Site Meter
Share

Has this week shown that we need a strong military?

Has it proven that Lindsey is right?

What has happened here?  Once upon a time the GOP could always be counted on to stand up for the military, wave the flag, and believe in our place in the world.  Those days are long gone.  The very real question is why.  I think we cannot learn how to fight the anti-military cowards of the libertarian right until we understand what is propelling them.

The Daily Beast

Allegedly they want to save money.

That’s nice.

The problem with some philosophies for saving money is you can become what my grandmother Froehlich always called penny wise and pound foolish.

“…to be extremely careful about small amounts of money and not careful enough about larger amounts of money Saving a little bit of money on repairs can lead to long-term damage….”

Lindsey is one of the few Republicans standing up for the military, trying to protect us.

“…“How many people like Ronald Reagan?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the crowd. A bunch of Republican Hill aides dutifully raised their hands.

“And how many people like peace through strength?” More hands raised. Then Graham, an Air Force reservist colonel, asked, “What the hell happened to that party?”

Graham’s exasperated comment last week reflects an unexpected divide developing inside the Republican Party, which for a quarter century has been a coalition of hawks, tax cutters, and social conservatives united under a Reagan banner.

The willingness of many in the Tea Party to take the budget knife to defense to stave off tax increases has pitted the vibrant new wing against the GOP’s longtime military hawks. Democrats are eager to exploit the growing divide this fall as a congressional supercommittee tries to find at least another $1.5 trillion in federal spending cuts over the next 10 years….”

Would someone please explain why Eric Cantor is willing to cut our military when we need it most?  Or – are we dealing with the old divide and conquer.  Then there is the Grover Norquest problem.  He would rather see us be weak as a nation than close tax loopholes.

It’s like Obama and Iraq.

“…“It would be one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy to lose Iraq because you had 3,000 troops when you need 10 to 15 [thousand],” said Graham, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee…. Graham said 3,000 troops is not enough to do the missions necessary to protect American civilians, gather intelligence and do counterterrorism work on the ground.

“No general has suggested anywhere near 3,000 troops,” Graham said. “It’s okay as commander in chief to disagree with the generals, but it’s not okay to take their advice and throw it in the garbage can. No one has suggested anything really from the Pentagon below 15 to 16,000.”

Graham slammed the president for considering the reported proposal, calling it a “formula for disaster.”

“It wasn’t an option presented to the president,” he said. “It was an option created by the president. This is the Obama-Biden plan in Afghanistan, and 3,000 troops in Iraq would be a formula for disaster — and Iran would love that. They’re trying to destabilize Iraq.”…”

WLTX

“…“I’m not going to let the party become the party of isolationism,” Graham says. He points to Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who is actively campaigning in South Carolina, as an example of the position he finds unpalatable. “I don’t know what he’s up to,” Graham says, commenting on Huntsman’s call for a speedy drawdown….”

It is quite tragic when liberals are standing up for the military and the war on terror, and the cowards of the right, propelled by treacherous libertarians who appear to be making a profit from dealing with our enemies, want to cut and run.  (These are not to be confused with Eric Dondero’s version of libertarian, where they realize that national security is paramount.)

There are now very few conservatives who call it like it is like Hugh Hewitt.

Washington Examiner

“…”I think he has been a very problematic figure for the Arab American and American Muslim communities,” Ibish told TPM Friday, “that face this accusation from professional Islamophobes and Anti-Arab racists that they are Fifth Column, that they are potentially subject to radicalization by violent extremists.”

“Having an American-born so-called cleric, who had a position in a noted mosque outside D.C. before he became radicalized was a difficult issue,” Ibish said, adding that al-Alwaki became the principle example in “misleading arguments” about radicalization.

Indeed, it’s pretty easy to find al-Alwaki’s name linked to generalizations about Muslims by some leading anti-Islam voices on the internet, like the right-wing site World Net Daily. One article from January quotes several “authorities” on Islam who say that al-Alwaki is “interpreting correctly the teachings of Islam” and “imitating Muhammad” when he said that jihadists should steal from non-believers to finance jihad….”

The Politico

Share

9 Comments

  • Tom Leith says:

    Yes, we need a strong military to protect us from tiny east African “nations” who might not sell us oil. Oh, wait…

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    You’re a libertarian. You don’t care about national security. Libertarians are only interested in their own selfish needs.

    SJR

  • Tom Leith says:

    Are you talking to me? I am hardly a Libertarian and tiny east African nations that won’t sell us oil are hardly a national threat.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    I’m not exactly jumping up and down about the move. If you want my personal opinion, I figure it is a diversionary tactic to take the heat off several nasty little Fast, Furious, and Solyndra scandals – except I don’t think the Obama Administration is that capable of that much “competence”. Heck, humanitarians have been begging for this action for years. Why now? This leads to an entirely new set of questions about the possibility of Obama not even caring about the Constitution. We wouldn’t even need to go to protect oil if we had a competent energy policy of our own. This leads to another problem here. This isn’t exactly like Iraq invading Kuwait.

    SJR

  • Tom Leith says:

    I am jumping up and down about it. I am furious about a “humanitarian” invasion whose real purpose is to make a tiny African “nation” safe for exploitation by multi/transnational oil companies who consider themselves above or outside or independent of all countries. This has nothing to do with national security. Even “humanitarian” intervention has nothing to do with national security. As you point out, an increased emphasis on autarky, even if it leads to “inefficiency” requires much less military spending (and frank injustice) to support. We need to reconsider just what it is we want to produce so “efficiently”.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    Read the piece I just posted about Rush. I suspect this is about trying to take attention off Holder, and Solyndra. Why do this Uganda thing now? If it were a month ago I would not be suspicious. But, then I am a total cynic. I don’t even think this is about military. We need to use our heads when it comes to spending. I know it is nice to use the heart, but there are times when good, old fashioned Vulcan logic is needed. I’m not seeing much of it. I’m not jumping up and down about it, more than I am abjectly puzzled. It makes no sense – unless one is trying to take attention from pending subpoenas.

    It just doesn’t make sense. Why now?

    The reason I could be tempted to join you in the jumping up and down is the imperial way the entire scheme was handled. That makes me mad.

    SJR

  • jose maria says:

    We get a real threat from Iran and we do nothing. Instead, we send advisers to Africa without Congressional approval. Of course they are to be in the capacity of advisers and are not supposed to take military action, but I don’t see how they can avoid it. This sounds too much like Vietnam to me and is scary.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    What is really scary is compared to this, Vietnam sorta made sense. This is just irrational. I don’t get why no one is questioning the fact that he didn’t bother with Congress.

    SJR

  • Tom Leith says:

    The reason Obama didn’t bother with Congress is George Bush did it for him. Congress passed the “Invade Uganda Whenever Big Oil Tells You To Act” in 2004. http://bit.ly/mYiraj The little political distraction distracts you from what’s really going on.

    The US Congress hasn’t had the spine to declare a war since 5-June-1942, but that was inconsequential compared to 8-December-1941 and 11-December-1941.

Next Post
»

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera