Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

Liberal Media Concedes Governor Palin Would Have Made The Exact Same Decision As Obama on Bin Laden, Only Faster

Earlier I wrote about how the left, the media and even republicans have been turning head over heels praising the president for his wonderful, gutsy and brave decision. I noted how any person occupying the Oval Office would have made the same decision. The difference is that some wouldn’t waste sixteen hours calculating how the decision would help them politically.

As it turns out, by the liberal media’s own admission, Governor Palin would have made exactly the same call. In fact she had already made the call during the campaign in September 2008 with the difference being that at the time, the media considered her call a gaffe whereas they are treating the exact same thing from Obama as a gutsy decision.

CBS News – September 27 2008

Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night’s presidential debate.
During Friday’s debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama’s tough talk was na?ve.

"You don’t say that out loud," McCain said. "If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government."

Palin’s apparent disagreement with McCain’s position on Pakistan came as the Alaska governor was picking up a couple of cheesesteaks at Tony Luke’s in South Philadelphia. She was approached by a man wearing a Temple University t-shirt, who later identified himself as Michael Rovito.

"How about the Pakistan situation?" Rovito asked. "What’s your thoughts about that."

"In Pakistan?" Palin responded.

"What’s going on over there, like Waziristian?"

"It’s working with Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border," Palin said. "And we’ll go from there."

"Waziristan is blowing up," Rovito replied.

"Yeah, it is," Palin said. "And the economy there is blowing up, too."

"So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?" Rovito asked.

"If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.


Huffington Post – – September 27 2008

Republican presidential nominee John McCain defended running mate Sarah Palin on Sunday, even as she contradicted his policy against talking publicly about attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan.


Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders are thought to be hiding in tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Obama has said he would support sending American troops into Pakistan to attack such high-value targets.

"You don’t say that out loud," McCain said during the debate. "If you have to do things, you do things."

But on Saturday, Palin said much the same thing to a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant, with the press nearby.

"If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said in the exchange, which was captured on video and reported by CBS News.


Sky News – September 28 2008: Palin Makes Pakistan Terror Gaffe

Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin has said she supports US bombing raids inside Pakistan, after John McCain said the candidates should stay silent on the issue.


Here is video of George Stephanopoulos going after McCain for Governor Palin’s supposedly gaffe:


Scott Conroy writing this week for Real Clear Politics: (Emphasis added)

When the Republicans’ then-vice-presidential nominee sat down for her first network television interview on the 2008 campaign trail, her relatively smooth performance was briefly jeopardized during the awkward silence that followed ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson’s curt question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

After Palin offered an indirect response that suggested she didn’t know what "Bush Doctrine" meant, a visibly disdainful Gibson clarified his original query and asked if she believed in the use of preemptive force. And that was when Palin leaned forward in her chair.

"Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country," she said, shaking her fist authoritatively.

A couple of weeks later, a moment caught on camera at a cheesesteak joint in Philadelphia encapsulated even more thoroughly Palin’s instinct-driven foreign policy. When a customer confronted her over whether the U.S. should launch raids from Afghanistan into Pakistan to capture or kill high-level terrorists, Palin responded, "If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should."

Just days earlier, Palin’s running mate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, had criticized the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, for publicly declaring that he would unilaterally send forces into Pakistan to hunt down terrorist leaders — a declaration that McCain suggested was naïve for a leader to make publicly.

Palin’s blunt reply at the Philadelphia restaurant was regarded as a gaffe at the time, which McCain later complained was instigated by "gotcha journalism." But with the recent killing of Osama bin Laden in just such a raid, Palin has plausible grounds to tout the episode as an example of how her instincts can trump intellectual deliberation and decades of experience.

Read the whole piece here


I have often argued that during the 2008 campaign Governor Palin did not agree with McCain on many issues. One example would be TARP where it was obvious that the Governor disagreed with McCain but since she was running on his ticket, she had to defend his positions. It was during the "unscripted" moments when the Governors real views came to light. Only then, they were mocked. Now it appears that had she been the occupant of the Oval office she would have made the exact same call Obama made only it wouldn’t have taken her sixteen hours to do it.


Tags: , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Dan C

    There is no news media. They don’t care about anything except advancing the liberal marxist cause. They praise Obama for the EXACT policy that Palin was mocked for! We are living in a propaganda state!

  • GrmaTX

    It would not have taken her 16 hours and how many months? How long was OBL’s whereabouts known? Also, your comment about Palin not agreeing with McCain reminds me how she seemed to be held back sometimes on the campaign trail in ’08. I kept saying under my breath, "Let her be herself!!!" We’ve seen her be herself now in the time since and her own campaign for President will be a wonder to behold. IMO. :)

    • friskyness

      I always said the problem with the McCain campaign was that McCain was a rino and Palin was a true conservative. Palin didn’t agree with McCain, and they wanted Palin to say rino stuff. It’s not her!

  • Quiet_Righty

    Once more, the section bolded by Sheya:

    But with the recent killing of Osama bin Laden in just such a raid, Palin has plausible grounds to tout the episode as an example of how her instincts can trump intellectual deliberation and decades of experience.


    Some people here, such as unseen1, still want to spin Conroy’s article as a "hit piece" (some folks seem a little too eager to find enemies that they can’t think straight anymore). I say the article is no hit piece and I suspect that Sheya doesn’t see it that way either.

    • Sheya

      I don’t see it as a hit piece at all. On the contrary he portrays her as a serious person. More than I can say about anyone else out there. I dont agree with everything he writes but its a fair piece

      • Guest

        I find his diction questionable; based on that, I think it’s a sly hit piece of the damning with faint praise sort.

    • WEL2

      Conroy’s article, " Palin’s Foreign Policy Embraces Instinct, Shuns Doctrine," contains much that is positive about Governor Palin. However, the inference that she is not guided by any "doctrine" — strongly held principles — and just shoots from the hip is wrong and does her disservice.

  • OldDude111

    When you have to "sleep on it" for 16 hours, it is not leadership. It is paralysis by analysis. There is a significant difference between staff work and leadership. When your major role is as a community organizer and you have never been in the crucible of command, it is not surprising that the "dithering" continues. If you have a mixed set of allegiances, the decision making process becomes even more agonizing.

    I’m more than ready for "what you see is what you get" President Palin.

    • Guest

      You ASSUME Obama was analyzing something. I don’t think he was. Some people just can’t decide things cuz they’re weak cuz they lack guiding principles. No, self-interest is not a guiding principle.

      • CBDenver

        I disagree. Self-interest when it means "the best interests of the United States" is a guiding principle.

        • Guest

          I agree with you because you are talking about national self-interest. However, Obama does not deal with national self-interest, but only his own. So, check my context; I’m talking Obama, and you are talking nation.

  • Quiet_Righty

    I hope that Obama’s 16 hours of naptime and dithering will come up during the Presidential debates.

  • Guest

    "Palin has plausible grounds to tout the episode as an example of how her instincts can trump intellectual deliberation and decades of experience."

    Translation: Palin’s an ignorant, broken-clock of an idiot. Barack Obama is smart. He’s very smart. He’s much smarter than Sarah Palin. He knows things. He takes a long while to think about things. Geordie, er, Barack can fix things.

    Dunno whom they’re referring to with that "intellectual deliberation and decades of experience" bit of hogwash. It might just be Joe Loose-Lips Plagiarist Biden.

    The writer’s statements are why it’s never a good idea for us at C4P to talk about Sarah’s "instincts"—no matter how good they are. In liberal speak, "instincts," when referring to a Conservative, generally means the person is a village idiot.

    • Quiet_Righty

      "Palin has plausible grounds to tout the episode as an example of how her instincts can trump intellectual deliberation and decades of experience."

      Translation: Palin’s an ignorant, broken-clock of an idiot. Barack Obama is smart. He’s very smart. He’s much smarter than Sarah Palin. Palin displays greater wisdom than supposedly seasoned Washington politicians.


      • Guest

        "Instincts" do not equal "reason" and therefore "wisdom." Words mean things. Pay close attention to them.

        • Quiet_Righty

          Wisdom is not subsumed within intellect only. Instincts (including hard-to-measure things like "gut feelings") can reveal wisdom as well.

          • Guest

            Look at Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. They belong to the Wisdom books for a reason. Wisdom embraces common sense, which is a rational perspective on the world informed by experience and other things. It speaks to the ability of the individual to make connections between disparate events, extract lessons, and apply those to life to determine their validity. In a word, you cannot have common sense without intellect.

            Instinct/gut feelings argues for a Darwinian view of man. It goes against the intellect sometimes; for instance, parental instinct is what will send a mother/father into a burning building to rescue a child even though intellect says the chance of either surviving is slim to non-existent.

            Instinct is, at best, primitive, inexplicable. We know what we know, but we just don’t know why we know it. Sarah Palin has an excellent political intellect, an excellent intellect, as a whole. As I’ve said before, IMO, she’s also an excellent strategic thinker and analyst. It is not political instinct that made her say what she did about QE2 but intellect. That’s what guides her decision-making vis-à-vis when she’ll run, IMO. Instinct? The woman has a mind; she can and does rationalize her choices.

            Gut feelings/instincts are useful, but they’re not a compass by which to guide a political career cuz sometimes the gut feeling is merely indigestion.

            • unseen1

              Instinct also means flighty, unreliable, prone to changing one’s mind. it is a sterotypical attack on women in gernal. conroy’s piece is nothing but a hitpiece trying to paint Palin as an irrational woman. simple as that. I wish people would not be in such a hurry to pat him on the back because he didn’t slam Palin like other hit pieces. one of these days Gov Palin will be written about with the respect she deserves. this pieces isn’t that.

    • Sheya

      I think we’re being a little to sensitive. I know we are so used to hit pieces that we tend to jump on everything. But I see instincts as a great advantage. I really don’t beleive Conroy meant to trash her with this. He was trying to make a larger point. If he wanted to trash he could have gone on a complete other direction

      • Guest

        No. Not sensitive; simply aware of denotation and connotation. You’re right, instincts are a great advantage. However, when the LBSM talk about Palin, they never talk about her knowledge and thoughtfulness; they only talk about her instincts. That failure, given the lady’s many speeches on a wide variety of topics, is quite telling.

        • Sheya

          I agree with your general argument. I’m just saying that in this particular piece Conroy was fair in comparison to what we usually get from the media.

          • Guest

            Ouch, you damn him with faint praise, Sheya.

    • JeannieBinVA

      I agree, apodoca. Saying Gov. Palin acts according to "instinct" feeds the meme that she is unintelligent, unread, and incapable of serious thought or sophisticated analysis. IOW she’s basically an animal. It’s on the order of saying that as president she would trust in blind luck or providence, instead of acting on the basis of her actual knowledge of the issues (which, according to so many pundits, she completely lacks).

      Either Conroy intended to insult Gov. Palin’s intelligence, or he honestly (and ignorantly) doesn’t think she could be intelligent.

      • Quiet_Righty

        Saying Gov. Palin acts according to "instinct" feeds the meme that she is unintelligent, unread, and incapable of serious thought or sophisticated analysis.

        I don’t think Conroy means that at all. Show me the passage where he alleges that Palin has no intellect. The writer could easily have said that she displays "shrewd judgment." I’ll bet that term, unlike "instincts," would not have gotten people so hot and bothered here.

        • JeannieBinVA

          Don’t know if you’ll see this, Q_R, and my apologies for not responding sooner. (And you might apologize to me for making read that confounded essay again!)

          Conroy doesn’t allege she has no intellect, but he does say, repeatedly, that she doesn’t think — which implies either that she can’t think or she’s too lazy to think, just as using the word "instinct" implies that she acts without thinking. Examples:

          1) "her viewpoints are generally informed by her own instincts, not by any all-encompassing doctrine or the philosophical leanings of her advisers. Palin has always been an impulse-driven leader, and her foreign policy pronouncements are not exempt from her ad-hoc management style. She is difficult to pigeonhole into a well-defined ideological space, no matter who is advising her." — Here he also states unambiguously, twice, that if she has any thoughts, they come from her advisers, not from her own study and analysis. And I don’t know how else one can read "She has always been an impulse-driven leader" and "her ad-hoc management style" [both demonstrably false assertions] than as deliberate insults and a denial of her ability to study, learn, assess and plan accordingly, as thinking individuals do.

          2) "an example of how her instincts can trump intellectual deliberation and decades of experience." Specifically says no thought, or experience for that matter, goes into her decisionmaking.

          3) "Palin is fond of repeating that phrase aloud at times when her intuition is called into question. The mantra is her way of reaffirming the validity of her core convictions, which have guided her more than any academic treatise or policy book." This one’s a triple-whammy, not only accepting as truth the assertion of her critics about her "mantra", which of course calls to mind a zoned-out religious nut, but also referring to "her intuition" which is code for "she’s a silly, uninformed female who occasionally strikes the wise course by sheer, dumb luck". Again, no thinking required.

          4) "It was not due to the realization of ideological incompatibility — which would suggest she has made a significant conceptual shift in how she views the world." IOW she is incapable of recognizing different approaches to foreign policy.

          5) "a primary attribute that Palin has looked for in making new additions to her team has been a proven eagerness and ability to effectively defend her, rather than absolute intellectual synchronization with a theoretically evolving worldview." The phrase "eagerness and ability to defend her" makes her sound helpless and incapable of taking on her critics, in addition to lacking the intellectual ability to make rational choices; the remainder of the quoted sentence is poorly written rubbish that can be read several different ways, so I’ll only say it again implies that she lacks the critical and/or analytical ability to detect differences among various views of how the U.S. should deal with the world.

  • nkthgreek

    When thoughtful people hear a political discourse, they don’t need a media analysis of what was said. The more Sarah speaks directly to the public, the less significant the MSM becomes.

  • Rich

    We know Sarah would have decided long before Obama, also that she and her administration would not be telling stories afterwards.

    It is not so much that Obama ‘slept on it for 16 hours’ – it is more like he slept on it for several years… but then we will never know for sure. We do know (at least it is being reported) that the CIA was next door for at least several months… the CIA can monitor relatively close computer activity… and I’m sure there are more than a few satellite photos… and the audio recordings – there are about 30 stories of what happened – so we will never know what really happened.

    I do hope Sarah runs in 2012, I think she would go down in history as one of our finest Presidents ever.

    Palin 2012

    • ferob

      You are joking!!!!!

  • Escaped_Teleprompter

    Conroy wrote: " After Palin offered an indirect response that suggested she didn’t know what “Bush Doctrine” meant, a visibly disdainful Gibson clarified his original query and asked if she believed in the use of preemptive force. "

    There are up to 6 aspects of Bush’s policies that could plausibly be taken as the "Bush Doctrine". Palin talked about one plausible aspect. It appeared that Gibson had something else in mind; further Gibson was shallow enough to think that what he thought was the one and only Bush Doctrine was the only possible interpretation of the phrase. Gibson is the one who appeared presumptuous and ignorant. And Conroy, in echoing the same sentiments, is similarly guilty.

    • Guest

      Yes, Conroy gave Gibson an undeserved pass on that one, especially as it later became known that Gibson himself had no idea of the "Bush doctrine."

  • 4rcane

    the media is so pathetic its be funny if its not so serious. Exact same position but media consider Obama gutsy, and Palin making a gaffe. This is not the first time. Palin using violent rhetorical like "target" is hateful yet Obama’s violent rhetorical like "punch" is simply a metaphor

  • UnhyphenatedAmericanVet

    16 hours to sleep on it or 16 hours to sleep & Golf on it…WTF moment in my book!

  • exodus2011

    This is a repost of a comment I wrote late yesterday, relating to the ‘instincts’ of Gov Palin as referred to by Scott Conroy in his RCP article recently.

    I know Conroy put emphasis on Gov Palin’s ‘instincts’, which I personally do not mind him doing.

    If Gov Palin has a well thought out 5 point doctrine as regards her National Defense Policy for guideline purposes, but then adds to that her principled ‘instinct’ which we want a POTUS to employ if something totally unforseen and out of the box happens – I see that as a big PLUS.

    … but that’s because I trust her ‘American’ instinct and I know who her Chief National Security Consultant is (the same One who is her Chief Political Consultant)

    I read that Nixon used his instincts in late 1973 when PM Meir called him on his personal line in the middle of the night, during the Yom Kippur War. She pleaded for American help with specific resources – saying that the State of Israel was facing an existential crisis within 24-48 hours …….. Nixon ignored the prior advice of his FP and ND team, and personally called the Military Logistics Officers to get the resources released.

    The back story to that decision is interesting …. some might say ‘miraculous’ ….. Nixon told the story of how he was raised in a Quaker household, and had a very religious grandmother, who taught him the Bible and read to him from the Book of Revelation frequently when he was very very young. He had totally forgotten that early childhood experience until the night he received that phonecall from PM Golda Meir …. apparently the memory came back clear as day that night, and he recalled his grandmother telling him "Richard, one day you are going to be in a position to help Israel/The Jewish People in a time of great need…. " or words to that effect ….

    This ‘prophetic’ utterance by Nixon’s grandmother is all the more remarkable, because he was born in 1913, long before Israel became a nation again in 1948, and so this ‘on the knee of his grandmother’ experience would have been probably around 1917-> (when he was about 4 years old)

    I wonder whether his grandmother was a thorough student of Bible prophecy and recognised the significance of The Balfour Declaration of 1917, seeing it as a precursor to the eventual rebirth of modern Israel at some unknown point in the future …….. anyway, it seems to me that the Ruach HaKodesh was surely involved in this communication between the toddler Richard Nixon and his grandmother, and the time did indeed come, some 56 years later when Nixon occupied the Office of the most powerful Leader in the world. He recalled the words of his grandmother when the desperate plea came through from the PM of Israel one night in Oct/Nov 1973 ….. the rest is history.

    • Guest

      No, if something unforeseen occurs, I don’t want a POTUS going by "instinct" however principled. Give me knowledge and rational analysis, etc.; instinct is then valuable if it relies on those.

      Case in point: who would argue that on 9/11, Dubya’s instinct was to bomb something? As the kids at that school said, the president was angry and horrified. They saw a tide of red wash his neck and face. Had Dubya acted on instinct, whom would he have bombed? Dubya chose not to act on instinct; he gathered the facts and their analysis, arrived at his own decision based on those and an input of gut.

      • exodus2011

        I take your point

        However I know that Gov Palin already has the 5 point doctrine in place ….. in the case of Nixon, Israel did not have time for him to convene his ND team and hold meetings to try and persuade them, before taking the decision ……

        He used his instinct – I’m glad he did.

        The ‘judgement’ of the POTUS is a serious issue. What kind of person do we want ‘taking the 3am call’?

        I am sure it isn’t the current POTUS and am asking Providence to be merciful while the country is compelled to rely on his judgement. …. (and by default that of people like Powers, Sunstein, Stern, Brown and Soros ……. shudder …)

        • Guest

          The current POTUS answered the 3AM call at 7PM later that evening.

          But ex20, didn’t you say that Nixon had words from his grandma to fall back on? Therefore, when Nixon had to decide, was it instinct or grandma’s words of wisdom guiding his course of action? Or maybe it was his instinct to follow his grandma’s wise words. Anyway, a POTUS using his own informed reason is different from a POTUS waiting to hear the words of his counselors. At 3AM, for Nixon, grandma was the only counselor he needed.

          • exodus2011

            I was counting the recalled words of Nixon’s grandmother as part of the ‘instinct’ ….. so I don’t see ‘instinct’ as random, guesswork – but rather guided by life experience

  • Pete Petretich

    The 16 hours nap before taking out UBL is bad enough, but how long did he nap before acting on Libya? Not long ago the rebels were surging and controlled most of the country. If Obama would have acted quickly we would have turned the tide and Qadafy would have been wiped out by his own people. Obama made fun of Hillary because she wanted to act earlier. Now Libya’s close to a stalemate.

    How many Libyans died this year because of Obama’s indecision? How many Iranians died last year because of Obama’s indecision?

  • narciso

    Obama used that line at as a cudgel against President Bush, even though we had taken out at least

    two AQ mid level commanders, an Al Libi, and Hamza Rabia, using that same method, that he condemned as ‘air raiding villages’ .Sarah appreciates the mission of the military, and the need for achievable objectives

  • cherich
  • WilliamShipley

    So, what do you think of for 16 hours? We’ve known for years that such a raid might become possible. He had to know they had a credible target they were trying to verify. He had previously indicated he wanted a special ops attack that would give confirmation of success rather than a bomb. He had months to think about it. So when they say they are ready, the answer is "Make it so".

  • ferob

    Problem is, she wouldn’t have waited for the intelligence report. She just shoots from the hip. How people still support her, is beyond my understanding of human intelligence.
    I know this won’t get posted, but feels so good to know someone has to read it to deny it.

    • JohnnyMcDonald

      Looks like you got posted ferob. Conservatives don’t tend to censor dissent like liberals do. As far as her support being beyond your level of human intelligence, that’s a personal problem. She has my support, not because she "shoots from the hip", but because she has the common sense to recognize a legitimate course of action in less time than it takes to drive from Georgia to Texas. It can’t be helped that Barack Obama has to get Valerie Jarrett’s approval to color coordinate his socks with his suit, much less make a decision to get Bin Laden.

  • patnatasha

    I would trust sarah’s instincts much more than i would trust the one’s intelligence.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets