It seems as though the libertarians and the pacifists in the Cato Institute who don’t believe in defending this country are controlling the GOP. No longer are neo-cons welcome, but anti-war pacifists now control the day – God Help Us All.
One wonders what is going on in this country. No longer do we need to protect ourselves or honor our commitments. All that matters is turning tail and running so the losertarins can save a little money. They way they want to cut military spending, one gets the idea their the big-billions-plutocrats who run the libertarians and the tea parties don’t have investments in the companies who provide support and equipment for the DOD.
S. E. Cupp wrote:
“…“This is what the founders advised,” Paul says. “We were not meant to be the policemen of the world.” One is left wondering, then, what President Paul would have done about Hitler or Pol Pot. What would he have done about Rwanda or Bosnia? What would he do now about North Korea?
Good conservatives recognize a need for limited government, but they also know that America has an obligation to spread democracy and promote international security. The fact that our troops are stationed all over the world acts as a deterrent to the likes of Kim Jong Il; the mere proximity of American military force is enough. Paul, with his simplistic “bring ’em home” message, would end all that.
As Jeffrey Lord points out in the American Spectator, Paul’s memory of what the Founding Fathers wanted is selective. James Monroe was an interventionist; Washington invaded Canada; Alexander Hamilton birthed Paul’s biggest foe, the Federal Reserve.
Ignoring America’s moral obligations in favor of isolationism is a departure from the very reason for our humble beginnings. Had the colonists been do-nothing Paulites, America’s Founding Fathers wouldn’t have founded much of anything….”
We all know the libertarians are manipulating the GOP.
“…Graham’s reaction: “I’m disappointed that some people in our party are not embracing the concept that the outcome in Afghanistan will determine our national security fate for decades to come…I would like to hear [Perry] talk about what does it matter to us as a nation whether Afghanistan is a success or a failure.” In his conversation with Rogin, Graham went on to defend America’s mission in Afghanistan. “We have 300 million people with targets on their backs here at home. The 100,000 are fighting these guys over there so we don’t have to fight them over here…We are going to hand over responsibility to the Afghan government. But the 100,000 troops are needed to stabilize the country.”…”
“…ROMNEY, PERRY, BACHMANN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE ISSUE PAGES DON’T MENTION IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN | ThinkProgress noted last week that the Republican candidates for president aren’t spending much time debating foreign policy, national security, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only candidate to mention the Iraq war in the last two debates. Today, a Washington Post editorial observes that the lack of discussion on these issues isn’t limited to the debates. “As best as we could find,” the Post writes, “the words ‘Afghanistan’ and ‘Iraq’ do not appear on the issue pages of the campaign Web sites of candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. The apparent lack of concern for this topic of vital national interest is matched only by the incoherence in positions displayed when the candidates have been questioned on the subject.”…”
Lindsey, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and a few others are up against the irrational antics of the likes of Ron Paul and his libertarian handlers and FOX.
“…We’ll have to prove him wrong,” responded Paul. “I’m quite competent about the foreign policy that I advocate, we’ll have to prove him wrong by winning some elections. When he says he’ll support all Republicans except some like myself, which means that he wants to be the dictator… ‘I will decide who will decide who’s a true Republican or not.’ And I say he doesn’t have that authority! The people have the authority. He just might come up short on his desire… I’m very confident that we’re going to continue to surprise a lot of people.”
Cavuto followed up by adding that Cheney was shocked by Paul’s view that the US shouldn’t interfere with countries like Iran possessing nuclear weapons.
“I don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon, I don’t want any of them to have them,” Paul reasoned. “I don’t like ‘em, but I understand it. If Iran gets one nuclear weapon, why are they more dangerous than the Soviet system? Why’s when they had 30,000, we were able to live with that?”
Cavuto pressed that Iran would be more dangerous with a nuclear weapon in the hands of Ahmadinejad, who has a history of aberrant behavior.
“How could they be any worse than Khrushchev saying he would bury us and he had the capacity to do it.” Paul countered. “I would say what we ought to be more cautious about is this glib acceptance that we can go to war in another country because if you want to stop him, you have to go to war with Iran. And that to me is careless, war-mongering, very, very dangerous– much more dangerous than another country having a nuclear weapon that’s not on the verge of committing suicide. They wouldn’t dare, with one weapon and Israel has 300?! We have to put this in a proper perspective and get back to our common sense.”…”