Sarah Palin adopts Ron Paul's foreign policy

[Knightskye]

A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.

See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we’ll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We’re not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We’re always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world.

But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries.

The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

How long before she gets called an "isolationist"?

[cswake]

AHHHhhhHHHhhHHH....

Primary discussion:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/palin-outlines-doctrine-for-use-of-force-picks-new-foreign-policy-adviser/

Secondary discussion:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/05/03/palin-outlines-doctrine-for-use-of-force-picks-new-foreign-policy-adviser/


Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.

[anaconda]

Does not appear to be a Ron Paul foreign policy because 1) It mandates no congressional approval and 2) It leaves open the door ro commit troops "when clear and vital American interests are at stake" See Hillary Clinton for details. Palin = Still FAIL.

[Cleaner44]

She appears to be learning... I sure hope so. Just like Glenn Beck appears to have learned just how right Ron Paul is. I think we often find it hard to believe, but people need time to absorb the wisdom of Ron Paul. There is a lot to be unlearned for most people.

[jmdrake]

Sweet!

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah...I wouldn't quite call it Ron's foreign policy, but you have to admit, it sounds better than most of the Republicans and Democrats.

[pcosmar]

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzyqomCHjK1qbo7v5o1_250.gif

http://impacthiringsolutions.com/careerblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fish_flop_hg_wht.gif

[Brett85]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/sarah-palin-changes-advisers-and-her-worldview/2011/03/29/AF7jauhF_blog.html

The author of this is completely nuts. It's good to know that Kristol seems to be all alone in support of unlimited intervention.

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't like the part where she said, "We use our military to win wars."

To me, that is just a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of what a military is for. Ron would never say that. Furthermore, that is a really open-ended statement for the "we must achieve success in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc before coming home" argument. What is a "win"? What is success"? To me, she still has a lot of work to do.

[Brett85]

I didn't like the part where she said, "We use our military to win wars."

To me, that is just a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of what a military is for. Ron would never say that. Furthermore, that is a really open-ended statement for the "we must achieve success in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc before coming home" argument. What is a "win"? What is success"? To me, she still has a lot of work to do.

She doesn't sound exactly like Ron, but the good news is that the big name people like Palin, Huckabee, and Bachmann are starting to reject the neo-conservative worldview. Read the quote from Bill Kristol in the article I linked.

[AuH20]

I didn't like the part where she said, "We use our military to win wars."

To me, that is just a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of what a military is for. Ron would never say that. Furthermore, that is a really open-ended statement for the "we must achieve success in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc before coming home" argument. What is a "win"? What is success"? To me, she still has a lot of work to do.

That is a huge change in her line of thinking. She is channeling Goldwater's position during the Vietnam War. This is a positive evolution in my eyes. You have to understand that the Military Industrial Complex desires long-drawn out conflicts without any success, so as to propel profit margins and potential resource grabs. The last thing they want is a 6 month campaign in which the narrow goal is immediately accomplished. They're looking at decades as opposed to months.

[anaconda]

Come On, folks...WHERE is her affirmation that only Congress should declare war? This is a glaring and unacceptable omission.

[nate895]

Yeah...I wouldn't quite call it Ron's foreign policy, but you have to admit, it sounds better than most of the Republicans and Democrats.

That isn't exactly hard...

[KramerDSP]

LMAO. The writing is on the wall. One of two things happen:

1) Sarah Palin announces she is running for POTUS, stealing RP's thunder with some semblence of his non-interventionist foreign policy. She wins the nominations due to grassroots fervor from the 9/12 movement. Obama destroys her in the General Election.

2) Sarah Palin does not run and shocks the world by endorsing Ron Paul.

[KramerDSP]

I find this morbidly hysterical. In March of 2007, very few people knew who Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D. was. Four years later, he is dragging everybody in his party slowly towards his way. They may only be talking the talk, but they're talking it. I wouldn't be surprised if in a month or three, Rudy Giuliani starts blasting the idea of going into Syria because of the blowback principle.

[ssantoro]

LMAO. The writing is on the wall. One of two things happen:

1) Sarah Palin announces she is running for POTUS, stealing RP's thunder with some semblence of his non-interventionist foreign policy. She wins the nominations due to grassroots fervor from the 9/12 movement. Obama destroys her in the General Election.

2) Sarah Palin does not run and shocks the world by endorsing Ron Paul.

I hope she picks 2.

[Sola_Fide]

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

That still sounds like intervention to me.

[Brett85]

That still sounds like intervention to me.

It depends on what the word "encourage" means.

[cindy25]

its a step in the right direction. I wonder what Bill Kristol thinks about her new position.

[Brett85]

I wonder what Bill Krystol thinks about her new position.

"The surge in Iraq works. The surge in Afghanistan works. There’s an Arab Spring. The world obviously needs American strength and leadership more than ever. And now everyone (even Palin, to some degree) decides, hey, time to back off? It’s foolish substantively and politically. Do Republicans really want to run as Obama-lite in foreign policy?”

Bill Kristol

[Sola_Fide]

"The surge in Iraq works. The surge in Afghanistan works. There’s an Arab Spring. The world obviously needs American strength and leadership more than ever. And now everyone (even Palin, to some degree) decides, hey, time to back off? It’s foolish substantively and politically. Do Republicans really want to run as Obama-lite in foreign policy?”

Bill Kristol

Spoken like someone who is losing the battle of ideas^^^

[Fermli]

It's going to be hilarious when the eventual GOP nominee debates Obama. Obama will be the pro-intervention candidate defending his Libya policy. And the GOP Nominee will be the one against unlimited intervention. Exact opposite of the 2008 debate.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Another "populist prostitute" move... these clowns look at the polls before opening their traps.

Stupid people follow this walking botox/collagen injected political whore, then when in office, their the same old puppets to the Elitist/Wealth/Special Interest

[johnrocks]

"When clear and vital American interests are at stake" is as open ended as progressives and their "General Welfare" crap.

[Koz]

She appears to be learning... I sure hope so. Just like Glenn Beck appears to have learned just how right Ron Paul is. I think we often find it hard to believe, but people need time to absorb the wisdom of Ron Paul. There is a lot to be unlearned for most people.

+ rep, I couldn't have said it better.

[Depressed Liberator]

Israel.

[Epic]

Hotair:
Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.

Uh, ever heard of Ron Paul?

[reduen]

Don't any of you remember Bush's foreign policy rhetoric before he became president....? I do because it was the main reason that I voted for the sumbitch. Palin is no different in my opinion. She will say whatever she thinks is popular at any given time and her actions will tell a much different story...

Here words aren't really even that much different than they have been all along and I would be very shocked if any of you in here really fell for this bull. Palin is a blood thirsty, mindless simpleton and this will not soon change, mark my words.... (Ya'll keep this up and I will have to tell you what I really think!)

[KramerDSP]

[B]Don't any of you remember Bush's foreign policy rhetoric before he became president....? I do because it was the main reason that I voted for the sumbitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

[reduen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Boils my blood every time I see this........

[Sola_Fide]

Don't any of you remember Bush's foreign policy rhetoric before he became president....? I do because it was the main reason that I voted for the sumbitch. Palin is no different in my opinion. She will say whatever she thinks is popular at any given time and her actions will tell a much different story...

Here words aren't really even that much different than they have been all along and I would be very shocked if any of you in here really fell for this bull. Palin is a blood thirsty, mindless simpleton and this will not soon change, mark my words.... (Ya'll keep this up and I will have to tell you what I really think!)

Prolly right.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I don't believe Palin is sincere, but the closer she comes to Ron Paul's position the better it is for us. She was sounding very Paul-ish the other night when I watched one of her interviews, so I hope she keeps talking. :p

[driller80545]

it. I wouldn't be surprised if in a month or three, Rudy Giuliani starts blasting the idea of going into Syria because of the blowback principle.


lmao

[libertybrewcity]

We're going to see a lot of this. But, remember it takes more than rhetoric to have principles.

[Electric Church]

They just want to plaster Palin’s face on to the Ron Paul Revolution like they successfully did with the tea party. They know there’s a good chance Paul will run so it’s time to use the Bimbo-Palin weapon… destroy by association. Any true Ron Paul supporter would want to vomit just mentioning Palin and Paul in the same breath let alone arduously comparing similarities.

What better place to begin that destructive association than on a Ron Paul forum?

[Kotin]

I believe this is a step in the right direction..

[doodle]

This is huge if she has changed her belief about role of god and national leaders in spreading freedom abroad:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA

Have to say being fired by her neocon tv bosses has done her some real good.

[Knightskye]

This is huge if she has changed her belief about role of god and national leaders in spreading freedom abroad:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA

Have to say being fired by her neocon tv bosses has done her some real good.

I'm leery of 20-second soundbites.

[Tinnuhana]

Link so we can post "Thank you for realizing that RP has been right all along" comments?

[Imperial]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/sarah-palin-changes-advisers-and-her-worldview/2011/03/29/AF7jauhF_blog.html

The author of this is completely nuts. It's good to know that Kristol seems to be all alone in support of unlimited intervention.

This is who they replaced David Weigel with when he was exiled from WaPo. I read it much less now, but I am reading Slate much more.

[AtomiC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Wow... just wow.

[Marenco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Politicians tend to lie. they're professionals at that.

[anaconda]

I will concede that her current talking points will likely edge many people closer and closer to embracing the "FULL VERSION" Ron Paul Foreign Policy. I just wonder what her thinking on this is, if that's not a non sequitur...

[iGGz]

Paul/Palin 2012?

[Sola_Fide]

Paul/Palin 2012?

Highly unlikely.

[anaconda]

Paul/Palin 2012?

God help us. She will need to be coached and tutored daily. And she needs to fully get with our platform before she can be trusted with this. And the specter of her being President either under the circumstance of the President's death or her election after 8 years as VP is gosh awful daunting. But I think if your heart is in the right place, you understand the Constitution, and you have great libertarian advisers, friggin hell you should be able to be a damn fine President.

I really would be tickled pink if she whole heartedly endorsed Ron and campaigned for him, too...

[anaconda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

The scary thing is that he might have actually believed what he was saying at that time...who knows what unholy deals were made?

[Eric21ND]

Paul/Palin 2012?
I'd rather she endorse and simply cheerlead for the Paul/whoever ticket.

[LibertyEagle]

That still sounds like intervention to me.

To me too. That whole thing from her is one giant contradiction.

[cindy25]

I don't think she has an opinion yet. she was a non-political person until her 30s. and I don't think she has an interest in foreign affairs.

but her endorsement would be a huge boost.

[bb_dg]

She seems to be moving toward Ron Paul foreign policy. If she endorses Ron Paul, we'll have sex appeal!!!

[trey4sports]

God help us. She will need to be coached and tutored daily. And she needs to fully get with our platform before she can be trusted with this. And the specter of her being President either under the circumstance of the President's death or her election after 8 years as VP is gosh awful daunting. But I think if your heart is in the right place, you understand the Constitution, and you have great libertarian advisers, friggin hell you should be able to be a damn fine President.

I really would be tickled pink if she whole heartedly endorsed Ron and campaigned for him, too...




This is what 2012 would be like if palin were our VP

"ahhh, ya know i like some magazines" uhhh which ones Mrs. palin? "Ya know, the ones with pictures"

[Original_Intent]

What I find amusing/annoying aobut this whole thing is in 2008, people were calling RP isolationist, and we were saying, no, it is non-interventionist, there is a big difference. But they never changed, yet the first thing I heard about this yesterday, some commentator remarked on Sarah Palin's "non-interventionist" foregin policy.

[Romulus]

She endorsed Rand.. no doubt that gave him a lift... we would benefit from her endorsement bigtime. Perfect or not, an ally in her should be courted.

[KramerDSP]

And the specter of her being President either under the circumstance of the President's death or her election after 8 years as VP is gosh awful daunting...

Ron Paul will not be able to win a General Election if Sarah Palin is his running mate. The left and the independents will NOT allow Palin to get to within a heartbeat of the Presidency, especially if the guy in office is the oldest President in the history of the United States (even though we all know he's far healthier than McCain).

[KramerDSP]

The scary thing is that he might have actually believed what he was saying at that time...who knows what unholy deals were made?

Bill Hicks had a theory that every President since 1963 that entered the Oval Office on Day One is brought into a smoky room and shown footage of the Kennedy asssassination from an entirely different angle, followed by video footage of family members. "Any questions? No? Good."

I mean, Bush 43 is Ron Paul in this video. Was he a non-interventionist? Probably not, because Bush 41 invaded Iraq to protect Kuwait, and the story is that Bush 43 went into Iraq to finish the job that his father didn't. If you look at Obama now (FWIW, I always knew he was not anti-war), his eyes are hollowed out and he seems to be a shell of who he was.


"I'll shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" - JFK


"There's been a coup - have you heard? It's the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything! They run the military .. and they're every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. And yet, think of the harm they have done since they were established at the end of World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They're in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators... We need to take out the CIA!" - Ron Paul

Assume the Bill Hicks theory is correct. If Paul becomes the 45th President of the United States, do they bypass showing this video, or do they threaten the lives of his family members (knowing fully well that anything they do to Ron would likely be counter-productive)? That would be one really strong reason why Ron does not really want the Presidency.