Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. But unlike the endless war raging in Afghanistan, this political fight over U.S. foreign policy should be over by the end of the presidential election.

For the past decade, John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, promoting military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen and a host of other Muslim countries. The fact that the Arizona senator supported the two major Bush wars is not extraordinary in itself. Despite the media’s collective amnesia on the subject, the foreign policy establishment and most Americans initially supported Bush’s wars.

What is extraordinary is the fact that after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, after our allies’ corrupt nature was revealed in Afghanistan and after a decade of warfare in both countries, McCain and his shrinking alliance want to continue America’s march into an endless war in a country of marginal significance. The fact that there are more staff members working for McCain on Capitol Hill than Al Qaeda members in all of Iraq seems of little interest to the former presidential candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57363.html

Appaholic wrote:
There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. But unlike the endless war raging in Afghanistan, this political fight over U.S. foreign policy should be over by the end of the presidential election.

For the past decade, John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, promoting military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen and a host of other Muslim countries. The fact that the Arizona senator supported the two major Bush wars is not extraordinary in itself. Despite the media’s collective amnesia on the subject, the foreign policy establishment and most Americans initially supported Bush’s wars.

What is extraordinary is the fact that after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, after our allies’ corrupt nature was revealed in Afghanistan and after a decade of warfare in both countries, McCain and his shrinking alliance want to continue America’s march into an endless war in a country of marginal significance. The fact that there are more staff members working for McCain on Capitol Hill than Al Qaeda members in all of Iraq seems of little interest to the former presidential candidate.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57363.html

Republicans are hesitating going to war...Obama's Democrats are jumping in with both feet.

Why did Obama take us into the Lybia conflict?



"America’s intervention in Libya’s civil war, the most protracted and least surreptitious assassination attempt in history, was supposed to last “days, not weeks,” but is in its fourth month and has revealed NATO to be an increasingly fictitious military organization.

In March, Obama said that U.S. intervention would be confined to implementing a no-fly zone: “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” By May, Obama’s Bushian mission was to make Libyans “finally free of 40 years of tyranny.” After more than 10,000 sorties, now including those by attack helicopters, NATO’s increasingly desperate strategy boils down to: Kill Gaddafi."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Assasinating foreign leaders that pose no real threat to us. It would be fitting for some of our own politicians to get knocked off by some jihadist. All our politicians do is sit around and send others into danger.

Cluck U wrote:Why did Obama take us into the Lybia conflict?



"America’s intervention in Libya’s civil war, the most protracted and least surreptitious assassination attempt in history, was supposed to last “days, not weeks,” but is in its fourth month and has revealed NATO to be an increasingly fictitious military organization.

In March, Obama said that U.S. intervention would be confined to implementing a no-fly zone: “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” By May, Obama’s Bushian mission was to make Libyans “finally free of 40 years of tyranny.” After more than 10,000 sorties, now including those by attack helicopters, NATO’s increasingly desperate strategy boils down to: Kill Gaddafi."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Assasinating foreign leaders that pose no real threat to us. It would be fitting for some of our own politicians to get knocked off by some jihadist. All our politicians do is sit around and send others into danger.

+1

Appaholic wrote:
There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. But unlike the endless war raging in Afghanistan, this political fight over U.S. foreign policy should be over by the end of the presidential election.

For the past decade, John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, promoting military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen and a host of other Muslim countries. The fact that the Arizona senator supported the two major Bush wars is not extraordinary in itself. Despite the media’s collective amnesia on the subject, the foreign policy establishment and most Americans initially supported Bush’s wars.

What is extraordinary is the fact that after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, after our allies’ corrupt nature was revealed in Afghanistan and after a decade of warfare in both countries, McCain and his shrinking alliance want to continue America’s march into an endless war in a country of marginal significance. The fact that there are more staff members working for McCain on Capitol Hill than Al Qaeda members in all of Iraq seems of little interest to the former presidential candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57363.html

Very nice thread, my friend!

Cluck U wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. But unlike the endless war raging in Afghanistan, this political fight over U.S. foreign policy should be over by the end of the presidential election.

For the past decade, John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, promoting military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen and a host of other Muslim countries. The fact that the Arizona senator supported the two major Bush wars is not extraordinary in itself. Despite the media’s collective amnesia on the subject, the foreign policy establishment and most Americans initially supported Bush’s wars.

What is extraordinary is the fact that after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, after our allies’ corrupt nature was revealed in Afghanistan and after a decade of warfare in both countries, McCain and his shrinking alliance want to continue America’s march into an endless war in a country of marginal significance. The fact that there are more staff members working for McCain on Capitol Hill than Al Qaeda members in all of Iraq seems of little interest to the former presidential candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57363.html

Republicans are hesitating going to war...Obama's Democrats are jumping in with both feet.

Anyone who has any knowledge in the genesis of the neoconservative movement will not find this surprising at all. The neocons are all former liberal interventionists who simply found a home with a Republican administration because their belief system dovetailed with that of a hawkish administration.

CID1990 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:

Republicans are hesitating going to war...Obama's Democrats are jumping in with both feet.

Anyone who has any knowledge in the genesis of the neoconservative movement will not find this surprising at all. The neocons are all former liberal interventionists who simply found a home with a Republican administration because their belief system dovetailed with that of a hawkish administration.

Not all of them were liberal interventionists. Guys like Cheney, W and Wolfowitz were never liberal.

CID1990 wrote:
Anyone who has any knowledge in the genesis of the neoconservative movement will not find this surprising at all. The neocons are all former liberal interventionists who simply found a home with a Republican administration because their belief system dovetailed with that of a hawkish administration.

former liberal is the key though.

yeah, william kristol was once liberal back in his 20's. i don't think anyone would call him liberal today. so, i don't see what your point is....