It’s possible an anonymous aide to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has already said everything that ever needs to be said about Sarah Palin.
Upon learning the former governever espoused a dreamy hope to meet with the Iron Lady, an ally of Thatcher’s responded with a very curt, “Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.”
And then in the very same sentence the Pyrite Lady prostrated herself at the altar of Thatcherism, she also announced her plans to travel to Sudan. From a corner of the internet more commonly found burning copies of “Three Cups of Tea” than commenting on Politico articles rose a collective, “Sarah Palin is nuts.”
About Palin’s unrequited crush, Alex Massie at the Daily Beast writes:
Why should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin? Even if the Iron Lady were not in such rusty health, what would be the point or purpose of any such encounter? What possible interest could she have in meeting a two-bit, half-term governor of Alaska? To ask the question is to make the answer so clear that even Palin’s most deluded admirers might be able to understand it.
I have to ask, why should Sudan have any interest in hosting Palin? Even if the country weren’t in such a delicate state, what would be the point or purpose of any photo-op with Ann Curry? What interest could the Southern Sudanese have in hosting a governor who fought her state’s attempt to divest from companies working with the genocidal regime in Khartoum?
Why should the Southern Sudanese, who fought for over twenty years for their independence, become a backdrop for a campaign ad of a half-term governor who doesn’t know her own country’s historical anecdotes?
The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t really matter what the Southern Sudanese want. This is, as Laura Seay (née @texasinafrica) noted on Twitter, “about evangelicals and ‘foreign policy credentials.’”
Also, Sarah Palin is not what one would describe as “camera-shy.” Perhaps she heard about George Clooney’s satellites, the “anti-genocide paparazzi” and had to discover if they, too, were part of the “lamestream media.”
You may recall Clooney’s project, as recounted by TIME’s Mark Benjamin:
The idea was to take detailed pictures of the border area between the North and South in case civil war broke out as the country split in two, as it is set to do in July. The idea was that the spotlight might help prevent war and atrocities.
Interestingly, the next paragraph of the article goes on to describe a report by the Satellite Sentinel Project on atrocities documented by their satellites in Abyei rather than ones prevented by their satellites.
The UN workers on the ground as fighting broke out in Abyei didn’t need satellites to document the 20,000 civilians who fled the initial attacks. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, didn’t need a flashy report to make serious accusations about Khartoum’s premeditated attack on Abyei.
The situation in Abyei is still volatile. The UN Refugee Agency says upwards of 100,000 are now displaced because of ongoing fighting.
Attention on the situation in Sudan will be critical as South Sudan officially gains its independence on July 9. Already, as seen in Abyei and now South Kordofan, Khartoum has shown a willingness to return to open conflict. But attention on The Situation or Sarah Palin (or George Clooney) in Sudan is not the same as attention on Sudan.
Sarah Palin is nuts, but so is the idea that any sort of paparazzi is going to prevent atrocities in Sudan. That’s like saying handing out $20 to every Afghan would end the war… ah crap.