In a weekend interview, the former Alaskan governor was critical of the White House for "not doing enough" regarding Egypt.While any true conservative or libertarian should be critical of the administration's handling of the situation (Likewise, they should also have been critical of US policies leading up to this crisis.), Palin argues for a position that is perhaps even more flawed than that of the White House.
Politico reports:
Palin said the administration must get more information and find out who "fills now the void in the government." She said the U.S. "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood.
She did not offer specifics for how she would handle the crisis, saying only: "We need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with."Palin has indeed firmly joined with the neoconservatives on this issue as she often does. Likewise, her comments show an alarming disdain for State sovereignty. To say that the United States "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood is truly outrageous.
In speaking out about the administration's handling of Egypt, Palin joins at least two other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.
Egypt is a sovereign nation, and the people of Egypt--not the US--should and must decide who will lead their country forward. I must admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite limited, but many credible sources claim that the group would not necessarily be bad for the country. However, even if they would be, the Egyptians have the right to self-determination. They must forge their own path into the future, and the United States must stop interfering with the affairs of Egypt--whether we are propping up dictators or trying to "spread democracy."
I was never a fan of Hosni Mubarak, if that is, indeed, the accepted phonetic spelling of his name. On the other hand, I don't think Islamists are capable of effective self-rule. I'd just as soon see Egypt become a client-state of Italy.
ReplyDeleteBut what I really wanted to say is that unless it comes down to a presidential race between Sarah Palin and Obama, Clinton, or Kerry, I don't think I could vote for the woman. What I can't get past is the fact that she didn't complete her term as governor of Alaska. So she thinks we should now hire her to serve as U.S. president? Sure.
I don't think Sarah Palin's statement that the Muslim brotherhood should not be tolerated is outrageous, because I do not agree that they will rule Egypt peacefully. I believe that they are an Islamic supremacist group who will end the peace treaty with Israel and support terrorism around the world as Iran does. If they were simply another peaceful group that didn't threaten our security, then yes, Sarah Palin's statement would be outrageous. I encourage you to research the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps you will find that they are not a moderate group.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not one of the goodness or legitimate ability to lead of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are probably just as vile as most political organizations. Likewise, they may very well be benevolent toward or outright supportive of terrorist acts; or they may not. It is hard to predict any groups behavior once they have assumed power.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with Palin's statement is that she shows a willingness for further interventionism on the part of the US as well as a hostility towards Egypt's right to self-determination.
It is none of the US's business who governs Egypt; that is the the business of the Egyptian people. For the US to intervention is both unconstitutional and a jeopardy to our national defense.