E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe 10th anniversary of the U.S. war in Afghanistan proved a political flashpoint for Republican presidential contenders, who sought Friday to sharpen their foreign policy message for prospective primary voters.
Republicans who marked the anniversary used it to tweak President Barack Obama’s handling of national security issues, but also to distinguish themselves from each other in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney promised, if elected, to make America "the strongest nation on Earth" during a major speech on national security at The Citadel, in which he implied Obama had weakened U.S. standing during his presidency.
Additionally, Texas Rep. Ron Paul debuted a new television ad touting his relative isolationism; the ad promised that a Paul presidency would be spent "rebuilding our defenses, not by acting as the world's policeman, spending trillions overseas."
And Texas Gov. Rick Perry also discussed national security, drawing on his own military experience in a vow against major cuts to the defense budget.
“I believe we must never put the military on the chopping block for arbitrary budget cuts as part of some political horse-trade,” Perry said, in one of the biggest applause lines during his speech to the Values Voters Summit. “The question we must ask is not what we can afford to spend on our military, but what it costs to remain secure and free.
The political tack employed by Republicans differed from Obama's, who issued a solemn statement that largely marked the 10th anniversary of the war, but also noted successes, including killing Osama bin Laden. Obama also noted the timetable he had set in motion aimed at withdrawing most U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 2012.
"As we mark a decade of sacrifice, Michelle and I join all Americans in saluting the more than half a million men and women who have served bravely in Afghanistan to keep our country safe, including our resilient wounded warriors who carry the scars of war, seen and unseen," Obama said.
The Republican candidates are being forced to distinguish themselves in three ways: from Obama, from former President George W. Bush, and from each other. And those challenges have made it tough for the contenders to navigate the primary while articulating their own foreign policy vision.
Republicans have been forced to tread carefully in their criticism of Obama on foreign policy, in part because of the political reality they face. Foreign policy is one of the issues on which Obama polls most strongly (relative to the economy and other issues), though his approval rating on the issue still tilts slightly negative, 44 percent to 48 percent, according to this week's Quinnipiac University poll. Obama also boasts of some of the biggest successes during all 10 years’ worth of war, in the killing of bin Laden and, more recently, Anwar al-Awlaki.
“President Obama has degraded al-Qaida and dealt huge blows to its leadership, including eliminating Osama Bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, promoted our security in Afghanistan while winding down our commitment in a responsible way and strengthened American leadership around the world,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Friday, in reaction to Romney’s speech.
Moreover, the GOP presidential contenders must wrestle with cognitive dissonance given the number of other Republican voices generally supportive of Obama’s work as commander in chief.
"By and large, the president has continued the effort to take on the Taliban, to take on al-Qaida and – and to help ensure that America stays secure," House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday at The Atlantic ideas festival. "And I think so far the president's done just fine."
Obama also enjoys the advantage of being the incumbent commander in chief, a reality that Texas Gov. Rick Perry encountered when he delivered a blistering critique of the president's foreign policy strategy, particularly toward Israel, on the day before Obama had been set to address the United Nations about the delicate issue of Mideast peace.
Republicans must also walk a fine line between distinguishing their own foreign policy views in a party with less monolithic views on national security and foreign policy than during the Bush administration. The comparison to Bush is a key weapon in Democrats’ arsenal, from the economy to foreign policy, and they used it Friday against Romney, when they circulated a video clip comparing Bush and Romney’s speech, and research noting the number of Bush alumni who have signed on as advisers with Romney.
Paul’s ad, meanwhile, is an exercise in contrast. He has led a growing isolationist faction within the GOP since his first run for the GOP nomination in 2008, when his critical stance toward the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq won him a small but passionate following.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has also laid claim to that segment of the primary vote. He was the only other candidate besides Paul who used the 10th anniversary of the war to send a somewhat critical message.
“On 10th anniversary of war in Afghanistan, we shouldn't still be nation-building there when we have nation-building to do here at home,” he said on Twitter.
In many ways, though, the Republican rhetoric surrounding the 10th anniversary of the Afghan war reflects the candidates’ current battle for the Republican nomination.
Romney staked out aggressive territory – charted first by erstwhile presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor – in his Citadel speech.
"This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," he said. "You have that president today."
Romney was more tentative on the specific issue of Afghanistan, though; he has accused Obama's plan of being motivated by politics, and not the recommendations of generals. But he didn't outline criteria that would necessarily lead to a different strategy.
"I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban," Romney said. "I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders. The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics."
The Obama campaign criticized Romney, accusing him of laying out no identifiable goals.
“He didn't outline a strategy to strengthen America's security and promote our interests and didn't even identify defeating al-Qaida as a goal," LaBolt said. "Gov. Romney proves once again that he is willing to say anything, regardless of the facts, to get elected."
Leave a Comment:
Any of these chicken hawks are going to have a difficult time running against President Obama's record! ;o)
President Obama has demonstrated he's wide awake for the 3 a.m. phone call!
Thats because he is typically preparing for his 6:00 am Tee Time
ABO 2012
Obama, more than Bush, relies on advice from his Generals for establishing the "end game". What I see is an end game that perpetually shifts into the future.
Bush, at least, cautious after watching the Russians quit picking a fight frustrated, kept American troop presence under 33,000 at a cost of around $330 Billion a year. Obama, as advised, escalated the Afgan war to about 106,000 American troops at a cost of about $1 Trillion a year.
For what, and what cost? The cost to get Osama Bin Laden was $100 Million per pound. It's breaking the bank.
Osama Bin Laden crushed 3000 people at the World Trade Center. In the 10 years since, he has destroyed the world's economy causing a collapse of banks, and subsequently countries, staying alive in a little white house. Our leadership has been suckered into a wierd revenge thing at an unfathomable expense.
Bin Laden is dead, but the Great Drain cannot end, it has gained a life of its own.
Of couse the "end-game" is being pushed into the future.
The generals have a vested interest in keeping a war going on. Hard to get promoted without 'accomplishments' to put on your FITREP.
Excuse me, I made an arithmetic mistake. The cost to get Osama Bin Laden was $30 Billion per pound.
Really?
Under Obama, we have lost 1,153 service members in Afghanistan in 33 months. In 87 months under Bush, we lost LESS THAN HALF THAT AMOUNT - 564.
Over 5 times the monthly average loss as Bush - all for a "responsible withdrawal" - all for a cause Obama is just going to walk away from?
Despicable.
Obama campaigns that Afghanistan was the right war, how Bush 'took his eye off the ball,' the war we had to win, the war he would win ...... and how many years has it been since Obama used the word "win?"
3 .m. phone call?
Obama doesn't pick up the phone except once in the first 100 days of his new general taking command!
Obama took almost ONE YEAR to come up up with a plan while the record for the deadliest month was set ..... then broken the next month ..... then the third deadliest month after the 2 previous months .... the the all time deadliest month. Four consecutive months beating every month of the 87 under Bush while Obama dithered. While Obama dithered - American deaths DOUBLED for the year ..... before he even came up with a plan, an asinine gutless plan that has nothing to do with anything other than politics.
Obama has overseen 33 months of the 120 months of this war - 21 of those 33 are the deadliest, the greatest monthly loss of American lives ...... all for a war Obama has no intention of winning, a war Obama is going to walk away from.
Despicable.
And BTW - Bin Laden?
BFD. Obama did what any other president would have done.
Besides, if all this, if Afghanistan was really about Bin Laden, why have almost as many Americans (544) died since Obama learned Bin Laden was in Pakistan as were lost under Bush?
Obama is UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the wonderful men and women serving and giving their lives for our country.
They deserve much better ..... any one is better than this worthless excuse for a leader.
We probably could've offered a flat trade. 1 pound of flesh for 30 billion.
I'd make definitely give up a pound for 30Bill.
Speaking of doubles - isn't it a wee bit early to be hitting the scotch?
Bush blew it in Afghanistan. Obama made it worse. Now the Republicans are apparently going to campaign with the promise to get the job done. Problem is, nobody knows why we are there anymore or how we will tell when we've won. I'd vote for a candidate who says that they will get our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but I won't vote for a Republican who thinks we should stay there.
Fiesty,
The losses for 2008 were 153 / hostile and non hostile.
The losses for 2009 were 310 / hostile and non hostile.
Surely you can do that math.
Who has won in Afghanistan & Pakistan?, even if we kill EVERY TERRORIST?
ANSWER= China
We are enhancing their security , and global presence at no charge.
Bring the troops home, and stop the STUPID spending...
Nothing else will do the trick...We will just keep going down financially
Cutting the allowances to disabled and sick is not the solution...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE....Stop the wars
The republicans are a complete joke. Everything about them. Daily they make the case for stupidity. Every one of them. Would not know honor if it were staring them straight in the face. Unbelievable. Meanwhile we all suffer. Criminal. Polarized to the point of complete stupidity. When will it stop? I beg you: stop dividing and unite!
I always enjoy and appreciate what the "feisty one" has to say.
"Mitt Romney promised, if elected, to make America "the strongest nation on Earth"
Was that Mitt Romney saying that?
Or, his evil twin Ritt Momney?
Every last single soldier I have talked to coming back from Afghanistan says that they hated being there to support the corrupt Karzai regime. Sounds a lot like my Vietnam Vet buddies complaining about the South Vietnam Thiu regime.
The longer we stay there, the more American soldiers are killed or maimed. They should be worth more to us that that. For thousands of years, Sunnis Muslims vs Shia Muslims vs Kurds vs Christians - Jews has been going on. We are not going to be able to change that in a few years.
Did everyone read the news story recently of that soldier that committed suicide after news of his 9th deployment to Afghanistan?
I'm not willing to pay that price for objectives that were not a part of the original mission. That's called mission drift and Afghanistan is yet another quagmire caused by Washington DC desk warriors willing to risk other peoples' lives.
But Bush didn't follow through on his vow to get bin Laden, did he? I seem to remember that he said he didn't care about him just a year or so after 9/11.
So much for your "what any other president would have done."
It will be interesting to contrast the man who killed Bin Laden versus the party that booed a US soldier.
First and foremost, our invasion of Afghanistan was payback for 9/11 and going directly after the Al Qaeda leadership and Osama Bin Laden. But there has been "mission drift" ever since then. It is mission drift that always creates quagmires, and the people creating those quagmires are Washington DC desk warriors that usually have no military experience themselves and are far to willing to donate the lives of others for their cause.
The status quo in the Mideast for thousands of years has been the Sunnis Muslims look upon Shia Muslims as blasphemous, they both look down upon Kurds as an inferior Bedouin race, they all look down upon Christians and Jews. Can someone please tell me how staying in Afghanistan an extra few month or two, year or two is going to change that?
The Karzai government is corrupt. They most likely will always and forever be unprepared to take on independent rule of their country. I have yet to meet one single US soldier that hasn't set this.
Iraq should be three different countries, one Shia Muslim, one Sunnis Muslim and one Kurd.
America currently accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending in contrast to our closest rival, China, at just 6.6 percent. We could cut military spending in half and still be spending three times more than China. We need to shut down both quagmires ASAP. Then we need to shut down almost all of our 760 military bases and facilities world wide. This would be the single most important spending cut that could be proposed to substantially reduce our national debt.
10 years later I am still waiting for my 'government' to explain why we are there? Give me ONE GOOD REASON!
Did any of these people explain how to pay for all of this? If we are going to be strong militarily, we first have to be strong economically.
I want to see the government continue to war and misrepresent us Americans if all of us just stop paying taxes. Just STOP! Fook-em. They can not put all of us in jail. Instead of Wall Street protests we should all protest by not sending in our taxes anymore. They work for us and not the other way around. They can punish us with jail but we can't hold them accountable for raping and directing our wealth into the hands of the few. Change the way we do government now!
teknishan: Read My Lips, It's the Military Industrial Complex; Just ask President D.D. Eisenhower (the last Republican President who truly believed in the American Dream and being truthful. But take in to consideration the fact that if there is a slow down in Production for the Military what will it do to the Job Market? Let's face it, a large part of the Industrial System in the USA has been based on the Military Market since WW 2 and is not likely to change in the near future.
When ever some "bean counter" starts telling you how expensive wars can be, usually in a hope to skewer the sitting President, you need to fully understand the "compare and contrast" equation.
China has over a Billion potential soldiers, traditionally - they have been willing send in overwhelming numbers of bodies to achieve their goals. We have a population of 300 million, a standing army of less than a million. We can't afford to waste time, education and talents of any of our soldiers. It takes years to make an effective US soldier, what we can't afford is to lose any of them base on the recommendations of a "bean counter"!
We do not have the population to engage in a war of attrition. We, as a policy, have been willing to send in Billion dollar bomber, carrying a million dollar bomb to take out cave in the ground which our enemies have spent million man-hours digging. Base on cost - it may seem like we are spending "too" much.
GOPpers didn't "get it" when Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and company under cut the military when they sent in too few troops to take and hold Iran. The result was the beginning of the counter-insurgency and civil war resulting from the power vacuum left when Saddam was deposed.
Later, they were so busy counting dollars they sent our guys over without body armor, without enough armour on their vehicles ... even worse, disciplined a soldier for mentioning it.
No, we are not China, we do not do wars on a budget. Is it worth the costs? - only if you add in the equation an addition "bean"; count in the relief felt by the families of the soldiers who come home.
eyes wide shut - nice to see you trying to perpetrate the myth of bush giving up on looking for bin laden. It's called delegating to another to continue the search. BTW - if the CIA hadn't kept up the search throughout the bush administration, obama wouldn't of had the intel to track bin laden down
The 2 "frontrunners" consider the defense budget sacrosanct, but they never discuss how they would reduce the nation's debt. President Obama has proven to be a centrist and a strong Commander in Chief.
Note the ringing support for President Obama by Boehner:
""By and large, the president has continued the effort to take on the Taliban, to take on al-Qaida and – and to help ensure that America stays secure," House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday at The Atlantic ideas festival. "And I think so far the president's done just fine."
The money is gone and we need to cut defense spending--in spite of what defense contractors want. No more wars.
Whats to spin. Mission accomplished right?
That success should be sufficient to guarantee any President a second term; but poor Obama isn't held in the same esteem as his white predecessors.
Unfortunately BOTH parties have individuals who have done that. FWIW- Anthony Maschek, sitting in a wheelchair after being wounded in Iraq, was treated much, MUCH worse at Columbia University. So you libs really need to jump off the "booed a US soldier" rant because YOUR side is guilty of the same offense.
But remember the attention span of the average voter is about a month and they forget the political events that happened. What they don't forget is something that affects them everyday like being out of work. When they have a constant reminder of a dysfunctional Congress that is not forgotten since it hits them in the wallet.
mountainmik, Islam isn't even 1,500 years old yet.
Do you mean the contrast between the Navy Seal that pulled the trigger and the TWO idiots that booed? Because I know there is no way in hell you are giving the POTUS the credit for killing Bin Laden, and you cant POSSIBLY be stupid or naive enough to characterize the actions of two morons onto an entire political party.
You want to bet? What do you think the Republicans have been doing for years? Where have you been? The retarded republicans started the war in Afghanistan and had they had any real cajones would have finished it and left long before the 2008 elections. It was to their financial benefit to stay put. Now that there's a Democrat in office they're holding him responsible.
Those two morons who booed the soldier are representative of the entire GOP and TP movement at this point in time because the speakers who had the stage said nothing so silence = agreement in this instance. If that had happened at a Democratic convention the entire GOP would be calling the entire Democratic party "cowards" as they did when most of us protested going into Iraq. So Buck up Junior you know not what you're talking about.
Would not have had to delegate - if he took Osama bin laden as a serious threat. Yes- he did! Yes Bush did abrogate the necessity of actively pursuing Osama... it was important to him... at least not important enough to "gett'er done" ... BEFORE he left office. Its a good thing we had a Clean up batter waiting in the wings.
The good thing about "roll your own" history... there is no need to bother with incedental, nit-picking things like research, public records - quotes and admissions by the presiding President - all these are part of public record.
As for your distinction of whether President Obama, personally hunted down OBL... take your lead from Bush's "Mission Accomplished" grand standing. Or better yet - his giggly School girl Joy in announcing "We got Saddam".
There was job in Mudville that day - GOPper's were like over excited puppies... so happy at the attention, that they were peeing all over each other, just couldn't contain all the excitement without losing bladder control. I think they were as surprised as Bush - something actually came out right, finally!
But - as for the real killer, he just could not bring it home.
What did I miss? Isn't America already the strongest nation on earth?
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney promised, if elected, to make America "the strongest nation on Earth"
Mitt has trouble with the truth, he's a politican after all.
That, Jody, is the truth.
As to the 3 am call however, uh, no. The "call" concerned the economy. He took the call, but had not idea what to do.
Yet now he wants to repeat that which has already failed. Good thing Reid won't let him.
I think the 'operators' down near the NYSE are about to put that call through, now.
Please stand by....
Yeah, cause they won it, right?
Mission accomplished.
[Please stand by....]
...it's for you, "counselor"...
Speaking of dirtbags, have you taken a poke at anyone's wife here on FR today, Spanky?
No? Well...it's still early, right bottom feeder?
Someone should tell the republicans that some times the adults have to step in to take care of the mess their children make. They might recall that the reason we're there in the first place is due to republican control.
This is an area where they have no standing. Obama brought down Osama, and Anwar al-Awlaki. One thing this president can do is multi-task. It's refreshing to say the least.
DJ your a liberal and its understandable you know nothing about the military, but why don't you show some respect for the men that did carry out the assassination of osama and are no longer with us as a result being killed in Afganistan a few weeks later. Bambam had nothing to do with it he thought he was watching a made for TV movie. By the way we lost a stealth helicopter and didn't destroy it before the Russians and Chinese got all the data they needed. Does Bambam get credit for that part of the mission also.
Could he have meant PRINCIPLES?
The nation with the greatest, most outstanding, full of light PRINCIPLES. Like justice and freedom and rule by law?
To some of you he apparently meant torture, unnecessary wars, no equality before the law, extra-judicial killings, spying on Americans and limiting of our freedom. Throw in ILLEGAL invasion, support for war crimes and Romney sure would have his hands full.
Nah, he didn't mean principles - the SOUL of this country, the legacy for the billions of Americans yet to come in the future.
mountainmike-1199289
If we wanted to get even with those that did the 911 deed, why attack Afghanistan when it was Saudis that flew those planes into the towers?
Oh, yeah, the oil.
DJ your a liberal and its understandable you know nothing about the military
I guess if you're a gun totin', god fearing, right wing conservative and read enough Tom Clancy novels, you're an expert too, right Bob? It really stings you that this C in C gets results, doesn't it? His predecessor couldn't and stated he didn't care about the man responsible for 9/11. Get over it and move on.
It wasn't the Saudis, it was al Qaeda, which was running training camps in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. The fact that they were Saudis is irrelevant, they were al Qaeda terrorists.
Please get a clue.
FUBAR - it happens.
Did you forget, our well trained soldiers reacted to the situation - finished the mission, succesfully. Destroyed what they could and left with what they came to get.
Would you rather they had walked in, or only brought one helicopter or NOT done the mission in the 1st place?
Do you think that not using the technology we have - out of fear that it may be compromised, if its captured - is better than using every technological advantage, even if it means, occasionally, something doesn't go 100% as planned?
The phrase, grasping at straws, came to mind when I read your message.
DJ - I seem to recall that the reason we went to afganistan was because of what happened to the world trade center, pentagon and flight 93. You may wish to play stupid with regards to these events, but you are definitely in the minority.
beowoelf - out of curiosity do you think that obama would have gone on air saying he gave the order to assasinate bin laden if we hadn't of lost the heelo? My take would have been that obama would have said nothing and let the worlds CT's speculate on how bin laden disappeared.
Lord help us Romney's recycling the same old duds that gave the wrong advice about Iraq. These chickenhawks are always willing to send our soldiers to unnecessary wars. Any guess where they will try to start something?I meant the word to be dud. That was not a typo.
Hey Bob...put up another post here and use the phrases "what any other President would have done" and "Tora Bora" together.
In a perfectly executed extraction of OBL... I speculate that - If it were me - it would have been a Jimmy Hoffa moment.
You do not want a High Profile - Martyr hanging around. As soon as the Helicopter was damaged in the landing. Ben Laden moved from being "captured and interrogated" ... to being classified as "shoot on sight"... the logic being, no way, no how under any condition was he to be released, rescued or escape - the stakes were too high.
Alive - he was too valuable to our opponents. Dead - he was a distraction a diplomatic faux pas, but ultimately - the deed was done and that chapter had a decisive ending. No crap about "ill treatment", ransom, bargaining or arguments of who started it, just cause or renege vigilantism ... were all moot.
So, there is no real answer to your perspective. There was only one way to end the legend of Bin Laden ...
Ha, the GOP should think twice before using the 10-year Afghanistan anniversary to tweak President Obama for political gain. Might be some wishful thinking going on but they should step with caution. Bush/Cheney started the war in 2001 and never bothered to finish it; never even bothered to pay for it. Did the GOP candidates ask either of them what was taking so long? Did the criticize Bush/Cheney for heading to Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghan? Did they ask that the wars be paid for because the debt was huge? That's political quicksand for the GOPers, they'd be wise to just keep quiet.
jody - bush set the withdrawal date in iraq for 2011, not obama. Even iraqs leader commented on bushes withdrawl date of 2011 when he told obama he wanted that date to hold firm.
So where were the democrats in saying that the conflicts had to be paid for?
Cheney was right, "deficits don't matter", but only if if you want to practice old school politics (prior to 2009). It didn't matter what side of the aisle, they both supported that attitude
Hindsight is only good if you learn from it, rather than trying to dwell on it. It seems that the republican field is accepting the fact that deficits do matter and that the FR libs and democrat house and senate members still don't get it.
Somehow, Romney does not get it. His party is against any tax code revisions which would alter our fiscal situation, yet he speaks of massive spending to increase our strength world wide. Either he knows that the GOP opposition to tax increases is only temporary, until Obama is defeated, for the sole purpose of keeping the Nation miserable until 2012, for political purposes, or he is clueless, and he knows not of what he speaks.
Either way, is does not say much for the GOP, or its current crop of candidates. They are great patriots, until it comes to putting money where their mouths are. Taxes are lower now than they have been in 60 years, yet they cry for more tax cuts, and more austerity during a recession, a sure fire way of creating an even stronger, longer downturn. That does not matter, as long as Obama is a one term President. Patriots, No. Politicians Yes. Win at all cost.
If the Republicans do win in 2012 I will be curious to see what they do to sustain the nation. Would be a nation without public education by 2016? What else can they cut to sustain their wars and keep cutting taxes for the rich? I guess we might see, but I hope not. I'm not 100% pro Obama by a long shot, but I'm not 100% against him either. I don't want to see our country continue to go into debt, and I would like to see some money back from Social Security when I'm old, that is if they don't just cut me a check for what I've paid in so far. Obama's health care plan will go into effect in 2014. We will have to stop our warring ways by then, or we will be going into debt much faster than we are now. I'm with Ron Paul when he says that we need to become an isolationist nation for a time to heal our internal wounds. I really think this is the only way for us to continue to be a productive nation throughout the 21st century. We simply can't afford to provide near 50% of the world's police force without collecting taxes from the countries that can't protect their own. And of course if we started down that road the rest of the world would be against us for being imperialists. There are just no easy answers are there?
Yeah--the TPGOP is going to bankrupt the nation and cut domestic programs to feed the industrio-military complex! Not to mention, demonstrate the bully boy mentality world wide and most likely get us into WWIII--bring on Armageddon and the second coming of Jesus! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
You said it, nurse.
Armageddon will come on its own. the only difference between BHO and the GOP in the White House is which side we will be on when Armegeddon does come...
Sure hope we pick the right side before it happens....
ABO 2012
Incredibly appropriate quote for today's world.
Oh boy... the country most responsible for 90% of all heroin production on the planet is our buddy. Also interesting how we occupy the country but have been unable to detour the poppy/opium production the slightest bit. You would think it would be impossible to NOT interrupt the drug trading unless we are in collusion with it. That is like putting soldiers over the entire border of the US but not catching on illegal alien or drug trafficker. Only the US military could pull that off.
With our military we are now assuring a consistently expanding and massively profitable drug trade that is destroying entire cities across the globe. When the heck does a US "war" ever benefit the US citizens and taxpayers?
Our military has become nothing more than a private mercenary force for oil/mining and banking corporations......... few of which are even in this country. This has nothing to do with either party because neither party has cut ANY military spending or even made a serious stand trying. They won't even put it on the table with a bill................ just NOTHING.
If we elect Perry or Romney we have their VOW for MORE wars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the same old neocons who pushed us into Iraq with false evidence.
hmmmm....obama is no slouch when it comes to war mongering.
Scott - President Bush took us into Iraq, stripping our forces out of Afganistan, to fight a war he and his staff wanted. That's why there weren't enough forces there - it had nothing to do with W's remarkable intelligence on Russia's long failure. Were that the case, then why go in there in the first place? Only to lose?
Few argue the initial war in Afganistan - we wanted blood - the Taliban were there, easy choice. But if we hadn't treated it as a 3d class war we MIGHT be further along.
All that said, NO ONE has EVER won in Afganistan - NO ONE!
Iraq and Afganistan are Bush's wars. We got to get out of both immediately.
Uhhh... look past the puppets to the puppet masters Pete. The Federal Reserve Bankers took us into Iraq. Bush just sings the papers the same way Obama signed them to go into Libya. Iraq was all about banking interests with Saddam wanting to change to the Euro and break out of OPEC. Libya was about Kadafi throwing out British Petroleum and wanting to trade oil with France directly avoiding being forced to use the US dollar so the FED gets their cut on every barrel.
No President has "led" this country since JFK was assassinated.
How about no war and join the rest of the world's countries in their "isolationist" state. War=freedom and security give me a mf'n break; its exactly the contrary. The Bush vs. Obama death toll argument is a little disturbing don't you think?
Ron Paul 2012
We tried "Isolationism" - it didn't work then, and that was when the oceans and distance were a barrier to us being attacked. We thought we had hours or days of early warning before an enemy could reach our shores. Pearl Harbor killed the whole idea of isolationism.
The isolation idea is even more ridiculous today. Everybody who is anybody has rockets, Bombs and access to computers.
Truth be told - it was never a good idea. China, Japan, Korea ... all tried to keep the rest of the world from interfering with their way of life. Bad people what your stuff, not because the need it... but because they don't want to work for it.
example: ask the average person "how much money" would it take to make you happy for the rest of your life? Even with inflation - a million, a couple of million would be enough. Yet if you follow the news... almost every day some news article "where are they Now" item, details who - which celelbrities are broke, bankrupt, on drugs or divorced - whatever the addiction, its never enough, famous, well-paid Athletes are broke, Lottery winners are broke, Heirs of fortunes are broke, Entertainment "Super Stars" are broke.... yet 1/2 the world lives on pennies a day and somehow make it a day at a time. If you store all the grain you can use for a life time - most of it will rot before you can use it. Hummmm, what does that mean? .. he asked.
The point is - we have an infinite capacity for "wants" and limited means to satisfy those wants. There is never enough for some people - mainly because enough means ... They have it all.
Old adage concerning Alexander the Great - he became sadden because there were no more countries to conquer.
Lets just get out and if they attack us again turn the sponsoring country into a sand parking lot. Give the populace 24 hours to get out then make it unlivable for many half lifes. Both countries are not worth one more American Soldiers life.
The rest of the world would declare war on us, and it would soon be WWIII, not to mention we would have a civil war on our hands within our own borders, again. I don't think anyone wants either of those options...
It's a joke to hear the Republicans singing that same old tune. We are supposed to keep on believing that the Republican party is made up of people of superior military intellect and that they are the only ones we can trust to defend us. We are supposed to keep believing that the Republicans are the only ones who can make us safe? Romney is going to speak to the generals in the field??? Dahh! No kidding! Does the Republican party actually think that they've still got us all Bushwacked? That we all think the war they got us into was about making the U.S. and it's people safe?!!! Really?!!! When Bush left office, there was no end in sight for either of those wars. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel now. But if they get thier way those wars will be right back to the Bush wars of 2 years ago.
Obama had to spend more money on those wars! How else could he provide our military with the personnel and equipment needed to get us out of there?! Obama spent a lot on our veteran's health and hospital care. Something the Republicans didn't want to be bothered with. I find it impossible to believe that nearly half of our citizens still fall for that Republican nonsense. Impossible!
They are all a bunch of politicians. Vague, worthless statements ("make us the strongest nation on earth!") and nothing specific on things like afghanistan. We've been there ten years, you'd think by now perry and romney could decide what they want to do about it...but of course they realize that any specific answer will be jumped on, so as always they obfuscate.
at least ron paul has a specific proposal.
Attack, fight and defend. That is our future, until the end.
The republicans conviently forget that THEY are the biggest reason we're still in Afghanistan. If the GOP and Bush hadn't pulled most of our troops out of there in the first place to go fight the war Bush started in Iraq, we'd have probably won in Afghanistan long ago.
Instead, we were losing ground in Afghanistan before Bush left office, and this was one of the messes that Obama inherited to clean up.
Since Obama took office we've sent more troops to Afghanistan, and we're WINNING the war there now. We got bin laden, plus several more al quiada leaders in recent months.
Corporate-owned and wall-street elitist managed Republicans, are ABSOLUTELY responsible for virtually all the ills our nation has endured from reagan, to bush-I, to bush-II.. and is still suffering now because of the GOP- commitment to OBSTRUCTIONISM -- all now in a relentless effort and sole goal to make President Obama a one-term President, no matter how damaging to the future of our Country and NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF ITS CITIZENS!!
GOP = wall-street corrupted scum of Mother Earth = Gestapo On Parade.
nightie nite kkkarl boy
Buddy This~
"touting his relative isolationism" HA!
Just can't have any integrity can you? Can't write the words non-interventionism?
American Empire is Imperialism the opposite of freedom. We rid ourselves of a king once and we can water the tree of liberty and restore this Republic.
Dr. Paul would maintain our alliances, go to war when necessary and declared, bring our troops home and stop bullying the rest of the world with its undeclared and illegal wars.
RON PAUL 2012 Strength through Peace
The wars are making millions of Americans slaves to any available soup kitchen. All this warmonger rhetoric is just stupidity.
Ron Paul's 'Relative Isolationism'- is that sort of like 'relative journalistic integrity'?
"Moreover, the GOP presidential contenders must wrestle with cognitive dissonance given the number of other Republican voices generally supportive of Obama’s work as commander in chief."
WHAT?!?!?!? Like you could cite ANYONE in the GOP who agrees with Obama's military record- other than the Chicken-Hawk Neo-Cons who get their funding from the same Big Banks as Obama, who knock him down- except when he wholeheartedly supports the 'Bush Doctrine' of unending and ridiculously expensive pre-emptive wars. The ONLY candidate of EITHER party who ACTUALLY opposes these wars that are destroying America both economically as well as societally is Ron Paul. All the other candidates like President Obama mouth the proper anti-war rhetoric, or else peddle the neo-con Terrorism boogie-man line like Rick Santorum, and want to nuke everybody who doesn't like America.
Poorly researched and incredibly inaccurate articles like this merely misinform the ignorant, and drive away the critically-thinking informed. Quit transcribing the talking points and press releases, and actually go to the sources for accurate information. Otherwise, your ever-dwindling readership will go the way of TIME magazine, AOL/HuffPo and most of the other 'old media' down the memory hole into media oblivion.
LOL @ "Ron Paul's 'Relative Isolationism'- is that sort of like 'relative journalistic integrity'?"
....and agreed.
This board is just like the political figures now in office. liberal, whiney wannabees. I want this country to UNITE, not bashing the other guy CONSTANTLY. Where has the respect gone? it must have gone out the window when the Democrats defaced and stole from the White House before Bush took office. Respect OUR country AND the people in it.
It is not so much "liberal" winey wannabees but "party specific" whiney wannabees. Both party's are completely the same fiscally and the same giant lobby's have the same power with both party's. Only fools believe changing party's can do anything more for this country than changing your socks makes you a different person.
A1, there are elections coming for the next two years (as before and always, we hope), and while we may not be able to change the forest as a whole, maybe we can change a few of the prominent "Redwoods".
You and I can rangle all day about the legislative parties and whether these parties are joined at the hip or whether one is a little better than the other. So, I'll wager that the voters will expose which party is ruining America more. I think we can agree though, that OUR Nation needs representation with the leadership, selflessness, and the vision displayed by America's Founding Fathers. Adams, that Constitution is taking a beating as we speak. Try to come back often; there are crackpots on this website, luego........ JMJ
Guess we DO "get the government we deserve".
Obama is an amoral powerplayer. If it takes extra-judicial killings to get votes then he will do it. If it means faking the mafia-like hit on *someone* to fake getting Bin Laden and pull the wool over Americans eyes AGAIN then he will do it. If it means out spending even Bush for the pig trough (military industrial complex) then he will do it. If it means a sneak attack in an undeclared war against Yemen with cruise missles packed with cluster bombs from bravely far out at sea he will do it - even if the end result is mostly civilian deaths (dozens of women and children in the attack that drew the retaliation of the Underpants Bomber eight days later) then Obama will do it.
Warmongering and a crushed economy, spying on Americans, limiting our freedoms, extra-judicial killing, torture and justice deferred that is what buys votes in America. Guess we deserve it.
What a bunch of nonsense.
Can you substantiate any of your claims?
You people rant and rave, yet offer no solutions. I'd like to see people like you walk one mile in the President's shoes. I'd bet you'd be singing a very different tune keyboard commando.
Attacking Iraq ... that was moral? War is never moral, no matter how much you dress it up. Geneva conventions not withstanding. At the bottom line, war is the suspension of morality, it is based on any/all of "Them" should be killed and all of US take their stuff or keep our stuff or have room for more of our stuff.
How is that moral?
If I'm understanding your philosophy correctly? Its OK, if its thousands, millions of people being killed - but not OK, if it's only one or only a few?
The bogus wars they promoted and the trillion dollars in deficit spending they advanced,,, HYPOCRITE DEFICIT HAWKS
And the "War Machine" grinds on! Mr.Romney and Mr.Perry will not get my vote. 10 years!Shameful!
Wow!!
I'll bet no one ever thought of that before!
That Romney must be some kind of genius (in addition to having great hair)!
I have my own complaints about Obama and his presidency. But if Romney is the best of the alternatives (and he is), then we won't be any better off in 2013 with one of those ass-clowns manning (or womaning?) the Oval office.
"...the strongest nation on earth"... I'd say that is right up there with "a chicken in every pot" and other vapid political promises of years gone by.
Why do the politicians agree that killing of our troops is necessary.. They have never been close to the death and destruction they sign off for.. Before you talk you need walk the walk..
It's easy to direct the killing of our people from their comfortable chairs..
perry said: "And Texas Gov. Rick Perry also discussed national security, drawing on his own military experience in a vow against major cuts to the defense budget."
The irony in this statement is that he is dead wrong: You make the nation strong by cutting the military budget and routing the savings to educating the population, building the industries we can switch overt to way production in time of war. Our big military is expensive (over 1 Trillion per year if you include interest for previous wars) and it very inefficient economically.
President and WW II general Eisenhower (A republican, by the way) warned against the military complex: prior to WW II we did not have an arms industry, but what we did did is turn existing industries over to war production when the time came that we needed them.
This is counter-intuitive and most will not understand.
What many refuse to understand how counter-culture the killing war is in our own country. Millions of babies have been thrown in a waste can and this practice continues. "A house divided against itself".. JMJ
The GOP has to say SOMETHING even if it doesn't ring true or make any sense.
To rephrase: The GOP will say ANYTHING even if it doesn't ring true or make any sense. Not all of them are that way though; I am not a big fan of Ron Paul's isolationism bid but I do believe that the "Drop back ten and Punt" approach is needed at this point in time regarding our Military Involvement overseas. The Opposition is consolidating and building while we spend trillions on Police Actions (God, as a War Vet, I hate that term).