Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 1, 2013 in Politics, War | 6 comments

Sarah Palin On Syria

Am I getting old or did Sarah Palin just manage to say something that makes sense? Shortly before President Obama decided to seek congressional approval for the use of force in Syria, the former half term Alaskan Governor let her views be known. And most of it made sense. Not all of course. This is Sarah Palin we’re talking about, so she had to go over the top at the “fringes”.

From her Facebook page,

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

I especially liked the reference to her own reputation for being something less than the class valedictorian. Ok, the pithy quip is not too surprising. She’s always been good with a zinger, but she didn’t stop there. Other analysis (who knew I’d ever be using the word analysis to describe something from Sarah Palin) included:

“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?”

“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.”

I need an aspirin. Agreeing with Sarah Palin makes me dizzy.

Of course, what Palin couldn’t do is stop at a well reasoned response. She had to throw in,


And she had to add the usual Obama bashing, accusing the President of acting in bad faith to “save face” rather than crediting anyone who disagreed with her with having a valid point of view. Oh well, it is Sarah Palin. Guess we know how she’d vote if she were ever elected to another half term where she had a vote.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The Moderate Voice
  • sheknows

    Rand Paul said something similar this morning as well, although not with as much flair as Palin. ( well put about bombing Syria)
    I am wondering now if due to our technological advancement as a planet, we can never risk taking action against those who would use the most horrific means to kill others. Once you have the capability to inflict global damage and worldwide suffering on everyone, you can no longer afford to draw red lines.

    We have boxed ourselves in as a species and now must accept the worst of the worst of it’s inventions, knowing worse is yet to come.
    Without worldwide ACTIVE condemnation, we are all doomed to equal responsibility for these atrocities. Great legacy for the human race.

  • dduck

    First Bill O’Reily, then Palin. What next, something complimentary about Boehner or god forbid Bush II?. What’s the world coming to. 🙂

  • ShannonLeee

    Libertarian isolationism meets Pacifism. The two agree for totally different reasons.

  • StockBoyLA

    First of all we would not be “bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria.” I thought we would bomb Syria because Syria was using chemical weapons against civilians. Syria is indiscriminately killing innocent people.

    Second of all, “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 reasons we were told that we should attack Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq using chemical weapons on its own civilians. We were told we needed to invade Iraq because they had nuclear bombs and posed a threat to the US. Furthermore we were told that terrorists, working against the US, were in Iraq.

    ““We have no clear mission in Syria…There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today…” Well… I think America very much has an interest in Syria. Do we want to see a destabilized Syria? Do we want a dictator in Syria who is a puppet of say Russia or China? If we let the chemical attack go unchallenged, we ARE telling any dictator or authoritarian regime that the US does not care about the lives of innocent people. That if countries want to use chemical or biological weapons against their innocent civilians, then it’s not up to us prevent slaughter.


    Oh, and by the way… we’re the world’s superpower. I thought we should try to encourage democracy across the world. Turning our backs on opportunities to do so only paves the path for other dictators or authoritarian regimes to fill the void. I think our isolationist impulse is an Achilles Heel. We can’t claim to be a superpower, with military bases all over the world and then say we want to stay out of other countries’ business. If we really want this, we would close all our military bases on foreign soil. Is Palin calling for us to close all our military bases on foreign soil? If not, then why does she want to maintain the military bases but not become involved where American interests are at stake? Of course that’s probably her apocalyptic / “end of the world” beliefs…. war and devastation is the natural order of things.

  • JSpencer

    Of course one quotes Palin at their peril, but it IS odd to see her make sense (once in a blue moon). I agree with the comments made by sheknows about how we’ve boxed ourselves in. This planet has grown too small to continue our destructive and immature behavior as a species. We’d better start growing up soon because we are running out of time and space..

  • DagT140E

    Can’t help but wonder if her opinion would be different if we had a different President.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :