When I heard this on the news last night, I was like say what? I certainly did not care for it, because of the typical American bashing he does. We all know that Palin doesn’t bash America…ever.
Well it turns out she only liked some of the speech. We get the full story from USA Today:
Sarah Palin and President Obama don't agree on much, but last year's Republican vice presidential nominee just gave the president's defense of "just wars" a thumbs up in an interview with USA TODAY. In fact, she said that the president's address in Oslo, where he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today, reminded her of what she wrote on the same subject in her hugely successful memoir, Going Rogue.
"I liked what he said," Palin told us in a phone interview. "I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times." For Palin, that view strikes close to home: Her eldest son, 20-year-old Track, is an Army infantry member who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.
"I'm on my knees more than ever praying for his safety along with all of his fellow troops," Palin said. "Of course, war is the last thing any American, I believe, wants to have to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists over there."
Conservatives shouldn't worry. Palin isn't going soft on Obama. The former Alaska governor went on to say that former president George W. Bush "did a great job of reminding Americans every single day that he was in office" of the lessons of the 9/11 attacks. "By the way, I'd like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footsteps of George Bush and his passion for keeping the homeland safe," Palin added.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: USA Today
Posts
2 comments:
I was glad to hear Palin praise the speech. There was a lot to like in it. Obama finally struck a note of realism that I frankly did not think he possessed. Further, his observations on the role of America over the past 60 years as the "underwriter" of European security I thought were particularly good. There was no America bashing or apologetics, though there was a subtle slap at Bush by leaving discussion of Iraq out of his discussion of the "just war" theory.
All of that said, my major concern with his speech was that, for all he talked about "just cause" to engage in war - citing self defense and humanitarian intervention, he missed, it seemed to me, a major lesson of history. It is the lesson of WWII. The reality of that war was that, had England or France acted preemptively to challenge Hitler with military force in 1936 or 1937, WWII would not have occurred. It is a truth very much applicable to our modern Nazi's - the illegitimate Khomeinist regime currently ruling Iran. And yet, while at one point in his speech, Obama noted that negotiations would not and, in fact, did not end the threat of Hitler, he ignores, perhaps deliberately, that he is going down the same path with Iran.
GW, if Obama does see the historical impact of negotiations and war, why then does he adopt a course of actions that would cause tumult? Does he lack the strength or mind to challenge Iran, as Great Britain should have done before WWII? Did he underestimate Iran deliberately or due to his major inexperience?
Just asking, of course. I liked your comment. I would just like to know why Obama says one thing and does another.
Post a Comment