What Does She Mean?

Can someone explain to me what Sarah Palin is saying here? I don’t think I’m smart enough to figure out what she means.

“We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for all of us.

9 Responses to “What Does She Mean?”

  1. gcotharn says:

    Heh. That is a hilarious statement. It reminds of some of the greatest hits of Bush 41, GWB, and Biden.

    I’m unsure if you seriously want to know what she’s trying to say, but here it is:

    “We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy [such as Iraqis or Afghanis] and [who] can live in a country [like Iraq or Afghanistan] that would allow intolerance in the equal rights [such as equal rights of women and religious minorities] that again our military men and women fight for and die for [ — and they don’t just fight for Iraqis and Afghanis — they fight for] all of us.”

    Anyway, her statement is hilarious, and barely if at all coherent; but that’s what she was trying to communicate, just as Barack was trying to communicate something else when he told Stephanopoulos about: “my Muslim faith”.

  2. Kathy says:

    That’s amusing, gcotharn. You just repeated what she said, with parenthetical words that don’t address anything. What does “intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for” mean?

    Your gratuitous reference to Obama’s use of the phrase “my Muslim faith,” by which you clearly imply that Obama was “trying to communicate” that he is a Muslim, is dishonest and utterly contemptible. Even Ann Althouse has slammed that interpretation. It’s an interpretation you could only make out of malice, because when you see the entire segment in which Obama says it, it’s clear that what he’s doing is agreeing with Stephanopoulos that John McCain did not suggest he (Obama) was a Muslim. The video that wingnuts sent around the Internet clipped just that one phrase and did not include any of the surrounding verbal context. Which means they knew it was garbage. The only way they could make anyone believe such nonsense *was* by taking the phrase out of context.

    Go take a look at the complete video yourself if you have any interest in principle or integrity. It’s here: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-did-barack-obama-say-my-muslim.html.

  3. gcotharn says:

    About Barack, we agree. I was trying to say he was “trying to communicate something else” other than I am a Muslim. I do not think he intended to say: “my Muslim faith.” I will not blame you for this misunderstanding. My writing was inadequate.

    As to Palin: did you really want your question answered? Or, were you merely, and legitimately, wanting to have fun on your blog by pointing to a funny verbal gaffe? In which case, I am a fool and maybe even rude for interpreting, when your purpose is merely and legitimately to have a laugh at Palin’s deserved expense.

    If you truly wanted interpretation, here is what she was trying, ineffectively, to say:

    America is exceptional and inspirational.
    Thank God for our brave and exceptional military, and for all they do.

    Such sentiments are maybe unfamiliar to you! My guess at your sentiments:

    No to American Exceptionalism; Yes to Global Universalism.
    No to America as inspiration; Yes to American humility.
    No to God; Yes to Obama (joke!).
    No to brave and exceptional military; Yes to murderous and incompetent military.
    No to all our military does; Yes to Barack’s reasonable, shrewd, and sure to succeed diplomacy (Putin beware!).

    So, it’s not surprising that Palin’s sentiments were incomprehensible to you! 🙂 Plus, ya know, her actual words were incoherent. Heh.

  4. Ace Armstrong says:

    I believe her statement is GOPology for ” your either agin us, or for us”.
    Here in the National Security State there is no place for universal consciousness. There is only the mythology of our ‘exceptionalism’ granted by a imaginary being hovering above us somewhere just beyond the clouds.
    All of the authors in the bible thought the earth was flat and that the universe rotated around earth.
    The mighty huntress of the north is only bringing these views up to date for Joe Sixpack.

  5. gcotharn says:

    Ace,
    I’m somewhat with you.

    She intended to say: We stand for American Exceptionalism, and we give a shout out to God on the way to saluting our military.

    Now, she accidentally kinda said something else. But, the above was her intention!

  6. Kathy says:

    I don’t know exactly what “global universalism” might be, but I do reject the belief that the United States was appointed by God as the world “Chosen Nation,” that the United States is better than any other nation in the world in a way that entitles it and even requires it to assert military and economic and political control over the entire planet. I think “American Exceptionalism” as a doctrine is just another term for imperialism.

    There was a time, certainly, when the United States was an inspiration to the world because of the beauty and uniqueness of American ideals. That was back when this country’s leaders actually strived to uphold those ideals. Now they strive to destroy them, and to a large extent, have succeeded. Although people like Sarah Palin try, they cannot be taken seriously when they say that America is an exceptional country that is a force for good in the world while America’s actions send the opposite message.

    No to God, yes to Obama, whether a “joke” or not, is meaningless. God has nothing to do with the 2008 presidential election, and it shouldn’t have.

    Your fourth statement is a false dichotomy. The policy the U.S. military is carrying out under the Bush administration (and as it would be under a McCain administration) is murderous and incompetent, not the individual men and women serving in the military, most of whom are trying their best to carry out a policy that is morally bankrupt, dangerous, and stupid. It’s the policy that’s the problem, not the military.

    Obama’s support for diplomacy — real diplomacy, not the gunboat variety — is indeed reasonable and, more, essential. We don’t know how well it will work in any given scenario yet, because it’s never been tried. We do know, however, how well invading, bombing, shooting, and occupying has succeeded.

    And yeah, a little more humility and a lot less arrogance on America’s part would be quite refreshing.

  7. gcotharn says:

    When was that certain time when the U.S. was an inspiration to the world? I never (rarely?) read words of yours which compliment the United States. I would love to know exactly what were the years of U.S. history when we were an inspiration to the world.

    We are in general agreement that I fairly (and entertainingly?) characterized your views, except for my fourth statement. I’ll give you the false dichotomy thing. In return, I request that – before you next accuse U.S. Military of immoral action in Iraq/Afghan – you take a second look to ensure you are scrupulously and accurately characterizing your allegation. Since you are all about being fair and accurate, I think this is a reasonable bargain between us.

    I do note this: A lot of times Barack speaks as if he has thought up new methods of diplomacy (example: with Iran) or action (example: in Pakistan), when, in reality, Barack is merely parroting what has already been and is already being done. He has no new ideas.

  8. Kathy says:

    When was that certain time when the U.S. was an inspiration to the world?

    Before Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and a cast of others decided that the president had unlimited power to violate any law whenever he felt like it in the name of national security. Before a team of Bush administration lawyers, most notably Yoo but not limited to him, rewrote domestic and international prohibitions against torture so that the president could authorize torture against detainees in what he called “the war on terror.” Before the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney and David Addington, decided that the U.S. did not have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. had helped to write after WWII (that’s a hint, btw, about a time when the U.S. was still an inspiration to the world.), or the Convention Against Torture, or any other human rights protocols regarding the treatment of prisoners. Before a handful of men working for the president, *and* the president, decided that the Bill of Rights was irrelevant, the law was inconvenient, and due process was a quaint relic of that previous time when the U.S. at least *tried* to live up to the ideals that it bombs other countries in the name of.

    I’ll give you the false dichotomy thing. In return, I request that – before you next accuse U.S. Military of immoral action in Iraq/Afghan – you take a second look to ensure you are scrupulously and accurately characterizing your allegation. Since you are all about being fair and accurate, I think this is a reasonable bargain between us.

    That is one of the weirdest suggestions I have ever read. This is not like, if I walk your dog, you’ll wash my car. We’re talking about facts, truth, and reality here. We’re also talking about opinions on both sides that are rooted in personal values that cannot (at least in my case; I can’t speak for you) be “bargained” away.

    The foreign policy that the U.S. military has been ordered to carry out under the Bush administration is immoral. And illegal. Within that context, I have no doubt that most U.S. soldiers are doing their jobs, or trying to do them, the best they can, with personal honor as much as they can given that the policy they are being asked to carry out is deeply dishonorable. Some U.S. troops *have* acted dishonorably. Some have committed atrocities. That should not be surprising, because there has never been a war in human history that did not include atrocities on both or all sides. It’s the nature of the beast.

    I do believe, though, that most U.S. soldiers are both brave and honorable, and believe in what they are doing at least to some extent. But that does not absolve me of my own personal responsibility to come to my own conclusions about the morality and legality of this administration’s military policies, based on my own self-education and my personal and individual sense of right and wrong.

  9. gcotharn says:

    thanks for your thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook