Palin blasts Obama foreign policy as “enemy-centric”

posted at 10:55 am on July 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sarah Palin’s critics sometimes poke fun at her regular messaging from her Facebook platform for a supposed lack of depth and heft.  Her comprehensive look at military and foreign policy yesterday provides a rebuttal to those critiques, as well as a direct challenge to Barack Obama’s assertions of “smart power.”  Palin blasts Obama for his “enemy-centric” foreign policy and criticizes Democrats who seek to score points on fiscal responsibility at the expense of the military:

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

Ironically, this is a charge usually leveled at Republican Presidents.  The Left regularly criticized Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush for their alliance with countries opposing Soviet and Cuban expansionism, especially in the Western Hemisphere.  Their defense of socialist revolutions almost always rested on the human-rights violations of the anti-communist governments that the US supported, or in some cases, the anti-communist insurgents, such as the contras in Nicaragua.   George W. Bush really transformed that dynamic, making the Left a lot more Scowcroftian in their opposition to his foreign policy, and Obama takes that even farther than Brent Scowcroft himself would go.

Palin sees this as an indication that Obama sees America far differently than most of his fellow Americans:

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

Most of this relates back to Palin’s main topic, defense spending.  Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government.  There is certainly room for improvement in efficiency and procurement, which is a morass even in the best of times, but reduction of forces is a bad idea for a nation at war.  The Navy appears to be their main target, but our Navy remains the protector of trade routes and the basic extension of American power around the globe.  The problem with retreating from that position will be the question of who fills the vacuum — and the answer to that question would almost certainly be China.

Be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Iran won’t develop and use dirty weapons as long as Obama is talking to thm.

Rea1ityCheck on July 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

How do you figure this?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM

He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

This is the guy who has spent the past year blowing up terrorist after terrorist via drone strikes in Pakistan. I get a feeling, thought I might think he’s wrong on nearly every issue, that he’s pretty confident in the US as a super power and would do nothign to change that.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

This is also the guy who bows to PRC premiers, Saudi kings and Japanese emperors while his wife rubs the Queen of England’s back. Who has travelled the world apologizing for America’s so-called sins. Who asserted in a speech in Cairo a while ago that Muslims were responsible for the Enlightenment. Who said at last year’s UN general assembly that no country should dominate any other. Who has been holding out his hand to the Iranian mullahs since before he was elected and doesn’t seem to have noticed that they’ve been continually slapping it. Who has double-dealed various US allies. If Obama believes in American exceptionalism, he would apparently define it as being exceptionally obsequious to those who hate America while throwing her allies under that ever-growing bus.

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 1:34 PM

hrh40 on July 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Even more important to Sarah Palin, I firmly believe, isn’t campaigning or running for President, but real concern as to where Obama’s foreign policy is leading us a nation.
Sarah’s worried that he’s going to get Americans killed.
We’ve already had a record number of soldiers KIA in Afghanistan since he became C-i-C.

Getting elected to office comes later and Sarah would be the first to say so.
First comes protecting, saving and defending the republic.
Someone in a leadership position has to stand up for American Exceptionalism and greatness and I’m thrilled that Sarah stepped up to the plate and answered her country’s call.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM

It doesn’t matter how big or small your military is or even what weapons you use if you either don’t use them properly at the right time or if you abuse them (the way LBJ did in Vietnam).

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Or if you pronounce widely exactly when you will and will not use them, as Obama did with nuclear weapons.

ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

Ok, that’s what he actually said, right?

Palin is lying about what Obama said and how he feels.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Here is what she actually said:

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies.

So, in what way is she “lying”?

He’s never ever said he’s upset that we’re a super power, he’s never implied he’s ashamed of that, and he’s never given any impression he wants that to change.

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Really? As you can clearly see in the bolded section of HIS ACTUAL WORDS, Obama is saying that, if only we were NOT a superpower, we would NOT get pulled into these conflicts, it would NOT cost us blood and treasure and we would NOT be in a position where it was in our best interests to solve these conflicts.

That sounds to me an awful lot like he IS implying that he is upset we are a superpower and that he WOULD prefer for that to change. Because, if that changed we would not have all that hard work to do in solving conflicts, we wouldn’t get pulled into those conflicts and it wouldn’t cost us blood and treasure. (and we would have more time for golf, date nights and other important stuff!!)

So, her statement says that most Americans and America’s allies like the fact that we are a superpower whereas it is pretty clear that Obama believes that America being a superpower causes us all kinds of problems that wouldn’t exist except for that lamentable fact (like it or not – we have no choice – waaaahhh!!!)

Claiming that she is flat out “lying” is more than merely disingenuous, its downright purposefully misleading (i.e. – its a LIE!).

Fatal on July 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Iran won’t develop and use dirty weapons as long as Obama is talking to thm.
Rea1ityCheck on July 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Actually, Iran has recently said they WON’T talk to Obama until at least six months after America and every other country in the world lift their sanctions and agree to disarm Israel.

I know Obama said there would be no preconditions to his meeting with terrorist leaders. But he was unclear on whether that meant he wouldn’t demand any preconditions from them, or whether that meant he wouldn’t accede to whatever preconditions they demanded.

So, I guess you could say Obama’s policy wasn’t very detailed. But, more importantly, he didn’t reprint a copy of that speech on something as horifically jejune as Facebook — so that magically makes his foreign policy freaking BRILLIANT!

logis on July 1, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Sarah’s worried that he’s going to get Americans killed.
We’ve already had a record number of soldiers KIA in Afghanistan since he became C-i-C.

This has more to do with the surge than anything else. The left was good at equating body counts with failures without looking at the details. The right should not make the same
mistake.
If Obama is letting the generals fight to win he should be applauded. If he is vetting strategic plans from the oval office as Johnson did he deserves criticism. Considering that more strikes are being made in Pakistan than were under Bush it would appear he is giving the generals wide latitude.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Well du-uh. Obviously it’s moronic to claim that placing 100,000 troops on Iran’s border is nothing.

And it’s significantly beyond moronic to use that as a defense of Barack Obama, let alone (somehow) an attack against Sarah Palin.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Excuse me logis, but if you think what I wrote was defending Obama, you missed my point entirely. Even more surprising…that it was “(somehow) an attack against Sarah Palin”…leaves me scratching my head. Like, huh? I have been a vocal Palin supporter since before she was selected as McCain’s VP, and she is validating my early support of her every day.

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Well du-uh.…

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

you missed my point entirely.

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Um, actually I AGREED with your point entirely. That’s what the word “du-uh” means.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM

This has more to do with the surge than anything else.

There is no “surge” in Afghanistan. Not really.
And I recall no higher body count in Iraq when we implemented the surge.
Most of our casualties in Iraq were from IEDs; Afghanistan’s become the same way.

If Obama is letting the generals fight to win he should be applauded.

The generals were part of the problem which is why getting rid of McChrystal (Mr. COIN) is a good thing.
Petraeus has already said he would lift the restrictive ROEs that were getting our guys killed, but that’s not down to Maobama because in order to get Petraeus to take a demotion and run the war in Afghanistan, Petraeus gets to call the tune.
Maobama fired McKiernan who was doing a adequate job of running the war.

Many of our KIAs in Afghanistan are down to not only Obama’s “civilian friendly” ROEs but his insistence that jihadis be read their Miranda “rights,” his refusal to define the mission as Victory (over the Taliban), his placement of McChrystal in place of McKiernan so that he could push nation-building rather than military triumph, and his public trashing of Karzai who was forced to negotiate with the Taliban for survival.

If he is vetting strategic plans from the oval office as Johnson did he deserves criticism.

Well, get busy.

Considering that more strikes are being made in Pakistan than were under Bush it would appear he is giving the generals wide latitude.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

I asked you to prove and document this claim, which you have yet to do.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM

That’s a great blog-post by Palin. I would add that his domestic policies are enemy-centric as well.

james23 on July 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM

If Obama is letting the generals fight to win he should be applauded. If he is vetting strategic plans from the oval office as Johnson did he deserves criticism. Considering that more strikes are being made in Pakistan than were under Bush it would appear he is giving the generals wide latitude.
Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

The good news is that Obama is trusting generals implicitly, and giving them unlimited latitude in identifying which targets to eliminate in Pakistan.

The bad news is that those generals aren’t AMERICANS. All our troops are doing is shooting missiles where Pakistani leaders tell us to.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 1:56 PM

TheBlueSite on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I would imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of private citizens commenting on blogs, facebook pages, Twittering their opinion about Obama’s foreign and domestic policy. Why is Sarah your go-to girl?

I know the answer, but you would die before admitting it.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

President Obama has a big weakness in his drone strike strategy.

You can’t interrogate a steaming pile of goo in a smoking hole.

Many analysts have said that capturing and interrogating high value targets is what was most effective in protecting America post 9-11.

What was the first things he did when he got in office?

Promise to close Gitmo, and dismantle the interrogation programs that were in place.

It is hurting us more than we know, I believe.

Because he’s afraid of a little waterboarding, and what other nations will say about him.

Inexcusable.

Brian1972 on July 1, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

The war overseas isn’t our only worry: Sarah and I and millions of other fine Americans are worried about attacks on *us* here at home!
(Notice Obowma isn’t.)

Remember why Osama Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11? Because he perceived us to be the “weak horse” overseas…

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

And I recall no higher body count in Iraq when we implemented the surge.
Most of our casualties in Iraq were from IEDs; Afghanistan’s become the same way…
I asked you to prove and document this claim, which you have yet to do.
Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM

You have never asked me. But since you don’t seem to read the news very much… first link is from Jan 10 and second is from June 2010

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/army_casualties_010410w/
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/30/2055887/petraeus-steps-in-as-afghan-war.html

But a host of other hazards have pushed to the fore as Petraeus, who was confirmed Wednesday by the Senate, 99-0, takes command in Afghanistan. Firefights, helicopter crashes, ambushes, sniper fire and complex coordinated assaults — such as Wednesday’s failed attempt by insurgents to fight their way onto NATO’s largest air base in eastern Afghanistan — also exacted significant tolls in deaths and injuries.
….Petraeus himself acknowledged that the rate of battlefield casualties was unlikely to decline much as the summer wore on. “My sense is that the tough fighting will continue,” he told senators Tuesday at his confirmation hearing in Washington. “Indeed, it may get more intense in the next few months.”

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Another leap in logic despite the facts. Specifically that Obama has not closed Gitmo, has not really changed the wiretap monitoring, and is keeping much of the info confidential.
In other words, once he became President Obama instead of candidate Obama he understood what Bush was doing.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I know the answer, but you would die before admitting it.

caygeon on July 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Because she is pro-life.

That’s the only reason — and the entire reason — the Left hates Palin. Because she had the audacity to have a Downs Syndrome child, when they believe she should have had its brains sucked out. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

John the Libertarian on July 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM

logis on July 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Okies…sorry…carry on…

ornery_independent on July 1, 2010 at 2:31 PM

You have never asked me. But since you don’t seem to read the news very much… first link is from Jan 10 and second is from June 2010

I did ask you.
Read up the thread.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/

ArmyTimes isn’t a reliable source.
Sorry.
As for me not reading the news: Screw you.
I do nothing but read the news and have done all day, every day for the last 10 years.
Sounds like you’re putting all your hopes on Petraeus (whom you on the Left were calling “Betray us” not so long ago).
Petraeus will probably do a good job, not to make Oilbama look good, but because he loves this country and he loves his soldiers.

Another leap in logic despite the facts. Specifically that Obama has not closed Gitmo, has not really changed the wiretap monitoring, and is keeping much of the info confidential.
In other words, once he became President Obama instead of candidate Obama he understood what Bush was doing.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Bullsh*t.
He became President Obowma who is an idiot, a coward and a hater of America, her military and white people (not necessarily in that order) who isn’t capable of doing squat except playing golf and I hear he’s not too great at that.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:35 PM

But a host of other hazards have pushed to the fore as Petraeus, who was confirmed Wednesday by the Senate, 99-0, takes command in Afghanistan. Firefights, helicopter crashes, ambushes, sniper fire and complex coordinated assaults — such as Wednesday’s failed attempt by insurgents to fight their way onto NATO’s largest air base in eastern Afghanistan — also exacted significant tolls in deaths and injuries.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:24 PM

The Taliban would never have had the nerve to attack the NATO base when Bush was president!
Obowma signaled to them that we were weak and that our soldiers weren’t going to fire back on the enemy on his orders and that they’d be Mirandized and given criminal trials in case they were captured (IOW, they’d get off!).
The Taliban is now executing 7 year old boys as “spies” and using 5-year-old boys to deliver bombs–it’s Katie bar the door until Petraeus gets there and takes his gloves off (if–Big if–Obowma doesn’t stop him from doing so…!).

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Army times is not reliable. Aaah now I get it – your idea of reliable fact based sources are Palin’s facebook wall and conservative sites such as HA, which link to news sources.
You asked for facts and I presented those. It is your problem that you lack even the most basic sense of objectivity. You shop for opinions and news that fit your narrative and little more.
When someone has a differing viewpoint your knee jerk reaction is to claim I’m “on the left”. You and Al Sharpton should be neighbors — you act exactly the same in your reactions to facts that go counter to your views.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Army times is not reliable.

It’s not–it’s owned by Gannett, a Left-wing MSM organ.

your idea of reliable fact based sources are Palin’s facebook wall and conservative sites such as HA, which link to news sources.

You have no idea where I get my news, so don’t even try.
BTW, are you saying that HA is an unreliable source for news?

You asked for facts and I presented those.

No, I asked you to prove your assertion that there have been more strikes on Pakistani terrorists under Oilbama than Bush.
You failed to do so.
2 links–one of which was about Petraeus, do not “facts” make.

I’m “on the left”.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Of course you’re on the Left!
You’re trying to cover for Obowma and being a fellow Leftist is the only explanation.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:44 PM

BTW, I have video of Sarah’s entire speech here.

gary4205 on July 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

God help us even survive the DOTUS until January 20, 2013.

PappyD61 on July 1, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Spot on post Bradky. Jen is a blowhard fundamentalist who hasn’t had an original thought since birth I suspect. Typically considers himself well read and informed, but simply regurgitates commentary and analysis he thinks fit his worldview. Lightweight kid stuff.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Ernie, you are truely a puppet of the left…or should that be muppet?

MechEng5by5 on July 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Spot on post Bradky. Jen is a blowhard fundamentalist who hasn’t had an original thought since birth I suspect. Typically considers himself well read and informed, but simply regurgitates commentary and analysis he thinks fit his worldview. Lightweight kid stuff.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Nothing like ad hominems galore to make your argument!
LOL

By the way, does the screen name “Jenfidel” suggest that I’m a “he?”
I think not.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Slightly OT but watch Troopathon live and then donate care packages to our troops!
Rush was just on and Sarah Palin will be on in about half an hour!

God bless our troops!

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Chick or dude Jen, you’re a fundamentalist puppet regardless.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Here you go Jenfidel:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0202/Obama-ups-Pakistan-drone-strikes-in-assassination-campaign

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Chick or dude Jen, you’re a fundamentalist puppet regardless.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Chick or dude, you’re an ad hominem Palin-hating and Christian-hating bomb thrower regardless.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Chick or dude, you’re an ad hominem Palin-hating and Christian-hating bomb thrower regardless.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Nope. Simply won’t abide fundamentalism of any stripe.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM

This has more to do with the surge rules of engagement than anything else.
Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Fixed it for you Bradky.

bw222 on July 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Nope. Simply won’t abide fundamentalism of any stripe.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM

That’s a real shame because millions of Americans are “fundamentalist,” meaning Bible-believing, Christians and many more are “fundamentalist,” meaning Orthodox, Jews.
Are you not going to “abide” all of us?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 5:21 PM

dakine, bradky, thebluesite.

It must be a-hole day at HA because the a-holes are out in force.

bw222 on July 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0202/Obama-ups-Pakistan-drone-strikes-in-assassination-campaign

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM

CSMonitor’s another Leftist rag…and why isn’t Oilbama having those drones hit the bad guys in Afghanistan where they’re killing our troops (and Afghan civilians)!

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Iran won’t develop and use dirty weapons as long as Obama is talking to thm.

Rea1ityCheck on July 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Hitler won’t invade France as long as we keep negotiating.

It all comes ’round again. “Intellectual” ignorance will be the death of us all.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM

What Blue Site and ernesto can’t get around is that Obama is not respected around the world for a reason. The perception of weakness is based on substance. The notion of strength and reliability is a precious thing to have in politics. Once it is gone, it is dreadfully hard to recover.

victor82 on July 1, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Yeah, that one’s going to leave a mark.

No you idiot! She’s arguing for a return to Reagan era policies and our country’s greatness.

Vince on July 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

That’s exactly what she’s arguing for. Peace through strength.

Jingoism isn’t a foreign policy. For all the complaining she does here, there is precious little on how a Palin foreign policy would generate solutions to the issues she brings up. For all his bravado and “ally-centricricity”, Bush’s foreign policy approach brought zero movement on the issues of Iran or NK, generated a crisis in Iraq, and made no progress whatsoever in Israel.

Anyone care to explain why on earth we should consider Palin’s assessment valid, or her position preferable to that of Obama’s?

ernesto on July 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

See above. Palin understands that you get more peace through strength than weakness, which puts her miles above Obama.

And the only people who use the word “jingoism” are those who want to disparage patriotism. You revealed more of yourself than you may have wanted to here.

tom on July 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Is that bunch the best they’ve got?

Almost as sad as Omaba…

Failures! They’ve got nothing and slink away….

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0202/Obama-ups-Pakistan-drone-strikes-in-assassination-campaign

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM

CSMonitor’s another Leftist rag…and why isn’t Oilbama having those drones hit the bad guys in Afghanistan where they’re killing our troops (and Afghan civilians)!

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM

The statistics are from the Long War Journal.. though I am sure they are commies to you. Again, you are reminded to read rather than skim headlines.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Most of this relates back to Palin’s main topic, defense spending. Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government.

She’s right, but perpetual nation-building wars and policing the world do not fall under the national defense category. Those fall under overseas entitlement/welfare programs funded by the US taxpayer.

Rae on July 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM

The statistics are from the Long War Journal.. though I am sure they are commies to you. Again, you are reminded to read rather than skim headlines.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM

I’ve searched the web for good war journals since the WOT began and I’ve never heard of the “Long War Journal.”
Commmies, Lefties–what’s the difference?

As for reading the LSM, what’s the point if you can’t trust what they say or the agenda behind it?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

tom on July 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did. Palin can squawk all she wants but during the campaign she and maverik were rather critical of Obama when he said he would go after AQ and Taliban assets in Pakistan. He has stepped that up even if some here choose to ignore that important fact.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Complete horsesh*t.
We’re about to lose it!
The only thing that can bring the momentum back is Petraeus by relaxing the restrictive ROEs and letting our guys win, despite Obowma’s desire to lose it and withdraw.

Palin can squawk all she wants but during the campaign she and maverik were rather critical of Obama when he said he would go after AQ and Taliban assets in Pakistan. He has stepped that up even if some here choose to ignore that important fact.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Why’s he having Pakistani generals go after the bad guys in Pok-i-ston when the Taliban is killing our guys in Afghanistan?!

Pakistan has an endless supply of jihadi killers.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Dakine,,, whats with calling people “fundalmentalists”? Is not Obama a communist fundamentalist? get off the name calling and admit that Obama wants to open the borders, gut the defense and blow out the budget.

garydt on July 1, 2010 at 7:15 PM

There’s FOUR… lol

golfmann on July 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Another leap in logic despite the facts. Specifically that Obama has not closed Gitmo, has not really changed the wiretap monitoring, and is keeping much of the info confidential.
In other words, once he became President Obama instead of candidate Obama he understood what Bush was doing.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Did you approve when Bush was doing it? Or only when Obama started (reluctantly) doing it?

Or did you decide to approve when you saw a chance to try to bash Palin?

tom on July 1, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Chick or dude, you’re an ad hominem Palin-hating and Christian-hating bomb thrower regardless.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Nope. Simply won’t abide fundamentalism of any stripe.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Fundamentalist by itself is a meaningless term. There’s a world of difference between a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Orthodox Jew, and a fundamentalist Muslim.

Just as a pertinent example, a fundamentalist Orthodox Jew is not going to try to evangelize like a fundamentalist Christian, and a fundamentalist Christian is not going to try to kill you like a fundamentalist Muslim.

And a fundamentalist basketball coach will focus his team on doing the fundamentals of the sport well.

So you could make a very good case that a “fundamentalist American” might refer to someone who still believes in those values that actually made our country great, like free enterprise, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, liberty, and peace through strength.

“Fundamentalist” by itself is meaningless.

tom on July 1, 2010 at 8:02 PM

There she goes again, stating the clear truth on the actual issues in a short to the point lesson. THAT’S Leadership! Our weak three Mouseketeers of Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee have nothing to say at all directed against Obama’s weak spots. Why not? Are they gutless?

jimw on July 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM

There she goes again, stating the clear truth on the actual issues in a short to the point lesson. THAT’S Leadership! Our weak three Mouseketeers of Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee have nothing to say at all directed against Obama’s weak spots. Why not? Are they gutless?

jimw on July 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM

I think we can scratch Lonesome Rhodes Huckabee off the list!

I heard today he is about to take his show, the modern day version of Hee-Haw, into syndication!

In other words, he’s doing what losers like him accused Sarah of wanting to do: become the “conservative Oprah”!

Funny how, one by one these clowns out themselves!

gary4205 on July 1, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Chick or dude Jen, you’re a fundamentalist puppet regardless.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Jen must be right over the target if she’s getting flak…

I love Sarah Palin, I have never seen such a fearless warrior and someone who is so putting herself out there, incurring the ugly wrath of the Hatefilled Left, because she sees America and her people as worth it… God bless her…

CCRWM on July 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Lexamfox, could you possibly be any more full of sh*t?
Yes obama has stepped up drone strikes, but that is it.
He has allowed our soldeirs to be put at risk with bogus ROEs and has announced a pullout date.
The surge? He made sure there wouldn’t be enough soldiers provided to actually win.
WTH, is it leftist troll day here at HA?
I guess spewing their hatred and lies here beats facing reality that they are losong power and are failures.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 9:31 PM

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Lexamfox, could you possibly be any more full of sh*t?
Yes obama has stepped up drone strikes, but that is it.
He has allowed our soldeirs to be put at risk with bogus ROEs and has announced a pullout date.
The surge? He made sure there wouldn’t be enough soldiers provided to actually win.
WTH, is it leftist troll day here at HA?
I guess spewing their hatred and lies here beats facing reality that they are losong power and are failures.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 9:31 PM

No. You are wrong. Name one resource which has been cut or not increased in Afghanistan since Obama took office. The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission. The Soviets went in with ROE’s essentially authorizing them to kill everything that moved and it did not work out for them.

There are far more troops and more of virtually every other possible resource being allocated to Afghanistan since Obama’s election. There were 10k more troops even before the official offensive.

I’ve searched the web for good war journals since the WOT began and I’ve never heard of the “Long War Journal.”
Commmies, Lefties–what’s the difference?

As for reading the LSM, what’s the point if you can’t trust what they say or the agenda behind it?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Again Jen… it seems others have to do everything for you since you are such a dolt. Here’s a link to the LWJ that you could not find. I think you are using a Chinese gov’t search engine… the editor is a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard… do you know what that is?

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 9:44 PM

http://blog.cagle.com/2010/07/01/the-strategic-genius-of-sarah-palin/

Like most great women of mystery, Sarah Palin is at once everywhere and nowhere. On any given evening, you might see the former Alaska governor-turned-conservative-icon on Fox News, chatting up like-minded travelers about the political buzz du jour. Her byline pops up now and again in the opinion pages (supporting McCain, bashing enviros). She periodically hits the campaign trail with favored candidates. She is a prolific and passionate tweeter. Her Facebook page overflows with thoughts on global events both past (D-Day, Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech) and present (Israel, border security, the need to drill, baby, drill); news of upcoming appearances (a rally at the Lincoln Memorial with Glenn Beck, a possible U.K. jaunt to meet Margaret Thatcher); the latest media atrocities committed against her; and her rolling endorsements of “commonsense conservative” candidates who tickle her fancy. And, any day now, filming is scheduled to start on the docu-travelogue series in which Palin will “bring the wonder and majesty of Alaska” to TLC viewers.

In the midst of this aggressive visibility, however, Palin keeps a tight grip on her time in the public eye. She rarely sits down with non-conservative interviewers and eschews mix-’em-up formats pitting her viewpoint against that of a more liberal counterpart. More fascinating, she is cautious about her interaction with fellow Republicans. Some of her Facebook endorsements this election cycle have come with telephone outreach to the chosen candidate or, for the fortunate few, even joint appearances. Others come suddenly, with no direct communication at all. More than one campaign learned of Palin’s endorsement only when some staffer or supporter stumbled across it online. There is, for instance, an entertaining video clip of Iowa gubernatorial hopeful Terry Branstad being handed news of his anointment during a June 3 campaign event. Blindsided, Branstad chuckles awkwardly and announces, with evident amazement, “I never expected this! Sarah Palin just endorsed us on Facebook.” (It’s hard to tell from audience members’ explosive laughter whether they are more delighted or appalled for Branstad, a moderate Republican whose endorsement by Palin drew howls of protest from her conservative followers.)

For Republican pols actively angling for Palin’s magic touch, simply attracting the attention of Palinland can prove challenging. There have been smirking media accounts of various Republican primary combatants scrambling for a Palin endorsement or appearance. Before he became infamous for serially exaggerating his r≠sum≠, Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk suffered the indignity of having his make-her-love-me-please memo to Palin pal Fred Malek leaked to the media. Among Republican strategists, there has arisen grumbling about the difficulties in connecting with her people. “Nobody even knows how to get hold of her. No one knows who to call,” says one. Some campaigns grew so desperate, they took to e-mailing Palin’s Facebook page. (Meanwhile, even among those considered close to Palin, there is some confusion as to who, besides Sarah and Todd, are in-the-know, central players in Palinland.) Grumps the strategist, “The entire Palin organization seems to be the woman, a massive Facebook page, and a ton of TV cameras.”

It’s an unconventional media strategy, to be sure, and not without its drawbacks — namely, bitter party operatives. (”This means that you can’t plan anything!” says the strategist.) Yet it’s hard to deny that Palin’s p.r. approach has not only succeeded but succeeded brilliantly. How? The most obvious element at work here is that Palin operates not as a politician but as a celebrity. “Most politicians can’t get on the cover of People,” sighs another GOP campaign veteran. “She’s on the cover almost every week.” The rules are different for celebrities: Palin’s megawattage enables her to command attention for every word and gesture, even as she largely stiff-arms The New York Times and “Meet the Press.” Similarly, candidates desperate for her endorsement are unlikely to (publicly) whine about whatever attention she dribbles their way, no matter how arbitrary or last-minute.

Of course, unlike other categories of the rich and famous, political celebs (especially populist firebrands) cannot risk being seen as remote or out of touch. But here’s where Palin’s embrace of new media saves the day. Her perky, quirky tweets and chatty Facebook items make her fans feel as though they have a direct line to her — despite the oft-voiced assumption that Palin (like so many pols) does not write most (if any) of her own Facebook posts. Such is the beauty of social networking: It allows a public figure to avoid direct interaction with the public while promoting the illusion of personal connection and involvement.

This model makes perfect sense for Palin if she plans to continue as a media personality. It’s unlikely she’d change her m.o., however, even if she decided to run for office again one day. It suits her core strengths — passion, pithiness, and a mind-boggling magnetism — and, let’s face it, it’s so much easier than the conventional model. Already, even as Palin eagerly collects scalps in the midterm races (a key step toward running for future office), she is skipping much of the messier, schmoozier work of building relationships with other campaigns (traditionally also a key step), opting instead to bless many from the safe, antiseptic distance of Facebook.

Palin would not be the first celebrity candidate to attempt an above-the-fray strategy. In the hunt for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, ex-senator and erstwhile actor Fred Thompson briefly entertained dreams of running a different kind of campaign, in which his fame and willingness to rely on the Web would spare him from trudging through all those snow banks in Iowa and New Hampshire. A key part of his plan was to speak directly to voters via blog posts and other new-media tools, rather than letting himself be filtered by all the usual gatekeepers. But Thompson, while plenty well-known and delightfully avuncular, lacked the fire in the belly to make it more than a couple of feet off the starting block.

Palin, by contrast, appears to still harbor plenty of ambition, or at least scores to settle. She also enjoys a media landscape far more “democratized” than what Thompson faced just a few years ago — who knows what Team Fred could have done with the Twitter mania that’s swept politics recently? — not to mention a star quality many Hollywood A-listers would kill for. With her new-media savvy and old-fashioned charisma, Palin has managed to merge Norma Desmond (”Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up”) with Greta Garbo (”I want to be alone”) to become one of the most irresistible spectacles on the public stage. Any political strategist who orchestrated such brilliant success via such unconventional means would instantly be dubbed the p.r. genius of our time. But, as far as we know, there is no crack communications team charting Palin’s course. At some point, even Palin haters may have to face the possibility that the public relations genius is Sarah herself.

NoNails on July 1, 2010 at 9:49 PM

The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission. The Soviets went in with ROE’s essentially authorizing them to kill everything that moved and it did not work out for them.

Changing the ROEs had nothing to do with either the Soviet experience or civilian casualties.
It’s a Leftist trick to weaken our military and our war effort because that’s what Obowma set out to do when he became Precedent and fired McKiernan.
The jihadis either hide behind civilians or claim to be civilians when they’re caught.
Obama gives his Muslim brothers in arms the advantage on the battlefield by hamstringing our guys.

There were 10k more troops even before the official offensive.

You lie.

Again Jen… it seems others have to do everything for you since you are such a dolt.

I don’t want you to do anything for me except shut up.

Here’s a link to the LWJ that you could not find. I think you are using a Chinese gov’t search engine… the editor is a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard… do you know what that is?

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Been a subscriber to the Weekly Standard for years.
I’ve still never heard of the Long War Journal and I read the magazine on a fairly regular basis.
And you can kiss my a$$, Ozzie!
I think you’re a useful idiot of the Left with your pissy British name, so we’re even.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM

NoNails on July 1, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Wow.
That’s one interesting post!
I wonder who you really are…

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Go, Sarah, go!!!

RedNewEnglander on July 1, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Wow.
That’s one interesting post!
I wonder who you really are…

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Some people know me as the Kentucky Colonel. ;-)

NoNails on July 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM

The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission.

BZZZT WRONG!

MChyrstal meth thought that we could not win unless we had the support of the populace. Based on that fantasy he put ROEs in place that made clear he valued the lives of Afghani civilians over our soldiers. The Taliban took advantage of such rules, often with the help of the “civilians”. Look up what our soldiers have to say on the issue. Until the hands of our soldiers are untied, we are significantly reducing our chances at winning.
I liked the attempt to somehow associate my point with what the Russians did. Too bad I don’t think we should do what they did either. Your next strawman please.

Like the dodge on the so-called-surge. Mchrystal had that right, but obama doesn’t want the war won. He wants to be able to say that he tried, but things were too far gone thanks to the Bush admin. Again, your fantasy that obama is doing more than Bush did to win in Afghanistan is just more leftist agitprop.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

NoNails on July 1, 2010 at 9:49 PM

That’s pretty friggin’ awesome!

gary4205 on July 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Sarah is modeling herself on Ronald Reagan. The Left said Reagan was stupid. Yet, Reagan had a whole body of writing on policy and other things that they didn’t know about. The Left says the same thing about Palin; she is not willing to wait until she dies for her body of political thought to be made public. It’s all her own writing, yet the Left continues to insist that she didn’t write it, that someone is telling her what to think and say. Let her speech writers come forth, if that’s the case, and let’s examine their body of writing for style.

Palin is laying the foundation for her presidential run. Through Facebook and a variety of public speeches, she is thinking through and developing a coherent constitutional political philosophy that she likely always had but had never bothered to articulate fully in writing. Now she is, and America knows where she stands.

Palin consistently takes down Obama. Obama consistently has no adequate response to Palin’s shots. In 2012, Obama’s only recourse will be to call a state of emergency and suspend elections. That’s the only thing that will keep Palin from defeating him because ACORN and illegal alien or other non-citizen voting will not be enough.

SilentWatcher on July 2, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at Pretty Much Every Post

Damn, your good! I’d take you over the Palin-hating girly men anyday of the week.

Sounds like YOU should be making Facebook posts as well.

Mr Purple on July 2, 2010 at 5:04 AM

Are you not going to “abide” all of us?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I won’t abide any of you. For purposes of this discussion, “fundamentalist” = “zealot”. All of you are dangerous and worthy of disrespect…some more than others. Religious zealots, environmental zealots, racial zealots, etc…all of you.

BTW, as I’ve used the term here, “fundamentalists” cling to dogmatic and entrenched positions that defy reasoned argument or contradictory evidence. In other words, fundamentalists view themselves as having stumbled upon the ultimate and absolute truth…THE TRUTH, and they’ll impose such truth on the rest of us every chance they get. Sound familiar?

dakine on July 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

dakine on July 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

In spite of the Leftists’ attempts to rewrite their “truths” on a regular basis, Truth does exist.

Your attempts to define “fundamentalism” are pathetic and do not justify your *liberal* use of the word to brand your political and social enemies.

Jenfidel on July 2, 2010 at 7:24 PM

“fundamentalists” cling to dogmatic and entrenched positions that defy reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.
dakine on July 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

On this thread alone, there’s substantial reasoned argument and contradictory evidence to refute your comments that are, I suppose, by those you dub “fundamentalists.”
You refuse to see it because you are a fundamentalist Shi’ite Democrat Leftist Liberal zealot.
Two can play at that game!

Jenfidel on July 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3