And now some unsolicited advice to our President concerning conflict overseas from a woman who does not even know how to stop her family from attacking the neighbors.

Resplendent in her best pleather jacket, Palin decides to tell the President exactly what he is doing wrong in dealing with ISIS and how she would have handled things much worse better.

I have had two cups of coffee and a Dramamine so let's see if I can get through this transcript without losing my breakfast or throwing my computer through the wall.

Here goes:

"President Obama is leading from behind again."

Goddamn bitch! How dare yo....I'm gonna....You don't know sh....Okay, okay I have control again.

Deep breaths Gryphen, she is talking to her supporters so of course she is going to throw them some partially digested red meat. Okay let's try again.

"ISIS, that death cult, it's beheading Americans and persecuting Christians on a massive scale. And killing our allies in the Middle East. Yet, the President's aides actually told the New York Times that, quote 'We don't want this to look like an American war,' unquote. (Which, by the way, exactly reflects the attitude of the American people.)

And how are they going to do that? by pulling the same tricks he pulled in Libya. By arming jihadists. By launching very limited air strikes. And by hoping all that just turns out better than it did before. But we all remember Libya (Cue the Benghazi picture.) where our so called allies? They turned on us soon after they got what they wanted from the US. Where they killed our brave diplomats, where they filmed themselves jumping into our ambassador's swimming pool recently. (Or in Palin-speak "concrete pond.") Woo hoo! Partying it up, celebrating, after chasing America out of the country. 

Now Libya is in a state of near anarchy. (Sounds like any weekend at the Palin compound.) Offering safe haven now for jihadists all across the region. They're a mess. That's the strategy we want for ISIS? To defeat ISIS? The President told America that he wants to destroy the group, now that they are beheading Americans. Even though said earlier he said..um...basically he suggested that they weren't much to worry about. You know they're JV squad. Well now he says 'Okay we'll destroy'em.' But the President's already backing away from that promise. 

On Meet the Press his Chief of Staff gave a definition of success that is far far from destroying ISIS. 

(This, by the way, was the White House Chief of Staff McDonough's statement on MTP concerning success against ISIS or ISIL.  ""Success looks like an ISIL that no longer threatens our friends, can't accumulate followers and threaten Muslims in Syria, Iraq, or otherwise," McDonough told NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd. "And that's exactly what success looks like." To me that sort of sounds like it would be the end of ISIS and their ability to do any real damage in the Middle East. But I guess if every single one of them is not hunted down and shot in the face that will it not satisfy certain people. )

Their definition of success? I don't believe it would be your definition of success America. Even worse, okay here's a problem, what we hear now from Obama, though granted they're changing their plans, and red lines that they draw, it seems like daily. Very inconsistent. They dither around with foreign policy. (Yes responding to new data and to changing dynamics in the regions must really confuse those who see the world in black and white.) 

But even worse, what Obama's planning to do, it sounds like, is to arm Syrian rebels. (The same plan that John McCain has been pushing since 2012.) We don't know if we can trust Syrian rebels. These Syrian rebels. they may have sold one of our journalists to ISIS. So the President's planning to arm rebels who have already handed over weapons to ISIS? And who allegedly just reached a ceasefire agreement with ISIS? The Syrian rebel group who's palling around with even more dangerous terrorists? (Well THERE'S an oldie but a goodie from 2008.)These rebels, these jihadists, they're not our friends. Um but the President wants to arm them anyway and thinks that they can be trusted. 

No, we need facts in order to...uh...I guess, prod the President in making the right decisions on where this country needs to go when America's interest is being adversely affected by this group ISIS that is hell bent on destroying those in the Middle East and coming on over and destroying us too. (Did Sarah Palin actually say we need "facts?" I must have heard that wrong.) Right now the President wants it both ways, what's new? He wants to look like he is doing something, buuut he really doesn't want to get too involved.  (Once again reflecting the mood of the American people.) We all know that we're not going to be able to defeat ISIS with just air strikes. But Obama knows how unpopular sending combat troops would be. Especially under HIS command. (And why would it be just "his" command? Where the hell is Congress? They have left this President high and dry, while they run off to take yet another vacation from the job that they have failed to do for the last six years.) But if not us on the ground defeating ISIS then..then who? The truth is we have no idea how to sort out the moderate forces from the radical forces. And President Obama's buffaloing you if he's leading you to believe that HE knows how to sort out moderate Muslims from radical Muslims in an areas that for..for the most part is letting us know that..um..you know, they're not our friends. (Is she actually about to quote a bumper sticker and suggest that we "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out?") 

We can't trust the rebels in Syria. Some think that we can get the Sunnis in Iraq..well like maybe, we'll switch sides again and fight with us against ISIS.  Good luck with that. We can count on the Kurds of course to help us out, and ally with us, but they're only going to fight for their own area. So where does that leave us? 

(Okay you know how when you are driving there will be a sign that warns you that there is a sharp turn ahead? Yeah well Palin is about to do a 360 that just might cause you to get a little nauseous.)

Well I've said this before that I don't want to see us going back to Iraq either, but I'm a realist. (Wait, what?) Is ISIS a direct threat to our own national security or not? That's the first question we have to ask.  (Okay did this woman NOT just spend over half of an hour screaming about how the only way to defeat ISIS is to send American troops back into Iraq as well as into Syria and kill them all? And NOW she is asking whether or not they present a legitimate threat to America?) And I agree that it's a question for legitimate debate. If we do decide that ISIS is a direct threat to our security then of course we must go in, we must defeat them over there. But we have to be in it, to win it. (Okay let me see if I can make sense of this. We need to put boots on the ground, and engage ISIS now, while we are deciding whether or not we should be engaging ISIS st all?)

Please Mr. President listen to America on this. It means we go in with overwhelming United States of America force, the red, white, and blue, we punch hard. (Like Bristol punches hard?) We defeat them, and then we get out. Only this time let's listen to those on the ground, top brass of military, the experts, who are saying..um.. we do need a residual force staying there to make sure this doesn't happen again. (So we need to pull out, but not all the way out. Isn't that how daughters get knocked up?) For now the tragedy is that our President just doesn't get it. For more than six years he's appeased jihadists.  (Yes by killing hundreds of them.) And now the Middle East is in flames. He's been weak, our President is weak, and again and again he shows this. 

Thirteen years after 9/11, the jihadists are stronger than they’ve ever been. No Mr. President you didn't tell America the truth when you suggested that all these terrorists, you had them on the run. Specifically you said you had Al Qaeda on the run. Yeah, running right towards us, as I've said before. Sir enough is enough. If we're in this we need to be in it, to win it. No half measures. NO more leading from behind.

Well it appears that unlike virtually ALL of the politicians in this country, Sarah Palin would like to commit a large number of troops to the eradication of ISIS. But not if they do not in fact present a danger to America, which we can debate while we are eradicating ISIS.

Does she have an editor for these videos, or is she just assuming that the people who are stupid enough to send her $9.95 a month are too stupid to actually listen to the words coming out of her mouth, and attempt to understand them?

Gee no wonder she is threatening to sue Bob Cesca for allowing the world to see these unpolished turds of wisdom.

Well she better add Wonkette to that list as well, becasue that is who made this video available.

Their take on it can be seen here.