TAC's Larison: The Romney knock on Obama & Libya relies on Romney's SUPPORT for Obama's impeachable acts that set the whole chain of events off (thanks Daniel, I concur, precisely)
Now they get it! NRO editors realize that their hero-GW Bush-was an AWFUL PRESIDENT and Romney needs to stop sounding like a plea fro Bush's 3rd term
While I agree the Obama Admins closeness to radical Islam is cause for alarm, I wonder why The Blaze and other found no evil intent when Bush 43 hosted "Christian" leaders at annual prayer breakfasts and "faith based initiatives" Either the 1st Amendment applies to all or it doesn't
Is the new film "The Master" about Scientology or do the filmmakers really fear they will be River Phoenix'd or Christopher Penn'd into boxes six feet under if they talk (see Randy Quaid's Quixotic flight to Canada to avoid Scientology assassins)
What happened to "conservatives" in the modern era? Here is Pt 1 of a many part essay on what corrupted conservatism by Thomas Fleming
American shoeple fear the use of drones they sanctioned for use over other countries, my, how ironic!
WaTimes writes snidely about "military families" being on the fence for Obama because they face "looming defense cuts"! Wow, so the War Machine is now part of the Welfare State that engenders its own parasite class? (P.S. don't say this at you GOP Tea Party, you'll be branded a liberal and kicked out)
Out of 500 promises made Dear Leader has kept but 37 of them, yet "Hope" springs eternal
His lust for war and empire at any cost and without any regard to the Constitution hell even international rule of law (law of nations) is frightening. These people will see all of us mortally imperiled someday.
I did nine years in the Marine Corps, three enlisted and six as an officer. I can tell you some of the waste I saw there was jaw dropping. I sent some Marines to the one and only gov approved purchase point and they returned with gear that I could purchase at the local PX or Wal-Mart outside the gates for a tenth as much as We had to pay.
In the mean time we had Marines training making,”Budda Budda Jam” noises instead of sending lead down range. Lets buy $400 vacuum cleaners to use on 40 year old carpet held together with duct tape, but not keep the war fighting skills sharp.
As far as the President having Muslims in the White House and all over his administration, can’t we keep our religion and politics separate? Anything you bring into general government will be tainted, especially with the current President at the helm. Keep the important issues to you out of politics and in our own homes, unless agreed upon in a Constitution. Same as marriage. The general government needs to stay out of it certainly, but State governments can mess the program up as badly as we allow.
I have had friends make that ultimate sacrifice and I attribute it to meddling, hindsight being clearer. You don’t go whack the hell out of a hornet nest and stand around to get stung. You destroy the thing and don’t leave a single hornet to sting you. You don’t try to get someone who cares less to be a [r]epublican to adopt your ideals after you kill their neighbors, and then wonder why it isn’t working. That is why it is so very important to ask if what we are about to do is worth killing everything in sight because that is what Marines do best, and that is a hell of a thing contemplate. We aren’t a police force, we are warriors.
Thanks for reading my two cents and I respect all the above opinions, agree or disagree.
Probably one of the same fools who claims to be pro-military while also advocating for the military to be sent from here to the Stargate, to Romulus, around the ice world of Hoth and points unknown. Just how does one support the people in the military when wanting to badly to send them off to endanger their lives? Makes ZERO sense. And yes, I have 10 years active duty service.
He sounds like a worshiper of the Warfare State.
Military families and other concerned Americans have every right to be wary of Obama advocating for defense cuts. I am (I'm not in the military by the way). Comparing the military to the freeloaders on welfare (the "47 percent" as Mitt Romney put it) is disrespectful. These brave men and women make incredible sacrifices so you and I can be free to say what's on our minds while at the same time keeping us safe from foreign enemies. Many of them make the ultimate sacrifice-their lives in order to keep us free. To make degrading comments about them is inappropriate and highly offensive. It should be noted that the reason obama wants to impose defense budget cuts is because the economy has gone down in flames ever since he took office and now we have an exploding national debt. Rather than gutting unnecessary government programs such as the Dept. of Education, the EPA, Obamacare, etc, in order to cut spending he decides it's necessary to cut the defense budget instead. In turn, this leaves us less safe and more vulnerable to being attacked by other unstable nations. Thus, for the sake of our national security, it is imperative that we increase defense spending, especially if we want to remain a superpower. Normally, this isn't a problem when the economy is booming-just look at how well off we were in the 1980s, 1990s, and most of the 2000s before the democrats took over. We were a strong and prosperous nation and other rogue nations for the most part thought twice before messing with us. Now, it's the exact opposite. The Middle East is on fire, an American Ambassador was brutally tortured and killed, Iran will have nuclear weapons by next summer if we don't intervene, Russia wants obama to dismantle our missile shield that has for decades protected us from the Russians, China can gain access to our infrastructure systems, and we have completely abandoned Israel, our only ally in the Middle East. A true conservative wants a strong America with a strong military in order to keep her safe and for that same reason, we cannot and will not support someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who advocates for a non-interventionist foreign policy while cutting our defense budget. It just simply won't work. Remember, as Ronald Reagan advocated "Peace through strength."
So sending young men to die in undeclared wars and even were they declared wars that fail to meet the standard our forefathers would demand -it's called "Just War Theory"-is preferable to non-intervention? Please tell me specifically which "true conservative" advocated the current empire building madness this country's military is embarked upon, Sir. Ronald Reagan, when confronted with the concept of "blowback" in Lebanon, removed troops from that country and wrote of his deep regret for sending them there to start with.
If you really want to quote history in these forums you better actually have some to quote. The entire federal government operated from 1789-1933 with about 3% of GDP as "revenue", this would include "defense spending". Today, the United States spends 45% of the military spending in the known universe, from here to the Stargate, to Romulus, around the ice world of Hoth and points unknown, and that isn't enough? The American Ambassador you cite was sent into a warzone created by President Obama's unconstitutional acts of war and international assassination and action cheered on by Gov Romney as not being forceful enough ("Obama led from behind") and that is "conservative".
I suggest you spend some time with James Monroe:
and
John Quincy Adams (Founding Fathers don't you know):
Before coming in here insulting people, questioning their patriotism and knowledge of history.
I did not come in here insulting anyone. I am just stating my opinion on comparing our brave men and women in the military to the "47%" on government welfare, which I find offensive and I'm pretty sure many outside of Ron Paul's world would agree with me. I do not need any condescending attitudes either but then again, that's expected when you debate with people living in Ron Paul world.
We DO NOT send troops to foreign countries for nation building. No conservative has ever advocated for nation building unless you live in Ron Paul's world, where reality is non-existent. We send them there as a last resort when we have exhausted all other options on a rogue nation that is threatening our national security. Unfortunately, this will have to be the case with Iran, assuming Romney wins the presidency, because for the sake of Israel's existence and our own national security, we CANNOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. No they are NOT developing nukes because they want to defend themselves because they are afraid. If anything, they are laughing at us and obama while making more progress on obtaining nukes as we speak. They are developing nukes to wipe Israel off the map, along with us also. I did not agree with obama's involvement in letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt and Libya. Why? Because they are RADICALS. They are NOT interested in promoting democratic reforms; they are interested in implementing an Islamic theocracy that is hostile towards Israel and the West. If history serves as a lesson, we remember that the 1979 Iranian Revolution was at first promoted as a move toward democracy since the Shah was just so "oppressive" even though Iran was very wealthy, was very modern and westernized, friendly towards the U.S., and women had rights and were treated with respect and as people rather than as objects. But of course, the wimpy Jimmy Carter let the Islamic radicals overthrow the Shah, just like the wimpy obama (or Jimmy Carter 2.0 if you wish) allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Libya and Egypt. I had a bad feeling about all those events back then and, like Sean Hannity said on his TV Show, I had a feeling that it would only be a matter of time before something went horribly wrong, which in this case was the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya and other Marines. While we can certainly argue on the constitutionality of Obama's involvement in Libya and Egypt, that is not the reason our Ambassador was killed. He was brutally tortured and killed because right now, America is not seen as a powerful nation under the current administration. We are not respected throughout the world as we once were. Instead, this president is seen as an international laughing stock and unfortunately, America is also viewed as a complete laughing stock world-wide. This is all due to weak leadership (leading from behind) where radical, American hating extremists have more flexibility. Of course, it's no wonder that this all occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, which was to further prove a point to us that were no longer respected. Mitt Romney is 100% correct when he stresses that obama is a weak and disgraceful leader who leads from behind and he has every right to criticize him for that because we as Americans need to hear the truth about that fraud, even if it hurts sometimes.
Yes, I am quite aware that Ronald Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon. But let's look back at world events occurring at the time since we want to be historically correct. Back then we were more worried about preventing a nuclear war with the USSR and stopping the spread of communism throughout the world. While state sponsored terrorism was certainly on the rise in the 1970s and 1980s, it was in no way as big a threat back then as it was today.
Since were on the topic of the great Ronald Reagan (R.I.P.), he was a strong advocate of building up our nation's defense budget so we could have the best and most modern military possible. He DID NOT advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Our military budget DOES NOT go towards nation-building (seriously, this isn't Ron Paul world. Come on Mike!), rather it goes to funding our military with the latest technology so they can keep us safe at home and abroad. Plus, a larger military budget means more jobs in the defense sector (such as with companies like Raytheon) which means a stronger economy. No, that does not mean go to war with a foreign country! It simply means keep up with research in technological advances in national defense to keep us safe and so that we are prepared if the unfortunate need to utilize military force arises. I sincerely hope that, if elected, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan really do push for plans to build up our defense budget (as they promise) not to go to war, but to keep us safe, to create jobs, and to boost our economy.
No, we DO NOT need a non-interventionist foreign policy. Once again, if we look at history, we tried that before in the 1930s. What happened? Hitler and Mussolini rose to power, the Jews were nearly exterminated, and Pearl Harbor was bombed, leading to WWII. Now I know you'll try to tell me that I'm completely wrong and don't know history, but that is historically correct. We CANNOT ignore world events and abandon crucial allies such as Israel! Is it seriously acceptable that Iran has a nuclear weapon by next summer? Is it fine for Middle Eastern nations to sponsor terrorism? Is it fine for Russia and China to side with some of these nations? Come on now! I'm not saying to go start a war with every foreign country but we MUST have a strong military and SHOULD NOT isolate ourselves from world events. Either way, there are going to be countries that hate us for what we represent: freedom, NOT because we have gone to war with them. The world is a very dangerous place and such thinking is completely foolish.
As I previously stated, we can always debate the constitutionality of Obama's decision to intervene in Libya and Egypt in order to allow the radical Muslim Brotherhood to gain power. But what undeclared wars are you talking about? The Iraq war? The Afghanistan war? Desert Storm? Come on seriously! Congress gave President Bush permission to go to war after they had declared war. Nothing was illegal or unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken, there were two joint resolutions to go to war to begin with so I don't know what point you're trying to prove by claiming "undeclared wars"
This is my long reply to your response but please, feel free to challenge me!
Since when is it our Right to or not to "let" another country decide who/what it is governed by? Do the Mexicans get a say in the government of Alabama? Do the Canadians get a say in the governor's race in Michigan? What if Michigan, which borders Canada, is viewed as a "hostile" regime to Canada, using your logic, Canada should not "let" that governor be elected and is free to a. Assassinate the candidate in question b. Team up with other countries to form a treaty organization and commence military action to ensure Michiganders see the government Canada prefers installed, right? If your argument is then that the United States is "different" or a "force for good" so of course that doesn't compare with my prospective scenario involving Candians trhen you are doing what "conservatives" have cursed liberals for for decades: engaging in moral relativism.
Congres cannot "give President Bush permission to go to war" with anyone. The AUMF is patently unconstitutional and nothing like it was ever invoked prior to Bush inventing this power in collusion with a corrupt Congress. If you so desperately want to have a CIC that acts like a King then let's do away with this silly Constitution and get to the business of being subjects of King Barack the 1st, or The Duke of Romney. Either that propose an amendment to theConstitution that obliterates Article I, Section 8's war making powers delegated to Congress and transfers them to your King.
Again, you are woefully misinformed about that epoch whose real history begins with the great standoff in 1915, if the king of the Libs (Progressives) Woodrow WIlson does not get the U.S. involved in that conflict and the Germans fight to a draw or better, there is no subjugation of the Germanic people, no splintering and bankrupting of their countries, no need for strongman Hitler to coerce the Germans into reunifying and beginning that awful war. See Patrick J Buchanan's "Churchill Hitler & the Unnecessary War" for details but here's a snippet: "In Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War,” Patrick J. Buchanan seeks to demolish the Churchill myth, along with several related ones, which he does with surprising success. I say “surprising,” not because the myth itself was ever unassailable—excellent historians, including Ralph Raico, long ago pounded Churchill’s feet of clay into dust—but because Buchanan is known primarily as an ideological polemicist. Yet in this book he presents respectably balanced and well-documented arguments for his theses. If he is not himself a professional historian, he has absorbed the works of scores of well-reputed historians, and he carefully assesses a number of counterarguments against his position. Although Buchanan presents no previously unreported facts, he offers abundant evidence expressed in clear, forceful prose. All in all, he makes a persuasive case.
Buchanan correctly views the two world wars as “two phases of a Thirty Years’ War.” He argues that both phases were unnecessary and that Great Britain “turned both European wars into world wars.”
For World War I, he maintains: “Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no Holocaust.”
Rattling your war sabres at the Iranians and pretending as though our job is to keep the planet "stable" is both historically incorrect and arrogantly presumptive of where we derive such powers to destroy and remake in our own image. We once had a word for country's that did that: Communists.
Your first argument about Canada/Mexico not liking who we elect as state governors does not relate to the topic at all and is illogical. Mexico probably doesn't like when we elect tough conservative governors in the border states to begin with so I don't see where you're going with that. the U.S.A. is also not a hostile nation and we are not threatening anyone, nor are any individual states. We were involved involved in WWI because of the alliances we had at the time. It was impossible to prevent that. I do agree that forcing Germany to begin reparations did lead to the rise of Hitler but we still could have stopped him in his tracks rather than following a non-interventionist foreign policy. Maybe the Holocaust nor WWII would have never occurred if we would have stopped him. Ever think of that?
Yes, we do have the right to determine who governs another country if it is unstable to begin with and becomes a world threat. We are a world superpower after all. Would you rather have this country not be a superpower anymore like the liberals advocate? If a radical revolution occurs in a country and establishes a government hostile towards the U.S. or the west, we have every right to do something about it. Iran is a perfect example. Many predict that Iran will have nuclear weapons by next summer. Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map and to attack us. Is this acceptable to you, Mike? It shouldn't be, and many people view it that way too. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem right now if Jimmy "Peanut Farmer" Carter would have provided aid to the Shah to crush the radical Islamist Revolution. We are NOT nation building either! We are protecting our national security as well as our allies! If we were nation building, we'd own all of Mexico, all of the Middle Eastern nations, and most of Europe by now. We ARE NOT acting like the USSR when they tried to spread communism throughout the world either. Why is that so hard for you to understand? So, to sum up, yes, we do have the right to interfere in another country's internal affairs IF the country could become hostile towards the west and become a world threat.
You Ron Paul supporters claim that everything is unconstitutional. Congress had TWO joint resolutions to declare war. Nothing unconstitutional about it. The AUMF is NOT unconstitutional either but perhaps needs to be reformed with time to adapt to a changing world. It merely gives the president more authority to utilize his CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS as our Commander-In-Chief. It DOES NOT officially declare war. Once again, you are misinterpreting the Constitution, just like Ron Paul.
Funny how you call me arrogant when you're the one that is arrogant Mike. Like the rest of Ron Paul's group of 1200 supporters, you arrogantly assume that only you know what the constitution is and how to interpret it. You used to be a conservative. Now, you have become like the rest of the liberals. Stop living in Ron Paul world and come back to reality.