokemon characters?
It is a very well-balanced post. Remember, she is NOT the POTUS. If the commanders can't win with the 30,000 after saying they could, then they get some of the hit. She is not in a position to rip the POTUS up in front of the nation. That is not Sarah. If a Dem does something she deems is good or is in agreement, she will state that but here she has put conditions even on that which is smart.
Obama is slowly going to become LBJ on this war over the next 3 years.
I know he uses the telepromter all the time. So I get it, but he looked like he was watching a ping pong match.
This speech was directed to the American people, you would think he would look straight ahead into the camera. I think he looked straight ahead twice for maybe 10 seconds.
I always said, when someone doesn't look you in the eye, you know they are lying.. Just my take on this speech.
<span>I know he uses the teleprompter all the time. So I get it, but he looked like he was watching a ping pong match.
This speech was directed to the American people, you would think he would look straight ahead into the camera. I think he looked straight ahead twice for maybe 10 seconds.
I always said, when someone doesn't look you in the eye, you know they are lying.. Just my take on this speech.
</span>
BTW....at your own risk go over to the DU...they are raging mad with blood shooting out of their eyes!!
Sarah is good at chess! game, match, set!!!!!!!
I wouldn't go that far, but I would say he appears to be in the fight somewhat even if we can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, yet.
Always. Tolly-bon, Pocky-ston.
We need to support the troops no matter what. We can't let ourselves become like the Democrats in Congress over the past 8 years. Sarah Palin is better than that. She wants victory just like the rest of us.
I think even Mark Levin picked up on that.
I've deleted my first comment, as I can understand the reason why Governor Palin phrased her statement the way she did. I'm still annoyed, but it's more directed at Obama's inability to use a certain v-word.
We all know that Obama will cut and run...( Sarah knows that too) Obama is boxed in!
<span>I highly respect and admire Sarah's</span><span> leadership skills and attributes..the response was VERY PRESIDENTIAL. </span>
<span>section....</span>
<span>I hope you're right but the vague policy Obama talked about tonite seems ridiculous to me. </span>
<span>It seems like Obama wants to be out of Afghanistan in less tha 2 years....
I say hogwash and it ain't gonna happen.
Afghanistan is a non industrialized country..dirt roads, no electricity, running water or even the most basic of conveniences. Barely no forms of communication, no radio, television newspapers and such.
They are a tribal nation. How the heck are we supposed to help them establish some remblence of a police force or army in less than 2 years.
I feel like he's setting us up for failure, let alone letting our enemies know how long and how strong our commitment is. They have been fighting over there for centuries...they can wait.
This whole thing sounds politcal to me. The timing of our withdrawal is questionable, right around re-election time ain't it? </span>
<span>I think he's just saying what the people on both sides of the fence he's sitting on want to hear.
</span>
LOL. I haven't played pokemon since I was little, but I'm pretty sure that Tollybon evolves into Pockston!
Ok, I take back what I said..after reading it again and reading others opinions on FreeRepublic, I think that this statement was brilliant, why, because imagine what is going on at DU right now, they are all probably freakin out because Sarah Palin AGREES with Obama about the war..HAHA, OMG blood is probably coming out of their eyes right now. Can you also imagine the media, having to report that Sarah AGREES with the President. That will kill them to have to report that, Also, I think she should have put what she wrote on the bottom on the top, the bottom half of what she wrote is a lot better then the first paragraph because she basically calls Obama an idiot at the bottom
thing is... i don't think this statement is all strategy for Sarah. I think she actually means it.
I had the pleasure of not watching this speech.
But what I am getting from Governor Palin and all of you, is that President Obama is surging, but with a time clock, and Governor Palin believes you play until you are ahead and you win. No time clock, just win.
She agrees with Obama on the troop surge, but she is basically saying hey, I am gonna watch you, and if you screw this up I will be right here to respond to your idiocy
What's DU?
The thing that makes me sad is this time table the Pres. set. Can't you just imagine if you are a parent, wife, husband, etc. of troops being sent over there and then they get killed or injured badly and within months the rest of the troops will be pulled out to come home without a victory. Wow...that too me is unforgiveable. What will those with loved ones who won't be coming home feel.???
I thought Sarah's post was a good response to Obama's speech (more substance in fewer words).
His speech was once again too long, too cluttered, but once I sifted through all the useless crap, he did give in and provide the increase desperately needed.
30k is no 40k, but it's a hell of alot better than 10k or 20k. I say we take it!
I read his speech and I applied the usual filter (don't believe anything--he will say anything to get the bullseye off his tushka).
IMO, the -10k troops and the timetable was a bone he threw out to satisfy the anti-war libs. This is lipservice--lies. Let's see if they buy his 'promises.' Get the popcorn ready!!
We <span>know</span> that once the troops are in, it will be harder to extricate them in 2011 if they are succeeding--and they will succeed! NO DOUBT!!
You know, I can't help but wonder if McCrystal highballed Obama because he knew he was a punk and would give him less?
If so, that woulda been a smooth move on his part?
Sarah is choosing her battles wisely.
No need to field dress the man--yet.
If he does not honor the troops, she will launch the first strike.
All in all, a good day and a good outcome for our troops and Sarah.
He's not even surging. It's more a grand show for him... he's agreeing to send them over, but by the time they get there, his clock will be going off and he'll want them to come home without actually achieving anything.
am i reading too much into it or did the faces of the young cadets looks awfully troubled and concerned?. They appeared worried about their safety and future.
I would be.
For those that want to take it down a notch and lighten up a little bit, take a look at this youtube (with headgear and volume up):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4QBZfjtqs
Palin/Packy 2012
Botasky reminds me of Pawlenty
I especially like the way Packy smoothly moves between his hardware.
Thank you Sarah, thank you for your pragmatic leadership, giving credit where credit is due... Every dog has his day... Your out spoken and bold leadership helped in the public influence and effect of supporting this needed action.
Non partisan--country first decisions were displayed...it's the hallmark of statesmenship and governance...a standard of which honors your life and politics.
God Bless you... The country is in dire need of acts of statesmenship as with your remarks of support for Our President at this time and place.
Paralysis by analysis has been finally broken... Much to your credit.
Sorry...what is the DU
DU means Democrat Underground...extremely leftist site!
I meant to end my previous post with this:
For Obama, despite his lack of using the word victory, he was as patriotic as he could be without getting the heaves. LOL!!
I would think that Sarah got this too and smiled.
<span>Center right country my man, and don't you forget it!!</span>
I feel like chanting, "USA, USA, USA!!!" :-)
All Governor Palin is say here is "AS LONG AS WE'RE IN TO WIN'
I'll support President Obama’s decision.
No More, No Less.
sarah 2012
Nancy, I love the way you put things.
President Obama must be scratching his head right now.
"Did I really read to the American people that I agree with that prominent politician? What was TOTUS thinking?"
I know that I'm going to get blasted but I have to say that I just don't agree with Sarah's statement. I feel like Sarah is "settling" because that's the best we're gonna do.
Settling!!!! What happened to "going rogue" and "telling it like I see it"??
I think her statemnt was basically OK. What I would have like to have seen is something more forceful, something more "rogue".
What you all are calling "presidential" I see as just the same old rhetoric. Something I NEVER want to hear or see from Sarah.
From William Kristol, it about sums up how I feel about this "surge".....
"In a way, Obama is now saying: We're surging and fighting for the next 18 months; see you in July 2011. That's about as good as we were going to get."
Laker..
Well then why didn't she just say that??????
As Palin has been using Facebook over the past months I have been copying each one into a text file on my computer. It is 99 pages long (I usually put 1 per page) and contains 22,119 words. I've got all pictures and attachments that she posts on her notes as well.
Its pretty interesting to scroll through. It will be even more, in a few years, when I can look back and remember "oh yeah, thats how the first woman became POTUS"
It's OK to disagree with Sarah's statement. We can't just be an echo chamber here. It's healthy that we disagree with each other and with Sarah sometimes. I would be concerned if we didn't. I was a little bit surprised by her statement, especially the title. Although I also understand the more toned down rhetoric.
Sarah just tweeted that she saw excerpts of his speech and posted her thoughts on FB. Perhaps she would have posted something a bit different had she seen the whole speech.
Terri,
Read her last paragraph. She is gonna watch Obama become LBJ before our eyes.
terri,
You have every right to your opinion! You especially!
Have at it, with your opinion!:)
Yes!!!
Sapwolf....
I would have preferred her to have actually said that, not imply it.
Thanks!:)
Well, she can't say it like that LOL. She has to be careful with what words she says becuase she knows everyone is reading them. If I were advising her I would have said it just like that. SHe is being objective, becuase she knowes at the end, Obama will be a huge failure and she can come back and say "See I gave him a chance and he blew it, what else is knew"
CTSherman,
Chris Matthews. That was not good.
Wow-eeee!
I think that tingle up his leg, went straight to his brain and killed some brain cells!
Terri,
This timetable is from the guy who said that Guantanamo will be the first thing he was closing when he took office. Whatever...he had no clue. Same here with the surge.
The surge is happening! When the positive reports begin, he will not be able to pull them out.
Keep in mind, like Iraq, the level of violence is going to increase to test O's resolve.
The enemy knows he has a glass jaw and can't take a punch.
How ironic that Sarah and all of us conservatives will be the ones supporting O's move & the libs and the rest of the world will be shrieking.
All the talk tonight was his attempt to explain to his base why he did this.
Apparently, they have spazzed out over this news. How lovely.
We just waited for the words, "surge" & "troop increase." Done.
He finally bowed to our troops.
Sarah did not need to whack him upside his bowed head--but her hand is at the ready and she (we!) are watching.
I am watching some of the rerun of President Obama's speech.
It is The Reader's Theatre.
How. In. The. World. Does. Anyone. Think. He. Is. A. Great. Speaker.
He is reading to TOTUS! It is like no one is there. It is just him reading to TOTUS!
Basically Sarah's holding on to the last string of hope that Obama will do the right thing, at least in Afghanistan.
I too hold on to that string. If it works, I'm all for it. Doesn't mean I won't go ballistic once the stupidity starts, but for now, I'm glad he just made up his mind.
love it!
sarah 2012
I've often thought that after all this is over, somebody's going to have to sit down and write a book about the new media's role in this whole thing, from Adam Brinkley, to C4P, to the underground (Palingates, etc....).
I actually agree with it. She voiced concerns in there too, which she can use to bash Obama over the head with if Obama gets "wobbly," which we all know he will.
But on this issue you don't be going rogue at a speech that the POTUS makes at Westpoint. You can do that as a commentator in the media, but it's not the place for her to go medeival on him.
She agrees with him on giving the generals 30,000 more troops because they asked for it.
Sarah does NOT go rogue unless there is a collision between circumstances pushing her to make a political choice but she makes the morally better choice for what she sees is better for the country.
In other words, she doesn't go rogue because she is a rogue, but as a side-effect of her integrity, common sense and selflessness.
That is the Sarah we love.
Obama is a great speaker.
Biden is qualified to be President (or VP).
Palin is irrelevant.
MSNBC is a station that delivers news.
The globe is warming
...
We live in opposite world remember?
That bugs me to death! It's worse than "My Friends."
We can agree, to Disagree.
it's O.K.
sarah 2012
I think it's the Democratic Underground.
I am now watching the re-run of the speech as well.
Those cadets make me proud.
They are wide awake and are listening to every word.
Obama looks like he is swallowing bile as he reads.
Way to go TOTUS!
ellen,
LOL! You are right! Thank you for the reminder!
Maybe starting with reading a statesmanlike Facebook post, and then watching the empty suit, made me think clearly for a few minutes!:)
I caught the intro online. The ABC guy was setting it up...."The President is all alone on the stage now; he'll be delivering this speech alone..."
I stuck out my lower lip. "Awwww, where's Totus? Here Totus, here boy!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQTaWjMoFw
If anyone sees Sarah anytime soon, remind her about Tammy Bruce. I can't wait for those two to get together for an interview.
Okay, first look at this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TgLYLuDjlY
Then look at this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_dtc2ekrCE
Say what you want....GWB loved the military.
Karl Rove said on BOR regarding speech:
"Good news, bad delivery."
He also said that it looked like the teleprompter ran out of energizer bunny batteries. LOL!!
i understand why there is a difference of opinion but I think this was a good statement by palin. she should nto go rogue just for the sake of going rogue and on issues of defense/war there is the tradition of supporting the presdient or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt. that is what she is doing- however she is also making clear that if this is just about getting on an exit ramp then she will go after him. for all his faults, this is the area where I trust mccain the most and palin is lining up with him which i think is a good thing.
I like that...I am going to do that too.l
Thanks ellen
Uffda,
That video was incredibly funny and sadly very close, it seems, to reality.:)
Wow. After watching those, GWB not only loves the military, the military loves GWB.
GWB didn't need a teleprompter.
Thanks Terri.
I enjoyed that.
Bush got choked up from his feelings, Obama looked ill.
The comments posted on those 2 videos were enlightening.
O's honeymoon is definitely over.
The part of the speech I did watch...before I puked my dinner...and had to turn to a basketball game..
I noted that "Mr. President" was stumbling through certain parts. I wonder if TOTUS is getting as fed up with his crap as much as we are?...I'm sorry but he was trying so hard to be so serious and forceful...He came off looking like a child getting ready to throw a temper tantrum. I have to wonder.. when he looked straight into the camera.. to speak to the people of Afghanistan.. Was there a studio sign in front of him saying...."LOOK HERE NOW MR. PRESIDENT"...??? I bet there was.
Could there be a bigger joke than "Mr. President"?...Wrong Guy.. Wrong Time!
O having to support the surge and say nice things about our troops and America = kid eating his broccoli. LOL!!
I am telling you. He is watching a ping pong match. He doesn't even try to look into the camera or read from notes. He just reads with absolutely no emotion...
what a difference.
Night and Day
sarah 2012
OT here is how to contact Chrissy Matthews tell him how you really feel about his disgraceful comments: http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/contact.html
Here is what I wrote to that piece of crap:
How dare you call the cadets at West Point "the enemy" and a "rabble." And people like you wonder why us conservatives question your patriotism. You make me sick, you should be fired for this but you will not because you work for MSNBC and they have no standards at all exhibited by the fact that people like you and Keith Olbermann are allowed air time. You should go to West Point tomorrow morning and apologize. Then again you probably should not, a scumbag such as yourself does not deserve to be allowed on the grounds of a fine insitution such as West Point, a piece of used toilet paper has more honor there than you will ever have. You are nothing more than a political prostitute for the Obama administration. You are a disgrace to what was once a fine profession (journalism). But you don't care, after all it is your job that the President succeeds, well if you really feel that way resign tomorrow from your job (nobody will miss you because nobody watches you anyway) and apply for Robert Gibbs job.
She made the right statement. She knows as well as we do what he is, but at this point she has to take him at his word. She's not a talk radio host. She's potentially our next POTUS. The skepticism that he'll actually act like a man for the 1st time in his life is apparent in her statement, the right qualifiers are there about the timeline and...<span>she's watching</span>. That's statesmanlike.
We can emote and make assumptions (no matter how well founded). She has to wait for hard facts and then act.
It will definitely be interesting:)
I like that. You don't go rogue just for the sake of going rogue.
<span><span>WOW.. MORE BREAKING NEWS!
SARAH PALIN STEPS OFF OF A UFO IN ROSWELL, NM TO SIGN BOOKS!
LITTLE GREEN MEN AT HER SIDE AS HER SECURITY STAFF!
FILM AT 11:00!
INK IN SIGNING PEN IS REPORTED TO BE INVISIBLE! CROWD FEELS SLIGHTED</span>
<span>AS THEY CAN'T TELL IF SHE SIGNED THEIR BOOKS OR NOT!</span>
<span></span>
<span>LAWSUIT PENDING!</span></span>
Palin's Aunt Katie interviewd by Inside Edition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEy7d6R6D3o
Thanks for links. great.
Looks like our own RD has "outed" herself ;)!
Nicole Coulter drove in from Wichita, Kan.
"I liked her before it was cool to like her," Coulter said
<span> </span>
Exatcly.
The statement is good because she gets her points across without going Cheney on him.
Hey Guest that's .... Nicole Coulter =C4P =Refromed Dem.
sarah 2012<span></span>
Good she is careful. Those scum are looking for any little titbit to use against Sarah.
O/T..Good article at The American Thinker....The Palin brand; By Ted Belman
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_palin_brand.html
sarah 2012
Well, thank goodness this might get the lefties all worked up and keep the media from attacking Sarah. Gosh I am disappointed that her tour isn't near me, but she sure can't be everywhere--someone with her busy schedule thats for sure. Maybe her next book and tour will come close enough for me to go. It sickens me that it seems all those news type programs are anti Sarah, I think shes got them scared even the republican men are worried i think.. But hopefully, God bless, the news will layoff Sarah about planes, her children, oh gosh how that sickens, just sicken me. Like after 5 children she doesn't no how to dress them! And picking on her about glasses, betcha he pulls them off. God Bless our Sarah!! A true working mom working for all of us
Help! How do I sign up and not end up a guest, I woud like to sign up so my name shows up
Very good, after you read past the Frum's quotes :). I don't know if everyone knows that he voted for Obama last year. He did this because he didn't like McCain's pick as VP! Go figure the logic of that, whether he liked Palin or not.
Time to call the Men in Black.
Not sure if it will work for you, may depend on where/what site you registered to log on here, but ...
Directly under your name should be a little "box" - mine says JS in the box, the site that I'm registered on to log on here. Double click the box, and you should come up with a PROFILE page. Edit your name. That should be it.
<span>Not sure if it will work for you, may depend on where/what site you registered to log on here, but ... </span>
<span></span>
<span>Go to bottom of page, to big box with your name, and where you enter comments.</span>
Directly under your name should be a small "box" - mine says JS in the box, the site that I'm registered on to log on here. Double click the box, and you should come up with a PROFILE page. Edit your name. That should be it.
when you click to post a comment, try clicking on your name (guest). It should let you edit it.
If you're not registered with JS-Kit, click on the "From" box, select the JS kit option, and select "new js account" from the drop-down menu. Then you can edit your name once you're all signed up.
Looks like Trig might be walkin now:
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs051.snc3/13832_193809568587_24718773587_2910874_6329003_n.jpg
...unless he always could and I missed it lol
Am I seeing things? The AP fact-checked Obama's speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_obama_afghanistan
AP are anti-war. Many Obama supporters won't like this, seeing it as "weakness". Many in the media, on-line sites, bloggers, and most importantly the young will be less enchanted by Obama. The polls may not shift after this decision, but the enthusiasm among his supporters for him will be far less.
Finally got this thing to work....I hope. Hello all.
Not quite :). Did you do a save after editing your name?
Close:)
To be honest, on first glance her post took me back a little simply because it wasn't what I was expecting her to say. The title thew me off a bit and the language seemed to be toned down. At first glance I thought "Oh no, I hope someone isn't pressuring her to 'tone things down' now". (Of course I realized that this fear was irrational and quite silly, so it quickly left my head.)
I was mad that our President put politics over the lives of the troops under his command. Thirty thousand troops instead of the initial requested forty thousand to perhaps pander to his base? There was so many things to ding President Obama on from this speech. I was gearing up for Gov. Palin to give him the ol' Palin one-two and when she didn't I thought it was strange. Was she hearing the same things that were screaming to me? Was she upset like I was?
When I sat there though and thought about what she was saying, it dawned on me what she was doing and in reading the other posters here - it confirmed it for me. I could see it was a strategic move. A very good one. "Keeping the Presidents feet to the flame with a smile on her face" as someone so aptly put it.
There was one thing, however, that didn't sit right with me and I couldn't quite resolve. (I think terri was expressing it earlier.) Why the sudden change of tone to the rhetoric on this particular post? Why didn't she just come out and say things like she did earlier? I never want to see her having to resort to political jargon (especially on her facebook site.) It's not her. I refused to let myself believe that this was a political jargon post, but something still didn't sit right with me. I was bothered by the fact that I was bothered, so I ended up putting it aside for a while.
After being occupied with something else, I came back to the post later with my mind entirely clear of previous posts, my own prejudices, and expectations. I just read her post straight through from top to bottom and it suddenly hit me like a sledgehammer. I kid you not, the first though that came into my head was "MY WORD, THIS IS PITCH PERFECT". No need for me to read into things she was saying or trying to spin this positively for her in my mind. I wasn't trying to pretend that she can do no wrong either (as some accuse Palin fans of). I realized that my expectations and anger had prevented me from really reading her post in the first place. So to others who've had mixed feelings about this one, I encourage you to step away for a time, reread it, and then see if the sledgehammer hits you too.
OH AND GOVERNOR, THANKS FOR THIS ONE. IT REALLY WAS PITCH PERFECT. :)
P.S. WE'RE IN IT TO WIN IT.
Hi Guest. I can see you are now on JS-Kit. So to change your name do what I said above, and save the changes.
Hello C4P fellows,
I have been reading this site and have become addicted last few weeks, totally ignoring my MBA program. I have so many ideas to share with C4P. What can I do to help spreading news about this site and the truth about Sarah Palin to Asian Americans? As a start, I bought two GR books from Amazon and loan them out to friends who are conservative/liberals. At least, it's a start.
but he came to the fight kicking and screaming.
it's the subtext that matters, and that is disappointing, to say the least.
(make that game, SET, match !)
:-)
I'll provide a first hand report on the cadets reaction, but my take: bored as sh** (they have finals in two weeks and they must have been seated a good hour before he sauntered on stage)
And why the dramatic flair ? (we know why)
- he could have spoken to the cadets for 5 minutes during lunch and be done with it.
Canary, good to have you. Just keep spreading the word.
Most people love Sarah and despise the One.
Just befriend them and have your facts handy.
Check out my outline of C4P articles, it's a good reference point and you can "see" her progress on the tour.
Link here
terri, she DID say that..... In her "conditions"
"As long as....we're in to win....and as long as....decisions are based on....the advice of our military commanders, I support Present Ommmmmbaba's decision"
Terri,
It's not about Sarah. It's about the men and women serving. It's about America!
So wisdom prevails for the greater good. Remember that's what distinguished the Governor from the rest of the bunch: serving the people of this great country.
I think it was Ronald Reagan who said, "Trust but verify."
Isn't that what Sarah Palin is saying in her Facebook post? What she is trusting is the competence of the generals on the ground who embrace the 30,000 additional troops and who are in charge of implementing the "surge" strategy for Afghanistan; but what she is also doing is putting Obama on notice, that she will be watching him like a hawk to verify that he is going to carry through with the mission and not hamstring it or change horses in midstream and verify whether it is justified for Obama to have set a timeline for withdrawal.
You don't "go rogue" when the troops are involved. You put their mission and their odds of coming back alive FIRST.
Palin gets this because she has skin in the game. Her son is in a Stryker Brigade. Odds are, he will be sent to Afghanistan over the next couple of years. She gets this in spades.
The time to question the President's war policy will come. Now is not the time.
I'm sorry but we're not in it to win it. Obama is a spineless punk. You see, he's a weakling. So he throws a "bone" to both sides. He won't stand with his base completely because most Americans aren't gutless progressives and he knows this. So he caves in and sends troops but no way near what the general asked for.
The 40,000 he asked for was the MINIMUM he wanted. Some say he wanted up to 80,000. Also I wish Palin would comment on the pathetic rules of engagement. Some say it was Obama others say it was McChrystal (sic).
So the gutless wonder sends less than asked for and announces a withdrawal date. Brilliant! If by some miracle this post gets read by Palin a word of advice. Take the gloves off when the book tour ends!
I didn't watch Obama at West Point. I hope they sprayed the place after he left. That is an incredible American institution and he defiled it with his treasonous, pro Islamic tendencies. I'm absolutely disgusted with this administration. By the way I see people commenting about Obama not using "victory". Neither did Bush. He said something similar in '04 and got hammered by the right and Bush retracted his statement and talked tough. Bush and Obama are not in it to win it.
If they were this war would be over by now. A real leader and a real super power would've ended this by early 2002. If I had my way the Taliban, Al Qaeda, PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Abu Sayef, Islamic Jihad and every other Islamic group would've been crushed within months. Give the military 6 weeks in it can be done.
Take the gloves off Governor Palin. Go rogue and go all the way when the book tour ends.
Semper Fi
me too...pokeymon tollymon obamon....
I am able to put politics aside in this issue. National Security and Islamic extremests are the issue that is most important to me. I personally belive this is much more a threat than the economy. The current Democratic party I find, is less than supportive of our military men and women. While I do feel that Obama is bothered by dealing with the military and the wars altogether, the colonel asked for more troops... I wholeheartedly support his decision to send them.
I'm suprised he sent any troops at all to be honest, his is an empty suit and I believe he is a internal enemy with his own agenda even over the liberal's dreams of Utopia. I'm torn over Sarah's comment about it, I want the troops to have all that they need over there to stomp out these cockroaches calling themselves jihadists but at the same time I dont want her commiting political suicide either and loose all chance to get in the WH. The liberloons are watching all she does obviously and will use it against her if she runs in '12. (Please run Sarah!)
Bush had compassion, would cry in front of the world, he did not care, he loved the military , still does.
Sarah 2012!
Post a Comment