Palin’s Darfur Stance Means Nothing

Genocide isn’t really our editorial purview, but we have to take a second to discuss Sarah Palin’s comments last night on Sudan’s war torn Darfur region.

Asked whether she would support putting troops on the ground in Sudan and try to stem the outrageous blood-letting, Palin, like so many times last night, didn’t give a clear, concise answer. Rather, the Alaska Governor attempted to gussy up her own involvement, which turns out to be next to nothing. And her introductory statement’s offensive on so many levels:

What I’ve done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that’s pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur.

That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

What?! You are planning on disinvesting so you don’t look like you’re “condoning” genocide in Darfur? That is not action, but image projection. Doesn’t this woman understand that disinvestment doesn’t really do anything, anyway, because the Chinese don’t give two shits about human rights and are more than willing to pump money into the region?

Watch both Palin and Joe Biden’s responses on the Darfur question down below…

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #china #darfur #joebiden stories and more


  • RainaWeather

    Oh, if ever I wanted to kick a bitch in the teeth

  • chadnnocal

    It was like watching Annie Mae and her critters debate a real politician.

    I was frightened by the lack of good grammar and lack of knowledge. Despite weeks of Karl Rove – coaching her on right wing rhetoric, she was still, just as clueless as the first time we saw her.

  • ousslander

    So all that divestment from South Africa had nothing to do with the end of Apartheid?

    I thought war was bad and not justified? Unless of course it’s Obama ‘s war.

  • Eric

    I would give her *some* credit if she in fact wasn’t lying about her stance on divestment, that is the real story.

    “Also, she says she wants the state to divest its oil fund money from Darfur-involved countries. Yes… but her administration initially opposed it — “mocked it,” in the words of the bill’s sponsor — and came around to supporting it only late in the legislative session, when it was already de facto dead.”


  • Berdie

    Please give me a break. If the U.S. actually sent the army into Darfur and stopped this genocide, there would be the typical protests of us being an imperalist nation hellbent on colonization and oil gathering. If we sit back and do NOTHING – as we have done – I have to listen to the very same people demand that we do something about Darfur. Have it either way – but you can’t have it both.

  • Maassive

    Member of Congress (including Sens Brownback and Durbin) requested, in writing, that Palin support divestment while she was still governor-elect in November 2006. It took her 16 months to support it publicly, well after he staff helped kill the bill in the Alaska legislature.

    Sourced and fact checked here

  • BHO's latest lie

    The truth about Palin’s support for divestment is at my name’s link. This appears to be the latest smear that BHO is pushing, using an Alaskan Dem as his pivot point.

Comments are closed.