Sarah Palin 5; Jennifer Rubin 0

3May/114

Sarah Palin 5; Jennifer Rubin 0

It's been said by more than a few that we who are of the Palin posse are inclined to knee-jerk reactionism whenever so much as a whiff of criticism is pointed at her, especially by those belonging to the breed known as Washingtonius insiderus, an animal readily identified by its cocktail-induced myopia. It's been reported the Rhinoceros Appreciation Society is preparing to file a libel suit against them for besmirching the good name of the family Rhinocerotidae. But I digress.

While it is true we of the Palin posse are prone to defend her, the notion that such stems more from reflex than reflection upon points of consideration is inaccurate. No doubt great surprise will be found by the aforementioned nattering nabobs of Nerdprom in that most of us have actually taken the time to study Palin's record and policies in something more than a drive-by fashion.

Which decidedly puts us one up on them.

A recent example of same comes from Jennifer Rubin, as we are oft told conservative blogger for the Washington Post. In a post earlier today generating such frenetic worldwide interest it presently has zero comments, although this is no doubt assigned by Washingtonius insiderus to the belief that Palin supporters can't read, Rubin assails Palin for adopting an isolationist world view akin to that held by Ron 'the Rampage' Paul.

Uh-huh.

Let's break this down based on what Palin said last night in a speech. In comparison to Ms. Rubin's take on it drawn from an article by that legendary purveyor of journalistic integrity and fair play Politico, what she actually said, word for word:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

Wow, what an isolationist Sarah Palin has become! I mean, really! Have an objective? Have a plan? Use our armed forces for our interests? Crazy talk if ever there was such. Just because this has been the foundation of every successful military philosophy in history... come on. Next I suppose Palin will throw some hair-brained goof out there like, oh, not overextending yourself militarily. Some people, I tell you.

And we, the Palin supporters, are supposed to be the naive ones.

None of this should come as the slightest surprise. We can, and do, read for ourselves that Rubin makes no bones about her negative view of Palin. Nevertheless, we are a generous people, unwilling to engage in the circular firing squad suicide or automatically throw people under the bus but rather extending a hand to join us. There is always room for healthy debate; such is welcomed. As soon as someone engages in such we'll be there. Junk like what Rubin wrote, not so much.

We do not all march in lockstep with Sarah Palin on every issue (endorsing Rand Paul? Really?) . We are neither drones nor zombies. Which, considering the omnipresent drumbeat of Palin as dum-dum emanating from the Jennifer Rubins of this world -- rather, their world -- when in fact she is anything but, is a status happily left to her critics.

(Cross-posted at Goldfish and Clowns)