Sarah Palin on Obama and Syria

A few months ago, Sarah Palin advised Obama to “Let Allah sort it out”. She was speaking of course about Syria.

Thursday she said: “Mr. President, please give America justification before you spend blood and treasure to intervene. Start with: who are you rooting for in this?” A pertinent demand and even more pertinent question.

And now this:

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

* 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

August 31, 2013 | 29 Comments »

Leave a Reply

29 Comments / 29 Comments

  8. * 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.

    But then Obama was right and Bush wrong, If Pallin thinks it was right because congress approved a narrative based on lies half truths and spin and the forced or coerced coalition of the not so willing like Qatar supplying a single airplane that was never involved in combat or the Egyptians who never fired a shot in anger? Turkey who refused American overflights and use of Turkish bases? The Brits and Aussies contributed more than all the rest?????

    Palin was wrong then to support Bush and is still wrong in not learning anything since, she still supports that fiasco. She never blames the unfunded wars of Iraq and Afghanistan for much of the financial meltdown in 2008 and the $17 trillion debt.

  11. yamit82 Said:

    He came from Texas, so no need to add to that factoid.

    So what hell is your problem with Texas. When the Cowgirls in Texas get hold of you they are gonna have a [smal] BBQ!!!!!!!!

  14. Obama had to stop the strike: he suddenly realized that Iran, Syria and hezbullah recived the same meo from the white house which contained the list of targets. As they all immediately moved any strike would have been menaingless. A case of everything for nothing; egg was on the face 😛

  15. Eric R. Said:

    Mossad clearly stated that Saddam shipped them to Syria before the second Gulf War;

    I thought it was Debka that clearly stated, not Mossad.

  16. Eric R. Said:

    No, he could not have. The news media in this country hated him, and would have (and in fact, did) ignore any avidence of WMDs.

    Truth does not matter to the Goebbelesque propagandists of the American MSM. Destroying the GOP and creating a one-party Marxist state is all that matters to them. And they have repeatedly obscured and lied to achieve it.

    And sad to say, given the two time election of the Islamo-Marxist we have now, they have succeeded.

    Of course he could have. A credible presentation of American Israeli and other Intel agencies of other countries could have made a case that even an antagonistic press would have had to accept or at least punch giant holes in their anti Bush/Iraq claims and positions against Bush and his administration.

    You are taking the cowards way out of not blaming Bush by putting all responsibility for his incompetency and blunders on the ideological left but what is incomprehensible to me and a few others is why he did not even make an attempt at making the case for Saddam’s WMD’s.

    You explanation is a stupid cop out unless the left was in fact correct that the whole war in Iraq was one of control of oil and gas and denying the worlds 3rd largest proven reserve of oil to the Chinese, Russians and Iranians. Not only did America not attain those objectives she lost the war as well and departed with her tail between her legs…

    American industrial contractors made out like robber barons but why have you not ever asked the question in view of the $1.5 trillion in American treasure and over 10,000 casualties, why America never retrieved any of the losses to America by taking control of Iraqi oil and selling it or some of it over the ten year period to pay America back for it’s substantial outlay and loss of lives?

    In the end America didn’t get the oil, the Chinese did and none of the expenses to America recouped. Iran controls today most of Iraq and the civil war going on resembles Syria.

    All that can be laid at the feet of Republican 2 term president Bush and the neo-cons.

  18. Eric and Shy guy, I do believe there were WMD’s in Iraq. My only point is that there is also obviously WMD’s in Syria, whichever side is using them. So what is the difference? Why the support for war in Iraq a decade ago, but not now? I would ask the same to democrats why they gave Bush a hard time over Iraq and are now so willing to go to war in Syria? There is just so much partisan bullshit.

  20. yamit82 Said:

    Then explain why Bush never used the evidence in support of himself and supporters?
    Hecould have shut the left up
    and raised his approval ratings.

    No, he could not have. The news media in this country hated him, and would have (and in fact, did) ignore any avidence of WMDs.

    Truth does not matter to the Goebbelesque propagandists of the American MSM. Destroying the GOP and creating a one-party Marxist state is all that matters to them. And they have repeatedly obscured and lied to achieve it.

    And sad to say, given the two time election of the Islamo-Marxist we have now, they have succeeded.

  21. Laura Said:

    I’m not sure how much wisdom the people have. After all, they voted for Obama.

    And before that they voted for Bush twice and before that Clinton twice.

    Do you think there might not be some serious problem with the judgement of the American people and political system?

  22. Eric R. Said:

    Belief? Saddam used them on his own people.

    They were Kurds not Arabs, The Americans knew about it from day one but remained silent and still supported Saddam against Iran.

    There is no fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy and world views.

  23. Eric R. Said:

    Bush-hating media ignored this.

    Then explain why Bush never used the evidence in support of himself and supporters?

    Hecould have shut the left up

    and raised his approval ratings.

    Yet he remained silent to this day, Why is that?

    It seems stupid to defend Bush with reasons and so called evidence he never accepted and used in his own defense.

    Maybe it’s because Bush is as stupid as his opponents claimed him to be?

    Bush is an example of affirmative action for the rich and influential. It’s the only explanation of how he got into Ivy league universities and graduated.

    He came from Texas, so no need to add to that factoid. 😉

  24. Laura Said:

    But I can’t help but be amused at the anti-war posturing of conservatives. A decade ago they thought it absolutely imperative we invade Iraq on the mere belief he may have possession of WMD’s

    Belief? Saddam used them on his own people. And frankly, where do you think Assad got a lot of his chemical weapons? Mossad clearly stated that Saddam shipped them to Syria before the second Gulf War; but the international leftist, Jew-hating, Bush-hating media ignored this.

  25. Laura Said:

    A decade ago they thought it absolutely imperative we invade Iraq on the mere belief he may have possession of WMD’s.

    This is factually wrong. It wasn’t a “mere belief”. The entire US security apparatus kept stating it is so. There was bipartisan concurrence that this was an accurate assessment. As a reminder, watch this video. And if you listen to that video, Iraq was accused of being a supplier for world terrorists. Other than Hizballah, Syria pretty much keeps to itself.

    Apples and oranges.

  26. 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.

    I’m not sure how much wisdom the people have. After all, they voted for Obama.

    As for the British, they won’t even fight muslim aggression within their own nation. It’s no surprise they don’t have the stomach for doing so abroad.

    Note to Israpundit readers. We can expect this same opposition to a strike on Iran. Not that it is likely Obama would order one. So the anti-war sentiment on the right is troublesome. This is a test-case and Iran knows it will face no obstacles.

  27. These are all valid points. But I can’t help but be amused at the anti-war posturing of conservatives. A decade ago they thought it absolutely imperative we invade Iraq on the mere belief he may have possession of WMD’s. Now that we know WMD’s were used in Syria, whichever side it was, they do not think that is enough reason to bomb Syria. One has to ask is there any principles involved here or just partisanship?

  28. Palin summarizes the surmises others raise as regards Obama’s motives to attack Assad’s military, munitions and air bases and raises the same questions of Obama as to what is the U.S.’s material interest to be protected or advanced by attacking and what is the strategic objective for such attack.

    In all this, Palin and the pundits fail to raise a significant question with respect to the so called intelligence evidence Obama-Kerry have said they have that convinces them Assad is the one who used chemical weapons against his own people.

    Let’s look at that alluded to, but not revealed evidence from Assad’s material interest perspective based on what we do know from credible reports on Assad’s war with the rebels known as the Syrian Free Army.

    1. Assad began using his military power to stave off and defeat the Syrian Free Army rebels that began the civil war;

    2. Many so called innocent Syrians were caught in the cross fire and that number mounted as the civil war proceeded;

    3. Assad, focused on winning the war and retaining power would not have wanted anyone or anything to distract him from his objective or to join the battle that compromised his own forces and military capability;

    4. Assad may well have used chemical weapons a year or so ago that prompted Obama to go off script in a speech and say if proof of Assad using chemical weapons on his own people was proven, that would change the calculus of America’s position;

    5. Whatever Assad may have thought of Obama a year ago, the last thing he needed or wanted was an American intervention that would only advantage the Syrian Free Army;

    6. Since a year ago, evidence of the use of chemical weapons has been reported a number of times. Assad said it was the rebels who used it, while the rebels claimed it was Assad. The anti-Assad world were inclined to believe the rebels, however supposedly sufficient proof of responsibility was not to be found;

    7. Reports out of Syria and best assessments by Western experts over the last several or so months concluded that Assad was pushing the rebels back and winning the civil war;

    With this background, the question not being asked is, since Assad is winning the war, why would he need to use chemical weapons and put himself at any risk of an attack by the U.S. and EU allies that could only impact him and his forces? For Assad to use chemical weapons at this juncture of the war, would thus be an act against his own material and best interests.

    By the same token, it would be in the material and best interests of the now al Qaeda and Islamist affiliate factions that appeal to have wrested control of the Syrian Free Army rebels to draw America and the EU into the war, which intervention would only advantage them.

    It is a battle tactic of Islamists, that innocent people are used as human shields or are otherwise put into a position where they will be victims and useful for propaganda purposes.

    It raises a question, again not asked, were these innocent Syrian civilians the victims of the battle strategy of the Syrian Free Army, especially once those rebels were largely taken over by al Qaeda and Islamist affiliates?

    Add to that another fact. Obama and his administration have stated that they will avoid targeting chemical weapon installations. That means the U.S. knows where those installations are. They also know where the Syrian Rebel Forces are or have been until dislodged by Assad forces. Another question, thus not being asked of Obama is whether the Syrian Rebel forces were ever in control of areas that housed a chemical weapons depot?

    Finally there is one further set of factors that reveals the hypocrisy of Obama, his administration, party and supporters.

    On the domestic scene, the Obama administration has been plagued by scandals, which Obama and his supporters are going to great lengths to distance Obama from, saying if these things happened it was the work of misguided underlings, but not Obama’s fault.

    There was a report that one of Assad’s generals is the one who employed chemical weapons against innocent Syrians. No one asked whether, if that was true, did Assad know and order that attack?

    For the outraged Obama and the outraged, but feckless EU, it matters not whether Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons or it was a rogue general that resorted to using them.

    That is hypocrisy for Obama judges Assad by a standard he will not countenance being judged himself.

    There is no question that Assad is evil. It is also beyond doubt that al Qaeda and Islamists are evil by any Western measure of what is right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral.

    The question that Obama and his administration are not being put to is which faction, Assad or al Qaeda and Islamist affiliates are more evil and thus more of a threat to Western interests and stability in the region?

    Assad denies he has used chemical weapons. While he may well have had an interest in using them early on, it makes no sense, at least to a Western common sense mind that he would have used those weapons recently.

  29. I cannot think of a better summation of the utter fecklessness and mindlessness of Obama’s Middle East policies than what former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wrote a couple of days ago. America in its great centuries was a society that valued honest and straight talk based on common sense. I yet hope that this society can shuck off its various collapsing imperialisms and get back to its original status as the world’s leading constitutional republic of states, based on respect for the liberties and personal responsibilities of its citizens, and the rights of states to direct their own affairs in all matters not contravened or directly contradicted by the United States Constitution and its amendments.

    I hope all Israel is watching this particular drama, and witnessing carefully what happens when a government of a great country turns into a rogue operation led by a confused but vindictive and endlessly power-seeking tyrant. Over here, we sincerely will devote our best efforts to undo Obamism. But we also hope that for the sake of the Jewish state and the Jewish nation, you all will — citizens and government — distance yourselves from this particular American government and its endless chain of chinoiseries at the expense of its own citizens and its only real ally in the Middle East.

    Arnold Harris
    mount Horeb WI