Feb 10th, 2012
A few days ago, conservative columnist George Will penned a withering critique of current Republican messaging on defense. He begins with nothing less than a rebuke of the entire Iraq misadventure:
"Hours — not months, not weeks, hours — after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obama's withdrawal — accompanied by his administration's foolish praise of Iraq's "stability" — has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?
Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely." EMPHASIS OURS
In fact, all of the GOP contenders (with the exception of Ron Paul) are now in a mad dash to outdo one another in promising more wars, longer wars and bigger wars. The situation is out of hand and these positions are dramatically at odds with the will of the people.
Showing posts with label Neo-Con. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neo-Con. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Santorum's Foreign Policy
Feb 9th, 2012
Daniel Larison let's him have it:
"Even though Santorum is far closer in his views to how Obama actually conducts foreign policy than Paul could ever be, he states those views with adversarial partisan contempt, which can be emotionally satisfying for voters opposed to Obama. That said, Santorum uses the usual talking points about Iran, for example, but then runs with them so far that no one outside of a limited circle of hawkish pundits and activists can listen to him without wincing. As Alex Massie said earlier, “he makes George W Bush’s record seem mild and benign,” which is what I’ve been saying for a while now. According to Santorum, Bush’s record was mostly all right, except that he thinks it wasn’t aggressive or bold enough. According to Santorum, Bush had a foreign policy that was too humble, and he aims to correct that." EMPHASIS HIS
The sudden Santorum Surge presents new and terrible risks for the establishment choice on these points. If Romney winds up at the convention without the necessary 1,144 delegates, as Philip Klein discussed yesterday, there is a distinct possibility that Mitt will have to adopt a number of Santorum's politically suicidal positions to appease the base. If the Super Delegates simply hand him the nomination, it will be ugly.
Daniel Larison let's him have it:
"Even though Santorum is far closer in his views to how Obama actually conducts foreign policy than Paul could ever be, he states those views with adversarial partisan contempt, which can be emotionally satisfying for voters opposed to Obama. That said, Santorum uses the usual talking points about Iran, for example, but then runs with them so far that no one outside of a limited circle of hawkish pundits and activists can listen to him without wincing. As Alex Massie said earlier, “he makes George W Bush’s record seem mild and benign,” which is what I’ve been saying for a while now. According to Santorum, Bush’s record was mostly all right, except that he thinks it wasn’t aggressive or bold enough. According to Santorum, Bush had a foreign policy that was too humble, and he aims to correct that." EMPHASIS HIS
The sudden Santorum Surge presents new and terrible risks for the establishment choice on these points. If Romney winds up at the convention without the necessary 1,144 delegates, as Philip Klein discussed yesterday, there is a distinct possibility that Mitt will have to adopt a number of Santorum's politically suicidal positions to appease the base. If the Super Delegates simply hand him the nomination, it will be ugly.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sullivan On Kristol's Latest
Mar 14th, 2011
I argued earlier that Bill Kristol's call to arms regarding Libya was, to put it politely, poorly thought out.
Sullivan goes further:
"Kristol, recall, was one of the architects of the two worst military clusterfucks since Vietnam - a decade long nation-building effort in Afghanistan (why not the Congo?) and an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, leading to the deaths of over a hundred thousand people while the country was under direct US supervision. It is, I understand, too much to ask of such war-mongerers whether they have any sense of shame left - that tends to be surgically removed during Fox News contract negotiations. But is it too much to ask that they acknowledge that the last two wars they argued for with such moral preening led to a human catastrophe, with no long-term security gains for the US, and vast amounts of debt? Is a total lack of reflection or responsibility now mandatory with these people?"
We love Sullly.
I argued earlier that Bill Kristol's call to arms regarding Libya was, to put it politely, poorly thought out.
Sullivan goes further:
"Kristol, recall, was one of the architects of the two worst military clusterfucks since Vietnam - a decade long nation-building effort in Afghanistan (why not the Congo?) and an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, leading to the deaths of over a hundred thousand people while the country was under direct US supervision. It is, I understand, too much to ask of such war-mongerers whether they have any sense of shame left - that tends to be surgically removed during Fox News contract negotiations. But is it too much to ask that they acknowledge that the last two wars they argued for with such moral preening led to a human catastrophe, with no long-term security gains for the US, and vast amounts of debt? Is a total lack of reflection or responsibility now mandatory with these people?"
We love Sullly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
