Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Flashback! Palin: "Gaddafi's Gotta Go"

Right Wingnut's determination is admirable. He is boasting about Palin's comments regarding Mubarak last year. I don't have the time to go into detail, but let me shoot off a quick response.

1. The U.S. was not about to put Americans lives at risk only to piss off an entire country's populace, all yearning for democracy. That's just not in America's interests.

2. The flag burning is not some new disaster that came about because of the regime change. There are flag burnings everywhere, including in the United States. The flag burning doesn't prove anything.

But that is fine and well. Let me continue RW's argument. Why don't we all hop in the way-back machine, during Qadaffi's last hoorah.

Palin: "We want to know though what is the end game? Our interests are Gaddhafi’s gotta go, killing or capturing, he’s got to go because he’s going to seek revenge on the United States of America. That will be his modus operandi from here on out he will sponsor terrorism unless he’s gone.”

You see, Palin wanted to get Qaddafi, but didn't think about who would replace him. And now we have four Americans dead.

I know the logic is crappy, but so was RW's. 


Right Wingnut said...

Was Libya an ally of the US at the time?

Was Mubarak In the same category as Qadaffi?

Anyway, Romney is the nominee, so you should expect his past positions to be put under a microscope.

By the way, YOU told us at the time that we didn't have to worry about the Muslim Brotherhood controlling the Egyptian government. I wonder if you got that from David Frum.

Right Wingnut said...

I was critical of Romney at the time he made the statement about Mubarek for the same reason many were critical of Obama. It was far too early in the process to be telling an ally to step down.

Anonymous said...

Who gives a shit? All you right wing bastards are all the same, get Obama out because he is black. I will laugh at you all when Flip Floppney loses big to Obama. Do you think the people want some rich out of touch corporate ahole who only cares about his own pockets and protexting his corpotate friends?? Do you think the people want some clueless bimbo who can barely spell her name right and say her ABC's like Palin to run this country? HELL NO!!..MARK MY WORDS, NEITHER ROMNEY NOR PALIN WILL EVER STEP FOOT INSIDE THE WH EVER!!!


cimbri said...

Actually Khaddafi was a quasi-ally during the Bush years. He was against the Islamists, and of course the enemy of our enemy is our friend. He turned over all of his nuclear material, and paid the Lockerbee vitims a few billion dollars in reparations. I wanted him left alone, but what are you gonna do, when Americans want to keep their nose in everyone's business all the time.

Pablo said...


1. I agree with cimbri that Khaddafi was a quasi-ally of the United States.

2. I never said that the Muslim Brotherhood would not take office. I said that either another party would take office or the Muslim Brotherhood would have to move to the middle. We have no indication at all that the Egyptian president has taken a relatively radical posture so far. I mean, he gave the Iranian president a dressing down in the Non-Aligned Movement Summit the other day. Regardless, the United States did not have the power or the economy back home to try to thwart the desires of the Egyptian populace. That was my main point. We will have to work with the current Egyptian leadership. We just can't try to put down a revolution trying to shake off authoritarian rule.

Right Wingnut said...


How soon you forget.

Pablo said...

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and best-organized Egyptian opposition group, with an estimated 600,000 members, many of them educated, middle-class men. It has formally disavowed terrorism and violence, but its inclusion in any government would probably be deeply controversial among U.S. allies and especially in Israel, because the group advocates tearing up Egypt's peace treaty with the Jewish state."

First, the current population of Egypt is 82,999,393. As cited by your article, the membership of the Muslim Brotherhood is 600,000. The Muslim Brotherhood has had little to do with the protests in the streets, which has been conducted mainly by young people who just want jobs and a future. And woman, who are tired of going to the grocery store and not being able to afford food. I would think that Huck would show a little concern for the Egyptian people instead of playing the fear game of a group that represents less than 1% of the population.

Second, it is not insignificant that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence. That have to, because they would never have a voice in a new government if they didn't. They are such a small minority that they have to concentrate their efforts on being a social organization dedicated to helping the poor, if they want to have a say in the political arena.

I am not downplaying the possibility that the MB would have a voice in a new government. I am just saying that they are not that popular and they are not that dangerous

Right Wingnut said...

Care to test my memory again?

Pablo said...

I don't see the contradiction. My point was that the MB can't not be radical if it wants to hold office. I did not say that they couldn't hold office. See my second point.