So Palin isn't dangerous? Think again.

Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column

---

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."

townhall.com...

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."

townhall.com...

---

This woman would have us a war in MINUTES if she was elected.
www.youtube.com...

palin is entitled to her opinions...but she is a prime example of opening your mouth first without either knowing or thinking.

McCain did this nation a grave disservice by dragging her onto the national stage...

she is all ego and ambition without even the chops Obama has...she is under educated and has nothing...absolutely no ideas of her own...no solutions to bring to the table whatsoever.

She will try and run in 2012...she will not win either the nomination or presidency....most people see through her.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


Don't be so sure that she won't win the nomination.

The media wing of the GOP (i.e. FOX) has already made her the tea party queen and given her a platform....

I think she's got a good shot at the nomination...

I hope to god we'd never elect her...

I also think it's worth noting that one of two things most likely happened:

1) She read the article, and didn't understand it (go read it yourself). She then took something she didn't understand and used it as the basis to justify military action. Not a great scenario.

2) She didn't read it, but was briefed about it. She misunderstood what she was told and used this mangled understanding to justify her pro-war stance. And lied about reading it. Not a great alternative.



Or she could has read it AND understood it AND lied about its content.

So stupid, a liar, a stupid liar or a manipulative warmonger.

What's the good explanation?



[edit on 10-2-2010 by seethelight]

If you listen to the interview, she says she "would like for him" [Obama] to support Israel. It is directly after she says "Should Obama play the war card"

I'm not getting her supporting war in that interview at all

Maybe it's just me

(I'm a Romney supporter anyway)

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
If you listen to the interview, she says she "would like for him" [Obama] to support Israel. It is directly after she says "Should Obama play the war card"

I'm not getting her supporting war in that interview at all

Maybe it's just me

(I'm a Romney supporter anyway)

Semper

here:

"Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran...which I would like him to do."

reply to post by seethelight


No, see what you have done is edit out the important part

This was the quote

"Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran----[Or decided to do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like for him to do]"

The "Bolded" part is the part you're leaving out. "Or" is the significant grammatical insertion.

When we take quotes out of context, we can make up whatever we want to, but it is seldom true.

Semper

[edit on 2/10/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by seethelight


This tripe has been discussed here seethelight-


Whoops: Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column

Bash her all you want, just quit the misrepresentation!

edit to add-hey seethelight, why don't you stop into this THREAD and give your opinions on our current government's stance on Israel.

Hillary to China: Vote for Iran Sanctions, or Face Gulf Conflagration and Oil Cutoff

Or is this JUST another hit Palin thread?

[edit on 2/10/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by semperfortis


I didn't edit it to change it's meaning but to help you understand it.

If I said I'd eat Fish OR Chicken as I like both... you could be pretty certain that if you said, "You like fish" if would be accurate, even though you left out the chicken part.

My guess is your grasp of English is not sufficient enough to understand the statements made.

Go back and re-read it carefully.

She clearly stated she supports war in Iran (and claims to be in agreement with PB).

There's not two ways to read/hear those words.

I have a hard time listening to her or watching her on TV. She is always misinformed or just doesnt understand the issues. She is usually to busy running off at the mouth to verify her facts or even check them.
I think she would be a nightmare as a president. Her mouth would get America into more trouble, and cause more hard feelings towards this country. She does fall right in line with the Republican party using fear and ill ease to try and steer the country.
Personally. I think she is as outdated and out of touch as much as the Dem and Rep are in this country. She is nothing more than a soundbite. She lacks any substance.

reply to post by seethelight


Perhaps you are not understanding the meaning of the word "OR"

used as a function word to indicate an alternative

merriam-webster

Semper

reply to post by seethelight


Well, if we did go to war it could be launched out of one of the 57 states Obama has visited since he's been in office. All of these nimrods make fools out of themselves. They're all complete blow-hards and when you do something as much as they talk, you make mistakes.

She'll not get us into a war. She does not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected to the Presidency. She does not have a prayer of getting the GOP nomination.

She's a side show. Side shows get a bunch of folks to attend. You might attend once or maybe twice. At some point, Mr. Flexible and the bearded lady just ain't so interesting.

I don't think she'll even run. She's not the smartest tack in the box, but you better believe that she is smart enough to know that she has a limited amount of time to mint all of the dough she is raking in and she can make a lot more of it on the sidelines. Much easier to be on the outside of the tent pissing in than inside the tent. She's smart enough to know that.

My view is that she is just having fun right now. McCain made her a very rich woman. The funny thing is that all of these liberal loons are the ones lining her pocket. Gibbs with his hand notes probably netted her a couple more speaking engagements at $100K/pop.

Dangerous or not

Palin is only as dangerous as American voters allow her to be

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by seethelight

 

Perhaps you are not understanding the meaning of the word "OR"

used as a function word to indicate an alternative

merriam-webster

Semper

Keep trying, but I don't think you'll succeed in getting them to understand. The simple fact is they don't want to understand. If there isn't direct evidence of some Palin miscue, they'll simply manufacture one. IMO sure signs of desperation and fear.

The only thing "dangerous" about Palin is that she disproves the liberal tenet that for a woman to succeed, she has to play the victim. They hated Clarence Thomas for very similar reasons - only that time it was their policy that it's blacks who have to be victims in order to succeed.

[edit on 2/11/2010 by centurion1211]