Category Archives: Republicans

Update II: In Limbaugh (On Blowhards & Blonds)

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Iraq, Military, Republicans, Ron Paul, War

He finds great merit in the crocodile tears Bush shed in his presence over soldiers the former president as good as coffined. Obama’s grim visit to Dover, Delaware, to bear witness to the sad specter of young men carrying the coffins of their fallen comrades—this he find utterly unbelievable.

He “thinks” the “president should give the generals, the commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win.”

To insure the estimated 12 million uninsured, he suggests taking “some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. … For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4.”

Vis-a-vis ObamaCare, he doesn’t know “any Republican who would try to take over one- sixth of the U.S. economy.” Evidently this Oracle had not heard of the Bush Medicare prescription-drug program. It may not have been a sixth of the economy, but George sure began the ball rolling with that behemoth of a bill.

Neither is he familiar with “one Republican who would put forth the — this irresponsible cap-and-trade bill.” How about that hypocrite he voted for? McCain fulminates against Obama’s tax-and-trade, but “in January 2003, the Senators from Arizona, together with Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), “introduced legislation to cap and trade emissions of greenhouse gases.” (While electioneering, McCain suspended this particular plan to sunder the economy.)

I give you the King of Irrational Partisanship, RUSH LIMBAUGH, in a Sunday interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

Update I (Nov. 3): From the Comments Section: “When somebody more ‘acceptable’ turns out an effective opposition to the left maybe I’ll get excited about Rush’s shortcomings.”

That’s amazing. Republican’ chest-thumping warfare projects have brought us to this economic disaster. Yet, nothing changes in the mind of the dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Ron Paul exists; vigorously so. I exist. Chuck Baldwin exists. But no matter how often you point out the deep chasms between Republicans, on the one hand, and Constitutionalists, Taft Republicans, and classical liberals, on the other—the same people keep cheering for the blowhards and blonds of the Stupid Party. Face it, people are collectivists who have to belong to a group, no matter how errant it is in its philosophy.

It’s no use, but here’s my two-cents:
Addicted To That Rush
It’s About Federalism, Stupid!

Update II: We’ve had this attempt at a conversation whereby a non-interventionist foreign policy—my own—was mischaracterized for the purpose of discrediting. Constitutional principles aside, the mind boggles at the blind support for the Bush war boondoggles given their miserable failure.
So let me repeat—probably not for the last time—what I wrote here:

“We’ve adjudicated the last 8 years of foreign policy here on BAB in blog posts and in article on IlanaMercer.com. My perspective, which comports with that of Paul, albeit with some differences, has been vindicated. I’m surprised war mongers are unrepentant, and are still plumping for preemptive war against countries that have not aggressed against the US given the lessons of Iraq. I guess when it’s not your kid who’s hobbling around on prostheses or dead, it doesn’t much move the mind, much less the heart. The “isolationism” pejorative is lobbed by neoconservatives when they wish to discredit those of us who believe in fighting just wars only. It’s like pacifist.”

The idea that defending your borders and controlling who enters your country and stays in it are passive is ludicrous. We don’t do any of these basic housekeeping duties; but we level far-away countries and drop dumb bombs on their impoverished neighborhoods. Way to go! How brave! Individuals who still support this moral perversion are twisted sons of bitches.

Oh, there’s another thing ditto heads forbid, so let me break the rule as is my wont. The military most certainly does commit atrocities. Ask Abeer Qasim Hamza. Wait a sec; you can’t, becasue she’s dead, raped first by the American untouchables.

The Real War is At Home.
Facing the Onslaught of Jihad

Update II: War President (EIGHT MORE)

Barack Obama, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Republicans, War

When it comes to the wastrel wars the US is waging, there are few difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. If cleavages do exist, they are a matter of degree; John Kerry favors “a modest increase in U.S. troops”; The Other John is for a “huge surge.” You’d think that the always-opportunistic Republicans would see an opportunity to open up a lead by forging a new foreign policy. For as their economic fortunes have turned, so too have the American people turned against the wars in a big way.

But when Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity speak of a strong national defense, they are down with the party that wants to linger in places where Americans are unwanted (sometimes called nation-building): The Democrats.

Yesterday, there was a “bloodbath in Baghdad”: “Two car bombs turned Baghdad into a killing field on Sunday October 25th, claiming the lives of at least 155 people and injuring hundreds more.”

Today, reports the AP, Kabul was the scene of a helicopter crash that killed 14 Americans — 11 troops and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents, “in the deadliest day for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in more than four years.”

So far BO, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has sustained Bush’s efforts in both theaters, while giving a good deal of thought to accelerating them.

Update I (Oct. 27): AP: As OB dithers—but not in the way the colossal Dick Cheney meant it—“Eight [more] American troops were killed in two separate insurgent attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan”:

The military issued a statement saying the deaths occurred during “multiple, complex” bomb strikes. It said several troops were wounded and evacuated to a nearby medical facility, but gave no other details.

Capt. Adam Weece, a spokesman for American forces in the south, said both attacks occurred in Kandahar province. In Washington, a U.S. defense official said at least one was followed by an intense firefight with insurgents who attacked after an initial bomb went off. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to release the information.

The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan.

Update II: Matthew Hoh, “a former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq,” writes the WaPo, has become “the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.”

I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department’s head of personnel. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.

[SNIP]

Whereas a Republican administration would have opted to smear this principled fellow—as it did Scott Ritter, the 12-year Marine Corps and gulf-war veteran who opposed the rabid attack on Iraq—the Obama overlords have tried to co-opt him; bribe him with career inducements. U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry “offered him a job on his senior embassy staff.” Richard C. Holbrooke, “the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan, … asked Hoh to join his team in Washington.”

“Hoh accepted the argument and the job, but changed his mind a week later:

many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there — a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. … the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

Ritter rising.

Palin/Bachmann Endorse Doug Hoffman

Elections, Iraq, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin, War

Before you boo, and insist that sitting on the political fence and preening your perfect libertarian feathers (from the imagery you can see I’m quite taken with that green little leprechaun, T. Cup, my parrot) is the only principled position, remember that Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party nominee, Chuck Baldwin.

Now, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have come out in support of Doug Hoffman for the 23rd Congressional District of New York. He belongs to the Conservative Party. Who are they? Where is their platform? I see he equivocates about the war, although to be fair it doesn’t sound as though he wants it perpetuated:

“We are past the point of pointing fingers over how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question for us now is where do we go from here? I believe we must continue to try and turn the security and governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis.”

I know the Constitution Party is against foreign entanglements.

In any event, it’s good that the two women are deepening the rift between the GOP’s liberal wing and its hard-right faction.

Updated: 'Does It Really, Really Take 100,000 U.S. Troops To Find Osama bin Laden?'

Constitution, Democrats, Federalism, Foreign Policy, Race, Republicans, Terrorism

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), “a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House,” has warned consistently about Obama’s executive-branch power grab. And he did the same during the Bush era.

The frail senator took to the floor of the United States Senate on October the 14th, “to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and voice his concerns over the possibility of a major increase in U.S. forces into Afghanistan”:

“General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan, has requested 30,000-40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than 65,000 American troops already there. I am not clear as to his reasons and I have many, many questions. What does General McChrystal actually aim to achieve?”

“So I am compelled to ask: does it really, really take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden? If al Qaeda has moved to Pakistan what will these troops in Afghanistan add to the effort to “defeat” al Qaeda? What is really meant by the term “defeat” in the parlance of conventional military aims when facing a shadowy global terrorist network? And, what of this number 100,000? Does the number of 100,000 troops include support personnel? Does it include government civilians? Does it include defense and security contractors? How many contractors are already there in Afghanistan? How much more will all this cost? How much in dollars; how much in terms of American blood? Will the international community step up to the plate and bear a greater share of the burden?”

“Some in Congress talk about limiting the number of additional troops until we “surge to train” more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to me. I suggest that we might better refocus our efforts on al Qaeda and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better-armed hostile force? There ain’t no guarantee. The lengthy presence of foreign troops in a sovereign country almost always creates resentment and resistance among the native population.”

“I am relieved to hear President Obama acknowledge “mission creep” and I am pleased to hear the President express skepticism about sending more troops into Afghanistan unless needed to achieve our primary goal of disrupting al Qaeda. I remain concerned that Congress may yet succumb to military and international agendas. General Petraeus and General McChrystal both seem to have bought into the nation-building mission. By supporting a nationwide counterinsurgency and nation-building strategy, I believe they have certainly lost sight of America’s primary strategic objective – – namely to disrupt and de-fang al Qaeda and protect the American people from future attack.”

“President Obama and the Congress must reassess and refocus on our original and most important objective — namely emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability to inflict harm on the United States. If more troops are required to support an international mission in Afghanistan, then the international community should step up and provide the additional forces and funding. The United States is already supplying a disproportionate number of combat assets for that purpose.”

[SNIP]

Republicans are forever maligning this old Southern gentleman for his past peccadilloes (although when Senator Trent Lott was lanced for so-called racial indiscretions, Republicans, “principled” folks that they are, defended him).

Perhaps if Republicans adopted Byrd’s skepticism of war for the sake of war, and rediscovered authentic Taft Republicanism—they might even deserve to win the next election.

Update (Oct. 19): I notice that a reader, hereunder, insists, that attacking Byrd’s present policy positions for distant past indiscretions (in the 40s or 50s?) is intellectually honest. Moreover, conveniently—but predictably—left unaddressed is the Lott episode and other violations by Republicans against the racial police.