Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'
DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
Let's not all suck at the same time please
Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You know who we have to blame for her, right?
John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked his VP candidate with an eye to win, instead of just throwing a dart then we'd be far better off. Even though I wouldn't have wanted his hypocritical, principal betraying, lying ass in the Oval Office, at least with a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large. She'd just be some obscure Alaska Governor waiting for the snows to come in and counting all the oil money.
Curse you!
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution. With her support of trying to take down wikileaks, it indicates she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be completely transparent. Every dime should be able to be accounted for, and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Gone!
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
The number of deaths that can be traced to Assange is... how many? How indirectly?
If he is in fact guilty of the actual physical crimes of which he's accused, he should be pursued and prosecuted proportionally to them. But when you equate "taking America down a peg" with mass murder... it makes you realize why Assange is doing what he's doing.
It feels as if America has lost its glory, pursuing its reputation like a bully. I think we're still better than that. But the last election didn't tell me so as clearly as I'd like, and the next election may explicitly contradict me.
Nothing says "land of the free, home of the brave" than a quitter comparing a journalistic outfit that leaks embarassing data that the US and others don't want to be revealed to a theocratic government that opposes most fundamental freedoms. And yet, her base will eat this up.
My Sysadmin Blog
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air. She is not a political mind worthy of quoting. I'd be more interested in Britney Spears commentary on the escalating North Korea situation since we might at least get some good cleavage pics.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.
The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.
This discussion is about Sarah Palin. I think you meant to say "fence post."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Remember? And the Tea Party dipshits hadn't even gotten started then. If you don't think this clown is electable, you haven't spent enough time in the flyover states.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Correction: a winkin' smiley
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
Does anyone -seriously- think that if Assange were locked up / killed / whatever, that this sort of thing would stop?
While he's more than "just a public face" in this issue, it isn't like Wikileaks would die with him, or that some successor wouldn't be spawned.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.
Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers. Despite many faux pas she's made that would have left anyone else gelded, she somehow keeps drumming up support. I'm not too educated on the numbers now for tea partiers versus non-tea partying Republicans but I think it would be a deathly schism for the Republican party. The two large parties can't afford to break off into chunks and therefore it's going to be the most supported candidate that gets the nod. Right now, who else is there?
There have been countless stupid quotes and moves by Sarah Palin where I've thought "Wow, well, at least she's finally done for." And yet she comes out of it. She starts working for Fox News and injects her own little two cents into everything and I'm thinking, "Look at all this material for a potential opponent to use against her." Yet she grows in popularity! She gets a reality show on some cable TV show called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" (like she owns the state) and I think "Well, finally, she's jumping the shark." Yet people are watching it in respectable TV viewing numbers! She releases a book that rips apart JFK and yet somehow she comes out still being followed. What gives?
In my humble opinion, as someone coming from the rural mid-west and now living in the urban east coast, you are talking about a populace you don't understand. People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate. To claim that everyone one of her supporters is driving from Ohio and other states to see her and Glenn Beck on the mall just to 'observe a train wreck' only exacerbates the problem and further removes you from what's really going on. America is just as polarized as they were during the elections and the Republican party -- though strong -- is encountering a weird kind of fragmentation for better or for worse.
Politics is entertainment just like sports are entertainment. But most spectators are cheering for someone.
It's easy for us to dismiss them but that only adds to their persecution complex. I don't know what the answer is but I prefer to listen to them and then try to reason with them instead of writing them off. There's bigger numbers in different parts of the country and I'm not a fan of watching Glenn Beck prey on people who are suffering right now. It downright sickens me.
My work here is dung.
You know, it's things like that that tend to set me off. Open information is essential to freedom, and the US found it quite delightful when WL exposed other countries. But now that it's coming to light that our own country has a lot to hide, it must be stopped? I don't think so. Get the information out there, shame the ones knowingly acting dishonestly and work to let them know it is not acceptable. People in power are always willing to bend the rules for what they feel is 'good reason'. Problem is, that so called good reason tends to expand quickly. I don't know what the fix is for the situation, but I do know that it will involve a lot more sites like WL. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Or so the government tells us. Interesting how that doesn't seem to go both ways, that needs to change, in a big way.
Question reality.
She speaks to the mob. She tells the mob what it wants to hear, rather than what needs saying. This will get her a big following, but it doesn't mean a good mob leader is capable of much beyond causing noise and damage. On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization.. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list.
It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
One is just that it is kinda funny to hear crazies talk. I mean let's face it, she is nuts and she says some amazingly stupid shit. It can be amusing to read that. So that is part of it is people just going "What? She REALLY said that? Hell we need to print that shit!"
The other is that there are more than a few democrats who really, REALLY want her to be a forerunner in the republican party. Reason is of course that she is crazy and has basically no chance. Now realistically she isn't going to be a Republican contender. However the Democrats sure hope she is because man would that make for an easy election. That leads to more coverage than you'd normally get since not only is she trying to make herself heard, her opponents are trying to make sure she'd heard.
Speaking as a mostly-leftist American, I would like nothing better than seeing Palin win the Republican nomination.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
But I don't now about US Army's external sub-contractors illegally arresting, detaining and torturing half of the Swedish population.
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway, on the grounds that they might have had supported Sweden and might also have servers for mass-hosting of leaks in possession (although independent reports from the UN deny both of these fears).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You should be extremely careful what you wish for: Democrats were expressing similar sentiments when Ronald Reagan put himself up for the Republican nomination in 1980.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
No, truck stop waitresses have to have personality and organizational skills and some sense of reality.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"In the first big leak, the names of actual informants was leaked and it was reported one later died and a few disappeared."
Citation needed. And if you can provide evidence for this, I bet the DoD would really like to have it too, 'cos they think the number's zero.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons. Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? :)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
On the contrary, I feel it is News for Nerds. It directly addresses the way technology is facilitating the globalization of information and how it conflicts with regional/local laws. The message was delivered by Facebook, so nerds should appreciate the irony that Palin is advocating censorship of information on a site that believes in opening up private information for all to view. Finally, the fact that a mainstream political figure (one does not have to hold office to be a current politician) is advocating the use of potentially illegal internet warfare (From the article: She [Palin] said “cyber tools" should be used to "permanently dismantle WikiLeaks") should also be of interest to nerds.
I don't think the topic is flamebait, I think it is controversial. The internet is a force of globalization, especially in the realm of information distribution. When that distribution starts to threaten state secrets, how far do we (the US) go? How about the UK, Germany, or France? How about China or India? How about Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? If it is legitimate for the US to do a DDoS against Wikileaks, what about Venezuela attacking US news websites that it feels are threatening its State secrets?
Yes, I already dislike Palin, but as a nerd who tries to pay attention to the news, I want to know who is siding with Palin on this issue... and to some extent, it appears that is the current administration (who once advocated an open government).
She couldn't even handle serving out her term as governor of Alaska. How does anything think she's qualified to be President?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Sarah Palin is going to target Julian Assange? With what sweetheart? Your caribou hunting rifle? Somehow I don't think it has the range to reach the UK, or wherever he is sitting these days.
No, honestly Sarah, what in the hell does your statement mean? Are you going to commit troops and military resources to "get him?" How are you going to do that since you are not in charge of any executive branch of any government in the entire world? Or does your current employer (isn't it Fox News nowadays?) have it's own private army that you can summon up just as easily as dipping into the petty cash?
Here's an idea, Sweetheart, instead of all the political grandstanding about what you are going to do to some dude on the other side of the world, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and actually try to go after him yourself? You don't want to break a nail? You don't want to put in the money or effort of conducting a manhunt? Well neither do the rest of us, nor do the citizens of the rest of the world, nor do most members of the U.S. military from what I can gather. We are tired of you politico retards, whom seem so adept at living with your heads on a completely different plain of reality, committing our resources, time, and efforts to some wild goose-chases that don't seem to produce any results anyways (Where is that last guy we went on a manhunt for? What was his name again? Osama Bin Something?). Nah, if you're really so outraged at Assange, go do your dirty work yourself. The rest of us are sick and tired of shoveling the shit for you student-body president, prom queen, princes and princesses that seem to think world politics is a popularity contest and a game.
For the tl:dr crowd, "Sarah, you're a stuck up, dolled up, dumb shit that isn't fit to find the path for getting your head out of your ass, much less hunting down a man on the other side of the world."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare).
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
replying to myself .. looks like I have it all wrong
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I dunno, he might leave the country. I would.
"Coffee is for closers."
that would be the golden age of comedy in united states.
Read radical news here
Speaking as a mostly leftist, I would rather see Obama on the republican nomination, so that maybe we can get a real left candidate.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
Actually, the Kennedy's in general and JFK in particular DESERVE to be ripped apart--but not for the vapid reasons that Sarah Palin's ghost writer came up with.
Look, I'm not here to turn this into some JFK and RFK and Ted Kennedy did all this horrible crap and killed a woman and got away with it and were womanizing nepotistic rich bastards ... all or or some of these things could be said. But what I was trying to say here was that nobody has ever run on that platform. You can write a book of dirt when you're done with politics but writing such a book before you become president is sort of like asking your future opponent if they'd like to have their way with you right now. I mean JFK, though flawed, was a hero to a lot of Americans. And his martyrdom was just icing on the cake. And to call into question one of his most loved and cherished speeches is more than ballsy, it's downright dangerous.
Sarah Palin is a new kind of political monster, unlike the ones I'm used to watching comfortably from my armchair. She's got a twitter feed that sports so many errors, she might actually be the person running it! From a classic Bush-esque prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics error to making accusations and weird religious remarks. It's a microblogging service! Look at what the rest of the politicians use it for: a paid staff techie is told what to put on it and what goes on it is only tepid words praising safe topics for that candidate to like. And those are usually reviewed seventy times before they go up. She has broken the rules of and committed fouls in politics many times and yet people embrace her.
All I wanted to say in my post was that from what I've seen of Sarah Palin, we should have stuck a fork in her long ago yet she remains. And why is that? Well, she's a dangerously well liked and amicable to a large part of the population that you are not familiar with. If she makes a mistake they seem to forgive her and say "I've made that mistake too." If she uses cracked logic or argument tactics long ago written off by academics, her followers just write off the academics. Trust me, as someone who's tried to reason with a supporter with some fairly simple debate analysis of Glenn Beck's logic, I can tell you that you don't want to approach this as some fancy pants intellectual telling them how dumb they are.
Don't confuse this with praise of Sarah Palin or defense of JFK. This is just me trying to warn people about how I see the situation at present. What happens when she runs for president and her opposition preys on some stupid social gaffe of hers? If it's any less than what she's already done, it's merely going to be ignored by or reinforce her supporter's commitment.
My work here is dung.
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
No, truck stop waitresses have to have personality and organizational skills and some sense of reality.
And they generally finish their shifts.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Palin's goals are summed up by my favorite demotivator.
"Consulting: Because if you're not part of the solution, there's good money in prolonging the problem."
She very quickly / shrewdly realized that sitting on the sidelines jabbering away about "what's wrong with America" is an *insanely* profitable career. A career where your decisions can never be proven wrong. (Obama can make the wrong decisions, but Palin, Moore, Limbaugh, et al. never have that problem because they just offer *opinions* about decisions someone else makes.)
In short, she's exactly where she belongs and I wonder if she's smart enough to know it. Armchair Quarterbacks never, ever, ever get sacked. The only truly stupid thing could do would be to actually run for office again.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
>> And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing
Correction: Always is considered a bad thing only sometimes, but never is considered a bad thing always. On the other hand, sometimes is never considered a good thing, so it's always considered a bad thing.
Oh wait, I guess you were right.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (I had just turned 18). I didn't vote in 2004, as there were no good candidates, and I voted for Obama in 2008 (and will vote for him again in 2012). I'm not happy with GM being bailed out (I own a huge amount of Toyota stock, and now Tesla Motors stock), but understand it was necessary to prevent the loss of millions of auto supply chain jobs. I like universal healthcare (you live in a society you twit, the wealth you have is only available to you because of the structure of society, and society has a cost) vs people going bankrupt and for-profit companies reaping hundreds of millions of dollars.
It appears though that we both agree that Palin would be a destructive force if put into office. Shall we roll up our sleeves and work together on this? I'm for fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but am also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-universal healthcare.
Regular people like us can try to compromise, or we can take the nuclear option and use our resources to try to hammer the other folks into the ground. I'd much prefer the former over the latter.
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Still is. False dichotomy? CNN vs. Fox.
They both support a corporate kleptocratic power, which masquerades behind statist rhetoric, to subvert both the functional sovereignty of government and the republican enfranchisement of the people.
The "divide and conquer" tactic of using false right/left pseudo-ideology pits the population against itself, and diverts its energy into fighting non-issues, with no hope of affecting meaningful outcomes.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Setting aside the accusations of rape in Sweden, what US law has Assange been accused of breaking?
In the current Wikileaks drama, it's interesting to note that Wikileaks has only presented the exact same documents with the same redactions as the New York Times, who has done so with the cooperation and informed consent of the State Department. As far as I know, he hasn't even been accused of a crime, and has certainly not been convicted of a crime that has a punishment consistent with what Ms. Palin is suggesting.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Increasingly, attention has been focused on the role of Anna Ardin, the more visible of the two complainants. Her apparent mix of establishment cred, together with her varied activist/political career radical feminist, Christian social democrat, ambitious political intern seems to flummox non-Swedish commentators, who don’t understand that that is an establishment career in Sweden. Ardin has not only worked as an intern in the Swedish foreign affairs department, including a tour of DC and Cuba (from which she was allegedly deported), but has also interned on the op-ed page of the Gothenburg afternoon paper GT, part of the Expressen stable, owned by the right-wing Bonnier family (yep, Sweden has right-wingers).
It was to the relentlessly anti-left Expressen that the story of the initial charges of rape against Assange were released (a breach of Swedish law), in the small window of time before they were rescinded by a higher prosecutor.
Were there accusations of violent rape involved in this case, I’d be a lot more circumspect about reporting some of this, but it seems no one is asserting physical coercion. So here goes: two separate sources from the Swedish left have told me that they regard Ardin as more than a little over-the-top, and subject to some compelling obsessions. Another source said he was pretty sure of the identity of SW, the other complainant, and that some people had held suspicions about her bona fides as a member of the left.
And from this site here we find some very interesting info:
Someone in the police station rings up the prosecutor on duty - who just happens to be Maria Kjellstrand, whose husband works in the office of Beatrice Ask, who is Sweden's minister of justice, a position previously held by Thomas Bodström who gave away The Pirate Bay to the White House and who today runs a law firm with Claes Borgström who's made a career out of supporting militant radical feminist ideas - and who magically appears out of nowhere later on to become the two girls' legal counsel, despite being obscenely expensive.
i would respectfully say that those who run aid the rise of ignorance. you should stay and fight for your country. because when you run away from problems they only grow. soon you'll be running away from wherever you ran to, when a palin pops up there too
people who run away from problems like palin, or avoid the subject, or don't vote out of ambivalence or cynicism: they aid the rise of ignorance. because if you don't fight ignorance, who will? take responsibility for YOUR country, and mold YOUR country in your image. or someone else will. and then you have no right to complain, because you didn't exert any effort. the image of the usa is up for grabs, its always up for grabs. and its image is claimed by those who exert effort to mold that image
if you give up in cynicism and do nothing or run away, then you are perhaps even worse than the idiots who follow palin: at least they are DOING something, even if a false cause. those who exert effort in a false cause are better than those who know what is right, but do nothing. i firmly believe that
there is no excuse for lack of effort, and then complaining when things don't go your way. your enemies are rich and powerful, yes. as if that should stop you in the noble fight for what is right. so get fighting, or be worse than a palin supporter, in my eyes at least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You're not alone. That's a world wide phenomenon, and no country is exempt. We're all mostly greedy bastards, no matter what people. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but 90% of the people, no matter if French, Italian, Indian or American. All the same shit all over.
For some odd reason, though, people here (in Europe) want people smarter than themselves in a public office. People here do elect people so someone else can do that brain work for them. And they want someone who can (ok, who looks like he probably could) do that. People here want to vote for "smart" people. Not necessarily brainy people, but people who have "made their way", who led a successful business or who can show off some other proof that they can "manage".
When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California people here (including those that usually vote for the "best looking guy") were stunned with disbelief. What? How's he a politician? Only thing he accomplished is movies. And movies are NOT taken serious around here. As much as we like celebrities, they have NO place in politics. Politics is serious matter. Movies are entertainment. They don't mix.
That doesn't mean that we got better politicians in any way. But it means that we get more intelligent ones because they have to "prove" that they got the brains and can talk level headed enough to appeal to the general consensus that politics is "serious business". No radical ideas allowed. No show gimmicks allowed. I didn't think I'd ever say it, but having a fairly conservative population that shuns changes has its benefits.
At least the weirdos like Palin have no chance to ever wield power.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Ok scared guy, demonstrate it.
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" --a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010 (NOTE: after attending 5 different colleges, she eventually graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in journalism - "before her selection to run on the GOP ticket, she explained that her curiosity and love of writing made journalism a natural choice.")
"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008
''Dr. Laura: don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend. rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence'' isn't American, not fair'')'' —Sarah Palin, in a Twitter message coming to the defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the talk radio host who apologized and decided to retire from her highly-rated program after using the N-word on the air 11 times in 5 minutes, Aug. 18, 2010
I could continue, but I just don't have time to list all the examples of her poor intellectual qualifications.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
I can't believe you're going making me defend Sarah Palin, but the OP is misquoting her.
What she actually said was, "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? [emphasis added]". She then goes on to say "Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen". It's clear she's advocating a legal response, not a military one.