Category Archives: Republicans

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.

Clean Bill Of Racial Health For ‘Mocked Minority’

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Old Right, Propaganda, Race, Racism, Reason, Republicans

Although the progressive research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (James Carville is among its stars) has done its darnedest to disparage the conservative base of the Republican Party, its racism spotters have exempted this “mocked minority” from the media’s ubiquitously leveled charges of racism. (Much to the surprise of Chris Matthews, who has made this ad hominem a part of his “journalistic” bag of tricks.)

The Group’s Key Findings:

“Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.”

Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner’s still-gleeful “conclusion”: “conservative Republicans who make up the base of the Republican Party stand a world apart from the rest of America.”

Had members of the mainstream mindless contingent read this space, they might have saved some energy, although they’d have to cite an adversary. We’ve dealt many a deductive death knell to the racism libel:

Throughout the presidential campaign—and to emphasize the country’s racial backwardness—the popular press kept at it: “Is the country ready for a black president?” “Will Americans ever elect a black man as president?” These were the campaign’s most repeated refrains. To which my response has been consistent: America is not remotely racist. If anything; Americans are remarkably naïve about human differences—cultural or racial.

Alas, as one wag said, “Any idea, plan, or purpose may be placed in the mind through repetition of thought.” Non-stop, relentless propaganda, enforced by the tyranny of political correctness, helps explain why most Americans, who harbor no racial animus, believe racism saturates their society. As they see it, in electing Barack Obama, they’ve begun to atone for their original sin.

Updated: Bachmann: Banks Gave Money To ACORN For Government Rating

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Bush, Conservatism, Debt, Ethics, Private Property, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism, Welfare

Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, inadvertently traces the “Minority Housing Meltdown”: The community reinvestment Act” (CRA), a creation of the federal Frankenstein, compelled private banks to make home loans to individuals with poor credit. Since no bank wants to make bad loans, this legislation in effect threatens banks to so do. Unless the bank lends to those unworthy of credit, it will not be allowed to do interstate business or expand its operations.

But, the benevolent government also offers the errant banks redemption. In order to get a positive Community Reinvestment Act rating, a bank may give over cash or in-kind donations to ACORN. A bank can also partner with ACORN to make loans to the pool of poor they represent.

By the way, where are the media stories about Super Mom Bachman who has raised five kids and 23 foster children? Maybe when the morons are through belaboring Michele Obama’s biceps, they can tell us more about Bachmann. (Here you are welcome to improvise with your own clichés of improbability.)

Fast forward toward the end of the YouTube clip for the Bachmann interview.

Update (Oct. 16): No ACORN essay is complete without mention of Bush’s crucial role in the mortgage meltdown. I have not studied the NRO Kurtz piece, but somehow I doubt it gives Bush the “credit” he is due in the diversity depression.

In 2003, Norman Singleton wrote this:

“Today the House passed, by voice vote, the American Dream Downpayment Act (HR 1276). This new welfare program forces taxpayers to subsidize the downpayments of ‘low income’ Americans. This new welfare program is a Bush Administration priority and was sponsored by Katherine Harris. The GOP is already touting how this will help with their outreach to minorities.”

Read Ron Paul’s rapid-fire response to the Bush affirmative action mortgage program.

Unless our token conservatives pay their “respects” to Bush, author of the “ownership society,” reborn conservatives—NRO, Weekly Standard—should not be lauded.

And by the by, the many poisonous pundits should atone again and again for being wrong at the time, and misleading the masses for Benito Bush. On second thought, why don’t they just go away?!

Take “snake-oil merchants like Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal,” who is Fox’s new Philosopher King. Moore obfuscated about the bailout (while making the obligatory noises about the merits of the free market he flouts). And Moore’s previous book was entitled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. If that’s not an indictment, nothing is. ‘Bush’s bailout society’ is an instantiation of the principles upon which ‘Bush’s ownership society’ was founded: credit for those who are not creditworthy.”

The only pundit who was vocal about the Bush economics was Michele Malkin. Not party hack Ann Coulter.

[Thanks, Stephen; I have been rather ill, but I hope to be back at my WND perch next week with renewed verve.]

Updated: Loser Lindsey G. Pummeled By Paul

Constitution, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Race, Republicans, Ron Paul

I’ve said it before, the stupid party needs not a bigger tent, but a giant tin-foil hat. Duly, Lindsey Graham attacks Mr. Constitution, Rep. Ron Paul, by vowing to a booing town-hall gathering to rescue the GOP from white gentlemen like Paul (words you’d expect from the Party of Lincoln), and to continue shedding blood in futile, unconstitutional wars.

To which Ron Paul replied: “What does Graham have against the Constitutions?” Of course, Graham embodies everything that is wicked about the Republican Party.

Update: Glenn Beck gives it to Graham too: pro amnesty, for Sotomayor, for stimulus package; signed climate-change bill…