Is the GOP Becoming the War Party?

[John81]

Is the GOP Becoming the War Party?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday - March 8, 2012


Denouncing Republican "bluster" about war with Iran, President Obama went on the offensive Tuesday:

"Those who are ... beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be."

The president had in mind such remarks as those Newt Gingrich delivered to the Israeli lobby AIPAC that same day: "The red line is now ... because the Iranians are deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons" -- an assertion the Joint Chiefs and U.S. intelligence agencies say is blatantly false.

They insist: Iran has not made the decision to build a bomb.

Perhaps the president was referring to Mitt Romney's pledge to that same cheering throng to "station multiple carriers and warships at Iran's door" and deny Tehran even "the capacity to make a bomb."

But if "the capacity to make a bomb" means knowledge of how to build one and an ability to enrich uranium to bomb-grade, should they decide to do so, Iran already has that.

Does Mitt want war now?

Perhaps the president had in mind John McCain's call for U.S. air strikes on Syria, an act of war rejected even by GOP Speaker John Boehner as "premature," since the "situation in Syria is pretty complicated."

Have the Republican uber-hawks learned nothing from the war for which they beat the drums 10 years ago?

Then they told us Saddam Hussein was implicated in 9/11, that he had chemical weapons, that if we didn't invade his country we could expect anthrax attacks by Iraqi crop-dusters up and down our East Coast.

Those who asked for proof Saddam was a mortal threat were dismissed by Condi Rice: "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The price of our heeding that bluster? Some 4,500 American dead, 35,000 wounded, $1 trillion sunk, 100,000 Iraqi dead, half a million widows and orphans.

The fruits of our victory? A Shia-dominated Iraq descending into sectarian and civil war.

The GOP's political reward for marching us up to Baghdad?

Loss of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, when the antiwar Obama crushed the war hawk McCain.

Today's GOP front-runners -- Newt, Mitt and Rick Santorum -- all clearly believe that a warlike stance toward Iran will appeal to the evangelical base and to Jewish voters who went for Obama by 57 points in 2008.

But they are rolling the dice with a war-weary America.

Ron Paul, whose youth vote the party needs and who receives the largest number of contributions from the military, has split with them on Iran.

The president, says Paul, is "closer to my position than the other candidates, because what the other Republicans are saying is reckless."

Most Republicans seem to be lining up with Newt, Mitt and Rick on a more hawkish stance. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants Congress to vote the president a blank check for war now. And the president is aware of and alarmed by the Republican stampede to war:

"The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military -- that hasn't been true in the past and it won't be true now. ... Sometimes, it's necessary, but we don't do it casually. ... We think it through. We don't play politics with it."

When rash decisions are made about war, said the president, mistakes are made, and "typically it's not the folks who are popping off who pay the price."

What to do about Iran -- and whom to trust to deal with Iran -- seems fated to be the foreign policy issue of 2012.

And the battle lines are drawn.

Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli lobby and its allies in Congress will be demanding ever harsher sanctions and military action before November. For they assume, rightly, that the president does not want war and, if he wins, there will be no war with Iran.

The Republicans will portray Obama as dithering, vacillating and weak, no true friend of Israel, though the U.S. military and intelligence community are behind Obama in his belief that a war now on Iran would be unnecessary, unwise and potentially calamitous.

Nervous Democrats, facing Sheldon Adelson super PAC ads in the Jewish communities of every swing state, all accusing Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus," will be pressuring the president to get tougher.

And Obama surely knows that an October confrontation with Iran, with war a possibility, or a reality, will mean the nation rallies around him and he wins a second term.

Will Iranian intransigence provide him a casus belli? Or will Iran negotiate seriously and agree to more intrusive inspections to prove its nuclear program is not aimed at a bomb?

Whether there is a U.S. war on Iran seems up to the ayatollah now. Will he play into the hands of Israeli and American hawks who are salivating over a war with his regime and his country?




SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-becoming-a-war-party-5037

[Guest]

As honorable as McCain's service was, he needs to sit down. Going to war because he believes the U.S. has a moral obligation to Syria to halt their bloodshed?

I'm certainly glad he isn't running for POTUS again.

When will we hear about the moral obligation to U.S. citizens.

What does McCain think he is, the Rifleman...que the video Chuck Conners ratcheting that Winchester.

[John81]

As honorable as McCain's service was, he needs to sit down. Going to war because he believes the U.S. has a moral obligation to Syria to halt their bloodshed?

I'm certainly glad he isn't running for POTUS again.

When will we hear about the moral obligation to U.S. citizens.

What does McCain think he is, the Rifleman...que the video Chuck Conners ratcheting that Winchester.

Actually, the Rifleman was much more restrained than McCain. The Rifleman was typically reluctant to use his rifle, only doing so when no viable option was left availab.e

McCain seems intent upon calling for war at the drop of a hat. As if talking up war makes one tough or something.

Those who continually call for war are not the ones who would have to fight the war and most have no actual personal stake in such. Long gone are the days when some politicians who call for war were ready to go themselves, or knew their own children would be in the war.

One would think after the failures and dismall results we've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyia, Egypt and elsewhere, these folks would get the idea our going to war isn't the answer and their stated beliefs America can make these Muslim nations "peace loving democracies" is flat out wrong.

[Guest]

Actually, the Rifleman was much more restrained than McCain. The Rifleman was typically reluctant to use his rifle, only doing so when no viable option was left availab.e

McCain seems intent upon calling for war at the drop of a hat. As if talking up war makes one tough or something.

Those who continually call for war are not the ones who would have to fight the war and most have no actual personal stake in such. Long gone are the days when some politicians who call for war were ready to go themselves, or knew their own children would be in the war.

One would think after the failures and dismall results we've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyia, Egypt and elsewhere, these folks would get the idea our going to war isn't the answer and their stated beliefs America can make these Muslim nations "peace loving democracies" is flat out wrong.

Ha ha...yes, but I liked the effect of a guy walking down main street blasting away.

McCain, isn't counting the TOTAL cost of war...men returning from harms way.

[Brother Rick]

I love these Republicans that talk about fixing our debt problem by finding new third world countries to go to war with. So asinine.

[John81]

I love these Republicans that talk about fixing our debt problem by finding new third world countries to go to war with. So asinine.

Can you say "Rome"?

[JerryNumbers]

Rome, & we are speeding quite fast towards their end.

And your right, 'the Rifleman' had 1000 times more restraint than our American politicians of today have.

[Wilchbla]

As honorable as McCain's service was, he needs to sit down. Going to war because he believes the U.S. has a moral obligation to Syria to halt their bloodshed?

I'm certainly glad he isn't running for POTUS again.

When will we hear about the moral obligation to U.S. citizens.

What does McCain think he is, the Rifleman...que the video Chuck Conners ratcheting that Winchester.

As long as any nation adheres to the Quran they cannot be made into a democracy. It worked in Japan but there was a complete decimation of the former culture of Emperor worship. If that wasn't gotten rid of democracy would have never worked in Japan. The same goes for in the Middle East. As long as we try to install democratic forms of government while building mosques and madrasahs we will continue to pour billions down the drain.

[Guest]

Rome, & we are speeding quite fast towards their end.

And your right, 'the Rifleman' had 1000 times more restraint than our American politicians of today have.

I'm sorry if Chuck was your hero I didn't intend to defame him? I liked the Rifleman when I was growing up (originals).

The video was in jest as a way to show how John McCain is blasting away, any time he sees an opportunity to shoot his gun.
It was meant to defame John McCain's political view. But, if he were running I would vote for him over Obama.

[John81]

As long as any nation adheres to the Quran they cannot be made into a democracy. It worked in Japan but there was a complete decimation of the former culture of Emperor worship. If that wasn't gotten rid of democracy would have never worked in Japan. The same goes for in the Middle East. As long as we try to install democratic forms of government while building mosques and madrasahs we will continue to pour billions down the drain.

They could have a democracy, but since they hold to the Quran their votes will reflect that. This is why we saw the rise of Isalmist parties in Egypt, with the people voting into power those who would govern by the Quran.

While so many denounced the dictators, whether Saddam, Mubarak, or Qadafi, they did serve one good thing, and that was the keeping in check those who wanted to turn those nations into Islamic nations. Once the dictators were removed, notice how the pro-Islamist forces were quick to rise up with the approval of much of the population

The problem American poltiicians have with the idea of spreading democracy, is they think that simply turning a country into a demorcacy means that country will vote and act like America. They fail to accept the fact that Muslims will vote much differently than the secular masses in America. They also forget the fact, or they don't know or don't care, that America was not established as a democracy, but as a federated republic. The American Founders viewed democracy as the worst form of government.

[John81]

I'm sorry if Chuck was your hero I didn't intend to defame him? I liked the Rifleman when I was growing up (originals).

The video was in jest as a way to show how John McCain is blasting away, any time he sees an opportunity to shoot his gun.
It was meant to defame John McCain's political view. But, if he were running I would vote for him over Obama.

Sad to say, but it's possible McCain could have been a worse president than Obama. Imagine what might be going on now had McCain won in 2008 and then followed through with his war talk. It's possible America could be at war with Iran and Syria right now, along with still having our troops in Iraq (McCain was for keeping them there a hundred years) and Afghanistan. Likely as not, if America were embroiled in war in these four Muslim nations, we would see others rising up, plus a vast increase in terrorist actions around the world.

It's possible America could be having hundreds or thousands of dead and wounded troops coming home each week. We could be seeing billions of dollars poured down the drain each week fighting these wars. We could be seeing our deficit sour and our economy mired in recession or worse.

As bad as Obama is, it's possible McCain could have been worse.

[JerryNumbers]

If McCain had ben elected, & he carried us into even more wars, it would have been deadly, for he does not believe in doing what is reasonable & necessary to gain information from prisoners that we need in order to fight a war effectually.