PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Whoops: Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column


KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:07 PM
Raw Story
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has always tried to portray herself as tough on national security.

On Sunday, however, Palin may have taken it too far. Speaking to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the onetime Republican vice presidential nominee signaled that she supported war with Iran, referring to a recent online column by conservative Pat Buchanan.

“Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day,” Palin quipped. “Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years.”

Only, Buchanan said the opposite thing.

“Should war come,” he wrote Friday, “that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.”

In addition to costing the GOP politically (the speechwriter turned pundit said that war would ensure the reelection of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Buchanan said war with Iran was simply unwise — and even more than that, unfounded.

“Despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb,” Buchanan wrote, “the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.”

“And if Iran is hell-bent on a bomb,” he added, “why has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair not revised the 2007 finding and given us the hard evidence?”

Palin, seemingly misreading Buchanan’s piece, remarked, “Things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies.”

Palin’s remarks come about 3:15 into the following YouTube video. The exchange — and the column by Buchanan — was first noted by Talking Points Memo.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2sRhptO6FqI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2sRhptO6FqI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/whoops-palin-advocates-war-iran-apparently-misreading-column/

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 08:25 PM
I saw this earlier today and thought about posting it but I don't want people think I am obsessed with Palin.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 08:26 PM
Raw Story
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has always tried to portray herself as tough on national security.

On Sunday, however, Palin may have taken it too far. Speaking to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the onetime Republican vice presidential nominee signaled that she supported war with Iran, referring to a recent online column by conservative Pat Buchanan.

“Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day,” Palin quipped. “Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years.”

Only, Buchanan said the opposite thing.

“Should war come,” he wrote Friday, “that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.”

In addition to costing the GOP politically (the speechwriter turned pundit said that war would ensure the reelection of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Buchanan said war with Iran was simply unwise — and even more than that, unfounded.

“Despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb,” Buchanan wrote, “the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.”

“And if Iran is hell-bent on a bomb,” he added, “why has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair not revised the 2007 finding and given us the hard evidence?”

Palin, seemingly misreading Buchanan’s piece, remarked, “Things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies.”

Palin’s remarks come about 3:15 into the following YouTube video. The exchange — and the column by Buchanan — was first noted by Talking Points Memo.


http://rawstory.com/2010/02/whoops-palin-advocates-war-iran-apparently-misreading-column/

He is right too! It's the Bushies and the NC Dems ( the Centrists) that support this. The libertarians over at Lew's are mocking the crap out of Palin's Tea Party rhetoric....interpersed heavily with war, war, war. And as to hard evidence, never needed by the Bushies, there is none.

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:27 PM
I just want to be her intern, other than that I personally have no use for her.

orange
02-09-2010, 08:47 PM
Er, hmmm.


Some of you may know I'm not the biggest Palin fan on the board, so this is hard to do - but I think in this instance she actually got it right. That is, she DID properly reference Buchanon's piece and its repercussions.

This is from the transcript of the Wallace/Palin interview:

WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-sarah-palin/

I think she's pretty clearly echoing Buchanon's point that war with Iran would win Obama the election.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:51 PM
Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play.

Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program and impose the "crippling" sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.

And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

Harry Reid is surely aware a U.S. clash with Iran, with him at the president's side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator.

Senate bill 2799 would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes.

And cutting off a country's oil or gas is a proven path to war.

In 1941, the United States froze Japan's assets, denying her the funds to pay for the U.S. oil on which she relied, forcing Tokyo either to retreat from her empire or seize the only oil in reach, in the Dutch East Indies.

The only force able to interfere with a Japanese drive into the East Indies? The U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser in 1967 threatened to close the Straits of Tiran between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba to ships going to the Israeli port of Elath. That would have cut off 95 percent of Israel's oil.

Israel response: a pre-emptive war that destroyed Egypt's air force and put Israeli troops at Sharm el-Sheikh on the Straits of Tiran.

Were Reid and colleagues seeking to strengthen Obama's negotiating hand?

The opposite is true. The Senate is trying to force Obama's hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war -- a war to deny Iran weapons that the U.S. Intelligence community said in December 2007 Iran gave up trying to acquire in 2003.

Sound familiar?

Republican leader Mitch McConnell has made clear the Senate is seizing control of the Iran portfolio. "If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must."

U.S. interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West. But if that is our goal, the Senate bill, and a House version that passed 412 to 12, seem almost diabolically perverse.

For a cutoff in gas would hammer Iran's middle class. The Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia on their motorbikes would get all they need. Thus the leaders of the Green Movement who have stood up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah oppose sanctions that inflict suffering on their own people.

Cutting off gas to Iran would cause many deaths. And the families of the sick, the old, the weak, the women and the children who die are unlikely to feel gratitude toward those who killed them.

And despite the hysteria about Iran's imminent testing of a bomb, the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.

The low-enriched uranium at Natanz, enough for one test, has neither been moved nor enriched to weapons grade. Ahmadinejad this week offered to take the West's deal and trade it for fuel for its reactor. Iran's known nuclear facilities are under U.N. watch. The number of centrifuges operating at Natanz has fallen below 4,000. There is speculation they are breaking down or have been sabotaged.

And if Iran is hell-bent on a bomb, why has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair not revised the 2007 finding and given us the hard evidence?

U.S. anti-missile ships are moving into the Gulf. Anti-missile batteries are being deployed on the Arab shore. Yet, Gen. David Petraeus warned yesterday that a strike on Iran could stir nationalist sentiment behind the regime.

Nevertheless, the war drums have again begun to beat.

Daniel Pipes in a National Review Online piece featured by the Jerusalem Post -- "How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran" -- urges Obama to make a "dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue" by ordering the U.S. military to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Citing six polls, Pipes says Americans support an attack today and will "presumably rally around the flag" when the bombs fall.

Will Obama cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make "conservatives swoon," in Pipes' phrase, to save himself and his party? We shall see.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/02/05/will_obama_play_the_war_card?page=full&comments=true

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:52 PM
Can anyone, Obama supporter or resistance, actually envision Obama putting our troops in harm's way?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:55 PM
Can anyone, Obama supporter or resistance, actually envision Obama putting our troops in harm's way?

They've been in harms way since 2003 and when they come back they get the same response from the Obama admin as the Bush Admin. I see you've lost use of 2 limbs but we can't find anything wrong with you. Telling the troops to buy their own insurance, wtf is that?

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:58 PM
They've been in harms way since 2003 and when they come back they get the same response from the Obama admin as the Bush Admin. I see you've lost use of 2 limbs but we can't find anything wrong with you. Telling the troops to buy their own insurance, wtf is that?

He didn't put them there.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:00 PM
Can anyone, Obama supporter or resistance, actually envision Obama putting our troops in harm's way?

What? He just put 50,000 troops in Afghanistan this past year\this year

Donger
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
What? He just put 50,000 troops in Afghanistan this past year\this year

I should have been more precise. I was referring not to a continuation of hostilities.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:03 PM
I should have been more precise. I was referring not to a continuation of hostilities.

I definitely can see it if Iran gets a nuke.

Guru
02-09-2010, 09:44 PM
Er, hmmm.


Some of you may know I'm not the biggest Palin fan on the board, so this is hard to do - but I think in this instance she actually got it right. That is, she DID properly reference Buchanon's piece and its repercussions.

This is from the transcript of the Wallace/Palin interview:
WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-sarah-palin/I think she's pretty clearly echoing Buchanon's point that war with Iran would win Obama the election.Now your post made the context of the original post make more sense.

wazu
02-09-2010, 11:01 PM
I should have been more precise. I was referring not to a continuation of hostilities.

Not seeing the difference. Does LBJ get a pass because he wasn't the first to send troops to Vietnam?

Taco John
02-09-2010, 11:14 PM
Chris Wallace is terrible.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:30 AM
Can anyone, Obama supporter or resistance, actually envision Obama putting our troops in harm's way?

Is that what you want? You like getting them killed even when it's not necessary. Does that bring you wood too?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:34 AM
I should have been more precise. I was referring not to a continuation of hostilities.I would hope not. You see the people in the streets in Iran? They are not our enemy. The mullahs are. We can't sustain or win a war in Iran and it would be disasterous to the economy, our reputation and make thousands if not millions of new Al-Quaeda members. Very bad idea.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:37 AM
I would hope not. You see the people in the streets in Iran? They are not our enemy. The mullahs are. We can't sustain or win a war in Iran and it would be disasterous to the economy, our reputation and make thousands if not millions of new Al-Quaeda members. Very bad idea.

You see therein lies the problem, they are not our enemy period but when it comes to defending from invasion they turn into Al-Queada instantly.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:37 AM
I think she's pretty clearly echoing Buchanon's point that war with Iran would win Obama the election.

I haven't read Buchanan's editorial, ( looked for it too) but I am familiar with his views on war, including WWII, and I really doubt it. Not when you see polls on both the Iraq occupation and Afghanistan. Even Pat's followers on his site, which I just checked, are saying she misread it.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:47 AM
He doesn't say that—at all. He talks about rabid arch-NeoCon Daniel Pipes making that claim. This is in reference to Pipe's article in the NationalReview- "How to Save Obama's Presidency." This clearly is the pov as seen through the eyes of a NeoCon while claiming this is the view of Americans in general. It claims Pipes has relied on 6 polls to date. Of course any new polls will reflect the repeated and pounding rhetoric that Iran has a bomb. What are people to think with that? I'd love to see who they polled too. It could be reflecting the views of Bush Rs.

BTW Buchanan is on record in the same article as saying:
And despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb, the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.

Why press reports saying otherwise? I say more NeoCon false reports and reporters implanted on their side just like Bush used Judith Miller at the Times.
Meanwhile, the same track is being used as it was on Iran: sanctions, embargoes the latter surely being an act of war which was done to Japan prior to WWII and putting one on Iran will hurt it's middle-class ( those who would want regime change but who might change their minds and rally to their govt) as they have limited refining capacity.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/

BigChiefFan
02-10-2010, 08:44 AM
Here's an idea, quit policing the entire world. We're ONE NATION, not ALL nations. Quit cramming our agenda down other's throats.

Remember folks, they hate us for our freedom.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:47 AM
Here's an idea, quit policing the entire world. We're ONE NATION, not ALL nations. Quit cramming our agenda down other's throats.

Remember folks, they hate us for our freedom.

But it's about globalism aka one world'ism under socialism. The same thing's the commies wanted....and Trotsky. Today's Rs Establishment is filled with leftists using the religious right as their "useful idiots."

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:57 AM
But it's about globalism aka one world'ism under socialism. The same thing's the commies wanted....and Trotsky. Today's Rs Establishment is filled with leftists using the religious right as their "useful idiots."

Nice, i say you have it all in a nutshell right there.

orange
02-10-2010, 11:12 AM
He doesn't say that—at all. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/

Yes. Yes he does say that. He says exactly that:

Will Obama Play the War Card?
Posted on February 4th, 2010 by Patrick J. Buchanan

Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play.

Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear program and impose the “crippling” sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.

And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.

A good eight column inches before he ever mentions Daniel Pipes - at the very end of his piece. Well, not the VERY end. His LAST line is this:

Will Obama cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make “conservatives swoon,” in Pipes’ phrase, to save himself and his party? We shall see.

Buchanan's own words.

From the link you posted.

.....

Oh, and by the way, another deep thinker (besides me ;)) has weighed in:

Late Update: Buchanan tells TPM in an e-mail that he doesn't believe Palin misread him:

When Sara Palin cited my column she was saying that if Obama played "the war card" on Iran, that would change the impression of him as a weak leader and change the election dynamic. Exactly my point. When she continued on and said "which I would like him to do," she was referring to Obama moving closer to Israel, the phrase that directly preceded it.
I would not attribute the statement "which I would like him to do" to playing the war card and going to war with Iran, which my column argued against. In her follow-up answer, she seemed to say as much. In short, I don't believe she intended to endorse Obama playing the war card; she endorsed moving closer to Israel, but conceded that playing the war card would probably make Obama appear a much more formidable leader than he appears today, and thereby strengthen, which I implied as well.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/palin-advocates-war-with-iran-after-misunderstanding-buchanan-column.php

donkhater
02-10-2010, 11:39 AM
Here's a question (and I'm not trying to be rhetorical):

What if China tells us to back off Iran?

munkey
02-10-2010, 11:05 PM
I saw this earlier today and thought about posting it but I don't want people think I am obsessed with Palin.


LMAO

I'll admit it...I wouldn't through her out of bed for eating crackers...I personally think she's pretty damn hot...

Jenson71
02-11-2010, 12:12 AM
Here's a question (and I'm not trying to be rhetorical):

What if China tells us to back off Iran?

I think we're all expecting China to not get in with these sanctions, but as far as telling us to back off in some confrontational way? Iran having nuclear bombs doesn't make China or her interests anymore secure. I'm thinking China wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. do the hard and dirty work with Iran as far as the nuclear issue goes while they watch from afar, protecting their economic interests.