In an interview with ABC News' Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate, gave her policy recommendations, weighing in on issues in the Middle East, U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and more. Share Former GOP VP candidate tells ABC's Barbara Walters reveals her "desire."

Palin, whose book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," hit bookshelves today, took aim at the Obama administration's stance on Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

As for another hot-button issue -- Afghanistan -- where 68,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed, Palin said the president should follow the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

"To listen to McChrystal, to listen to the appointee that President Obama asked for, the advice from," she said. "McChrystal gave the president the advice and said, 'We need essentially a surge strategy in Afghanistan, so that we can win in Afghanistan. And that means more resources, more troops there.' It frustrates me and frightens me -- and many Americans -- that President Obama is dithering around with the decision in Afghanistan."

Obama is deciding on a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Four options have been submitted to the president, who, along with his war council, is assessing troop levels and the cost. The most ambitious strategy, from McChrystal, would send 40,000 more troops. According to ABC News' Jake Tapper, Obama pushed the generals to elaborate on how and when the exchange of responsibility could take place from U.S. troops to the Afghans.

Though the two don't have much in common in terms of policy, Palin said the ultimate goal for the United States in Afghanistan should be to turn responsibility over to the Afghan government and people.

"The people there, the government there, should be able to take over and to have a more peaceful existence there for the people who live there -- without American interference, if you will," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Palin/sarah-palin-talks-obama-alaska-afghanistan-policy-economy/story?id=9112560&page=3

I agree with her a little bit

scktaggif:


"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Palin/sarah-palin-talks-obama-alaska-afghanistan-policy-economy/story?id=9112560&page=3

What about the Palestines?  This lady is not bright enough for white house.

As for the Afghan war, Obama has realize it’s a war of choice, bedsides there is no justification for the war in the first place. am not advocating the withdrawal of the troops but its only wise to observe before any action. Obama is smart and I know he is planning an exit strategy.

Palin is right. Obama should not be taking this long to make a decision on Afghanistan - it's either you increase the troops or bring them home, and I'm in full support of bringing them home. The amount of dead US soldiers keeps piling up every day.
and don't forget Palin has a son who is right now in the middle east, I think that lends her some grounds to speak to the issue.

As for Isreal, I think we the rest of the world should just butt out and let they and the opposition wrestle it out. They've been fighting since biblical times, they'll still be fighting 1000yrs from now.

scktaggif:

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

This should be the smoking gun to convince knuckleheads like Je Soul, Tayo-D and Negro Nuts to concede the fact that this bitch is a fool!

Sarah Palin is a dolt.

Poll figures show that as many Israelis disagree with expansion as agree with it. Can Palin be more expansionist than the Israelis themselves?

The land Israelis currently occupy is debatable enough, not to talk of expansion. Does she know what it takes to be a diplomat, before opening her mouth anyhow to yarn opata? The psycho-religious freak has no regard for Arab life and property. Afterall, God has ordained it. No wonder rednecks and lynch-mobs readily associate with her, turning up to her lynch rallies to scream about terrorists and whatnot.

JeSoul:

Palin is right. Obama should not be taking this long to make a decision on Afghanistan - it's either you increase the troops or bring them home, and I'm in full support of bringing them home. The amount of dead US soldiers keeps piling up every day.
and don't forget Palin has a son who is right now in the middle east, I think that lends her some grounds to speak to the issue.

As for Isreal, I think we the rest of the world should just butt out and let they and the opposition wrestle it out. They've been fighting since biblical times, they'll still be fighting 1000yrs from now.

it would be pretty selfish for the US to withdraw now after dragging NATO into the war.

JeSoul:

Palin is right. Obama should not be taking this long to make a decision on Afghanistan - it's either you increase the troops or bring them home, and I'm in full support of bringing them home.

I'm in full support of bringing them home. The amount of dead US soldiers keeps piling up every day.
and don't forget Palin has a son who is right now in the middle east, I think that lends her some grounds to speak to the issue.

What does Palin know about war? Did they teach her about infantry deployment in her media course which she took seven years to complete at Community college? She should STFU!!! 

Lest we forget, Obama was in favour of an Afghan surge as we saw during the debates.

Before Republicans start yarning opata, it should be known that hostilities in Iraq were not quenched by troop surge alone, but by diplomatic skill and by involving all stakeholders, warlords, tribal leaders etc.

IMO, it is pointless increasing troop numbers against a faceless Taliban. Do Taliban wear uniform? Sending more troops out there is like sending more sitting ducks to go and get killed by unseen guerillas.

Thats why Republicans need to think twice before starting wars all the time. The Palin-type in congress are always the ones who push for these disastrous wars, then come back to start yarning opata about overspending.

I prefer Bill Clinton's long-range missile policy for dealing with conflict. History will never forgive Republicans for these wars.

What does Palin know about war? Did they teach her about infantry deployment in her media course which she took seven years to complete at Community college? She should STFU!!! Cool

Lest we forget, Obama was in favour of an Afghan surge as we saw during the debates.

Before Republicans start yarning opata, it should be known that hostilities in Iraq were not quenched by troop surge alone, but by diplomatic skill and by involving all stakeholders, warlords, tribal leaders etc.

IMO, it is pointless increasing troop numbers against a faceless Taliban. Do Taliban wear uniform? Sending more troops out there is like sending more sitting ducks to go and get killed by unseen guerillas.

Thats why Republicans need to think twice before starting wars all the time. The Palin-type in congress are always the ones who push for these disastrous wars, then come back to start yarning opata about overspending.

I prefer Bill Clinton's long-range missile policy for dealing with conflict. History will never forgive Republicans for these wars.

My guy you say that the surge in Iraq wasn't the only thing that slowed hostilities. Yes, but try and check the complete analysis. Nobody has claimed that the surge alone ended hostilities, but if you attempted to reason you would realize that all those other things that contributed to help stabilize Iraq wouldn't have been able to happen if there wasn't a significant presence of troops to guarantee safety. Its common reasoning, who will sit down for talks/negotiation or elections, when car bombs are going of just outside the room where negotiations are taking place and people are being kidnapped any how . Why do you think Rumsfeld "light invasion" foot print didn't work. Do you think all these all those other things you sighted weren't taking place before the surge? They were, they just couldn't work with the chaotic security situation. But don't take my word for it though, just read the opinion of many knowledgeable diplomats and military experts who know more than you and I.

You say that increasing troop numbers against the Taliban won't work. You say that you prefer Clinton's long range missile policy. You say what does Palin know about military affairs. You are contradicting yourself all over the place . First you dismiss what Palin has to say because in your opinion she knows nothing. Okay I will get to that later. But then your statements of how a surge will not work contradict the opinions of several Generals and the actual commanding officer in charge of the war in Afghanistan. Do you also think these people know nothing , seeing as they are the ones who will actually implement which ever strategy is chosen. Do you know countless military experts and diplomats (from both parties including Hillary Clinton) have stated that a return the "long range missile strategy" favored by Clinton will surely lead to a resurgent and stronger Taliban and Al-Queda, a situation that would totally de-stabilize an already unstable nuclear Pakistan. Do you know what a nuclear Pakistan under the influence of a Taliban an Al-Queda could lead to . I am sure you have heard by now many have asserted that it was Clinton's long range engagement strategy that allowed Al-Queda to plan and execute several minor/major terrorist attacks during his presidency and leading up to 9/11. That is was this approach that allowed Al-Queda to grow and infiltrate other regions. Now I don't blame him , I don't think that many actually saw it coming at the time. Beside others including the Bush admin must take some blame for not seeing 9/11 in advance.

You are entitled to disagree with whatever opinions Palin may have. After all the most important players in this are the actual commanding officers, the people who will be involved in implementing strategy and ultimately the CIC (commander in chief) who will make the final assessment and decision i.e Pres. Obama. Personally I feel some people are giving an incomplete picture regarding a troop surge. After all even the General in charge has not absolutely guaranteed its success and has stated it has its own problems as well even though it is the only sensible option at this time. But when you say she knows nothing about military issues you are making a statement that has no factual basis. As Governor of Alaska she was also CIC of the Alaskan national guard. Before you begin to dismiss that I would have you know that the Alaskan national guard are highly trained and competent. Seeing as Alaska borders Canada as well as "big bad" Russia it would be foolish of you to assume that as commander in chief she would have no knowledge of basic military issues. In fact because of her previous position as commander in chief of a key geographical state like Alaska she would have some the highest national security clearances of all other border state governors. This though does not make her an expert on this issue. Please don't get me wrong you are entitled to disagree but do so with needless innuendo and petty insults .

Also please stop attributing wars to individuals or parties. Presidents take the entire country to war while seeking the approval of a congress which represents the people. The military fight the for safety and interests of all citizen regardless of party affiliation, they are loyal and obey the orders of their CIC. There is no Republican U.S army or Democrat U.S army. I guess according to you history will probably also never forgive Democrats for starting the Vietnam war, for dropping the A-bomb on Japan or for bothering to get involved in world war II amongst others . Wars are fought in defense of the entire country, trying to segregate certain wars into party identification or personalizing them (e.g G.W Bush's war or Obama's war) is very distasteful conduct . Tell me did Bush take the U.S to war by himself, was it only Republicans in congress who took the whole of the country to war , was it the same when Clinton got involved in Bosnia, when JFK and then LBJ went into Vietnam amongst others. I guess to you these wars were only fought by the party the president belong to . Please do disagree with the premise for going to war or the manner they are fought but saying a war is Republican or Democrat is unnecessarily divisive.

montelik:

My guy you say that the surge in Iraq wasn't the only thing  that slowed hostilities. Yes, but try and check the complete analysis. Nobody has claimed that the surge alone ended hostilities, but if you attempted to reason you would realize that all those other things that contributed to help stabilize Iraq wouldn't have been able to happen if there wasn't a significant presence of troops to guarantee safety. Its common reasoning, who will sit down for talks/negotiation or elections, when car bombs are going of just outside the room where negotiations are taking place and people are being kidnapped any how . Why do you think Rumsfeld "light invasion" foot print didn't work. Do you think all these all those other things you sighted weren't taking place before the surge? They were, they just couldn't work with the chaotic security situation. But don't take my word for it though, just read the opinion of many knowledgeable diplomats and military experts who know more than you and I.

You say that increasing troop numbers against the Taliban won't work. You say that you prefer Clinton's long range missile policy. You say what does Palin know about military affairs. You are contradicting yourself all over the place . First you dismiss what Palin has to say because in your opinion she knows nothing. Okay I will get to that later. But then your statements of how a surge will not work contradict the opinions of several Generals and the actual commanding officer in charge of the war in Afghanistan. Do you also think these people know nothing , seeing as they are the ones who will actually implement which ever strategy is chosen. Do you know countless military experts and diplomats (from both parties including Hillary Clinton) have stated that a return the "long range missile strategy" favored by Clinton will surely lead to a resurgent and stronger Taliban and Al-Queda, a situation that would totally de-stabilize an already unstable nuclear Pakistan. Do you know what a nuclear Pakistan under the influence of a Taliban an Al-Queda could lead to . I am sure you have heard by now many have asserted that it was Clinton's long range engagement strategy that allowed Al-Queda to plan and execute several minor/major terrorist attacks during his presidency and leading up to 9/11. That is was this approach that allowed Al-Queda to grow and infiltrate other regions. Now I don't blame him , I don't think that many actually saw it coming at the time. Beside others including the Bush admin must take some blame for not seeing 9/11 in advance.

You are entitled to disagree with whatever opinions Palin may have. After all the most important players in this are the actual commanding officers, the people who will be involved in implementing strategy and ultimately the CIC (commander in chief) who will make the final assessment and decision i.e Pres. Obama. Personally I feel some people are giving an incomplete picture regarding a troop surge. After all even the General in charge has not absolutely guaranteed its success and has stated it has its own problems as well even though it is the only sensible option at this time. But when you say she knows nothing about military issues you are making a statement that has no factual basis. As Governor of Alaska she was also CIC of the Alaskan national guard. Before you begin to dismiss that I would have you know that the Alaskan national guard are highly trained and competent. Seeing as Alaska borders Canada as well as "big bad" Russia it would be foolish of you to assume that as commander in chief she would have no knowledge of basic military issues. In fact because of her previous position as commander in chief of a key geographical state like Alaska she would have some the highest national security clearances of all other border state governors. This though does not make her an expert on this issue. Please don't get me wrong you are entitled to disagree but do so with needless innuendo and petty insults .

Also please stop attributing wars to individuals or parties. Presidents take the entire country to war while seeking the approval of a congress which represents the people. The military fight the for safety and interests of all citizen regardless of party affiliation, they are loyal and obey the orders of their CIC. There is no Republican U.S army or Democrat U.S army. I guess according to you history will probably also never forgive Democrats for starting the Vietnam war, for dropping the A-bomb on Japan or for bothering to get involved in world war II amongst others . Wars are fought in defense of the entire country, trying to segregate certain wars into party identification or personalizing them (e.g G.W Bush's war or Obama's war) is very distasteful conduct . Tell me did Bush take the U.S to war by himself, was it only Republicans in congress who took the whole of the country to war , was it the same when Clinton got involved in Bosnia, when JFK and then LBJ went into Vietnam amongst others. I guess to you these wars were only fought by the party the president belong to . Please do disagree with the premise for going to war or the manner they are fought but saying a war is Republican or Democrat is unnecessarily divisive.

hehehehehe. . . . . spambot did not allow this post to see the light of day. . . . even the robot knew you were chatting rubbish!

bawomolo:

it would be pretty selfish for the US to withdraw now after dragging NATO into the war.

Selfishness . . . a disposition intimately known and practised by the US of A. Withdrawal shouldn't be a problem at all . . .

Ibime:

What does Palin know about war? Did they teach her about infantry deployment in her media course which she took seven years to complete at Community college? She should STFU!!! 

Well she may not know much, but I'm willing to bet its more than you know  I mean consider the missiles alone coming from antagonists such as yourself she's been having to shield herself from since she burst on the scene . . .

IMO, it is pointless increasing troop numbers against a faceless Taliban. Do Taliban wear uniform? Sending more troops out there is like sending more sitting ducks to go and get killed by unseen guerillas.

101% agree. I wonder how many dead soliders it will take before we call it quits.

Thats why Republicans need to think twice before starting wars all the time. The Palin-type in congress are always the ones who push for these disastrous wars, then come back to start yarning opata about overspending.
I prefer Bill Clinton's long-range missile policy for dealing with conflict. History will never forgive Republicans for these wars.

That I will agree whole heartedly with.

JeSoul:

101% agree. I wonder how many dead soliders it will take before we call it quits.

That I will agree whole heartedly with.

Im shocked  . . . . . gimme 5! 

The Palin woman has a point.

Ibime:

Im shocked . . . . . gimme 5!

Lol . . . see this yeye boy Infact sef I give you 10

JeSoul:

Palin is right. Obama should not be taking this long to make a decision on Afghanistan - it's either you increase the troops or bring them home, and I'm in full support of bringing them home. The amount of dead US soldiers keeps piling up every day.
and don't forget Palin has a son who is right now in the middle east, I think that lends her some grounds to speak to the issue.

As for Isreal, I think we the rest of the world should just butt out and let they and the opposition wrestle it out. They've been fighting since biblical times, they'll still be fighting 1000yrs from now.

@jesoul,
you may not believe this, neither do I, but at this point, I fully agree with you. . . phew, unbelievable. get the troops out of afghanistan, NOW. i was hoping israel will pipe down a bit, but since they are unwilling, the US should just let the middle east explode if it wants to, they've been fighting since the biblical times, they wont stop today

@Jesoul,

it's either you increase the troops or bring them home,

On this I agree. War should be fought to win. It becomes unnecessary if this is not the goal.

@Ibime,

Thats why Republicans need to think twice before starting wars all the time.

Did I read this right? The US started this war? So what was 911? A friendly reminder of bonds of friendship?

Selfishness . . . a disposition intimately known and practised by the US of A. Withdrawal shouldn't be a problem at all . . .

if you do that, goodluck getting countries like japan and Britain to contribute more troops to Iraq. Obama would be fooling to burn such bridges with an abrupt withdrawal.

People need to accept we are stuck with Afghanistan and even pakistan to a certain extent.

Reading that interview, it is as clear as day light that this lady has no grasp of the complexity of the Middle east and Afghanistan issues let alone the history pertinent to these. Assuming a contrarian (republican) default position in regard to Obama's choices is not substitute for a sound foreign policy understanding.

bawomolo:

if you do that, goodluck getting countries like japan and Britain to contribute more troops to Iraq. Obama would be fooling to burn such bridges with an abrupt withdrawal.

People need to accept we are stuck with Afghanistan and even pakistan to a certain extent.

I couldn't agree more. This is another Vietnam to the Americans especially when the goal isn't clear

palin says obama is wrong on israel and afghan policy, well, i guess everybody is wrong on those two issues as there are no easy ways out. both issues almost have no solution. any decision is full of disastrous outcomes. pity.

What's going on in this thread? first I'm agreeing with Ibime, then Prez agreeing with me etc . . . the end must be near 

bawomolo:

if you do that, goodluck getting countries like japan and Britain to contribute more troops to Iraq. Obama would be fooling to burn such bridges with an abrupt withdrawal.

People need to accept we are stuck with Afghanistan and even pakistan to a certain extent.

  I would rather burn bridges than burn the lives of soldiers. Bridges can be rebuilt, lives cannot be restored. We are not going to make any significant and more importantly[b] lasting[/b] progress in Afghanistan. Why continue to throw cups of water on a raging inferno?

scktaggif:

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

Isreal has the right to expand the Palestinians dont. Well coming from someone who does not know if Africa is a nation or a continent a year ago why should I be suprised, in the developed world - only Americans can listen to a politician called Palin and elect a President like Bush. Only Americans.

scktaggif:

"The people there, the government there, should be able to take over and to have a more peaceful existence there for the people who live there -- without American interference, if you will," she said.

Wishful thinking. 

JeSoul:


  I would rather burn bridges than burn the lives of soldiers. Bridges can be rebuilt, lives cannot be restored. We are not going to make any significant and more importantly[b] lasting[/b] progress in Afghanistan. Why continue to throw cups of water on a raging inferno?

well George should have though about that before handling two wars at one time.

the troop increase is about to be approved by the way

JeSoul:

What's going on in this thread? first I'm agreeing with Ibime, then Prez agreeing with me etc . . . the end must be near

if by any volcanic accident tayo agrees with me, i'll change my mind immediately . infact if tayo says his name is tayo, i'm ready to open a thread to challenge that

there is no way jesoul/tayo and pres-elect can agree on a thread. if that happens nairaland loses its importance

pres-elect:

if by any volcanic accident tayo agrees with me, i'll change my mind immediately . infact if tayo says his name is tayo, i'm ready to open a thread to challenge that
there is no way jesoul/tayo and pres-elect can agree on a thread. if that happens nairaland loses its importance

Lol, now that's the Prez I know and like 

bawomolo:

well George should have though about that before handling two wars at one time.

the troop increase is about to be approved by the way

A very unfortunate development. My brother is part of the army, fortunately not with the marines but still, I feel as though someday I may get a phonecall bearing the worst possible news.

JeSoul:


A very unfortunate development. My brother is part of the army, fortunately not with the marines but still, I feel as though someday I may get a phonecall bearing the worst possible news.

Why is it an unfortunate development? More troops are needed in Afghanistan until Afghan security forces are properly trained. We should have focused on Afghanistan rather than disturbing Saddam and his sons.

i feel for members of the army but they get those juicy benefits for a reason, to serve.

Same old book selling strategy.Please tell that Bit*ch to keep selling books and featuring on McCain rap videos like this one on youtube.Men, that bit*ch is gangsta!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_rOCDG_btk

F**k Palin.

Al'yal's talking should know that the war in the middle east ain't never gonna stop unless the oil and opium there finishes.It's as simple as that.9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration.Troops were already in Afghanistan before the twin tower bombings.

You people should focus more on the calamity that might soon befall this country instead of worrying about the "jihadis".Yar Adua's ill health coupled with the break down of the political structure is a very good opportunity for AFRICOM to set foot on Nigerian soil.You might want to think about that for a sec before you worry about people who live better lives than your country men.

I know how much you people "LUVVVVVV" sources so here are a couple of links (with more embedded links).Read up. . .could be ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. . .who knows. . .lol

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/truth_about_911.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

Just one more before i log out :

http://www.wtc7.net/

The "war on terror" is nothing but a scam (but you already knew that).Had to "re-mention" it though.

lol

mccloud224:

Al'yal's talking should know that the war in the middle east ain't never gonna stop unless the oil and opium there finishes.It's as simple as that.9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration.Troops were already in Afghanistan before the twin tower bombings.

You people should focus more on the calamity that might soon befall this country instead of worrying about the "jihadis".Yar Adua's ill health coupled with the break down of the political structure is a very good opportunity for AFRICOM to set foot on Nigerian soil.You might want to think about that for a sec before you worry about people who live better lives than your country men.

how does the US benefit from opium?