Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Owner59 -> Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 3:51:52 PM)

This is the kind of thing that separates neo(new)-conservatives and paleo-conservatives.

Consistency and loyalty to country over loyalty to party.



Republican Senators Blast Growing 'Isolationism' Within GOP Over Libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/senators-blast-gop-isolation-lybia_n_879947.html

In appearances on Sunday talk shows, several top Republicans rebuked members of their own party for backing "isolationist" foreign policy by pushing to end U.S. military operations in Libya.

The comments follow a push from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and several House Republicans to require President Obama to obtain Congressional approval to continue U.S. military action in Libya. During a debate in New Hampshire last week, Republican presidential hopefuls, including Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.), were critical of the Libyan operation, and former Massachusets Gov. Mitt Romney (R) also espoused support for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) declined an opportunity to criticize Boehner, but spoke out strongly against the comments from GOP presidential candidates.

"I was more concerned about what the candidates said in New Hampshire," McCain said. "This is isolationism ... If we had not intervened, Gaddafi was at the gates of Benghazi ... our interests are our values, and our values are that we don't want people needlessly slaughtered."

"I will be no part of an effort to defund Libya," Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC's "Meet The Press" program Sunday.




TheHeretic -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 4:00:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Consistency and loyalty to country over loyalty to party.




[sm=marionette.gif]

Consistency, O59? You really used that word? You might want to Google up a good definition.

[sm=rofl.gif]




Owner59 -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 4:04:23 PM)

I knew you`d be defensive,lol,........it is you and your ilk that McCain is speaking to.

It`s you that`s inconsistent and can`t square it for us.

I told you 4-5 years ago that you`d be defending bush`s fuck-ups, for forever.




slvemike4u -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 5:13:16 PM)

Okay if I use it Rich ?....Graham is not now, and I would be hard pressed to imagine when,someone who I would go around citing....but he sure made a whole lot of sense when he chided the Republican candidates for chasing the nomination by " going to the left of Obama".
Seems a repudiation of what most would claim as traditional Republican bedrock issues.....strong defense and a willingness to use and project American power.
The question....or rather the thinking of the candidates at the debate seemed to be ...if Obama did it I am against it...even if I must contort myself to get there.....




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 7:02:44 PM)

So, neo-cons support killing people any time any where for any reason. What's new. They are consistent on that point, it has nothing to do with what is getting bombed, it is just the fact that something is getting bombed that makes them happy.











DarkSteven -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 7:04:35 PM)

This is excellent.  Couldn't be better news.  Allegiance to party is ridiculous.  We need senators who actually THINK, not just do what the party tells them.  And they need to represent the PEOPLE, not the party.

About time!




Owner59 -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 7:18:27 PM)

The Libya whine from the neo-cons is purely anti-Obama energy.That`s the depth of it.

To the point...... where it`s anti-America energy.

It isn`t a "concern",lol,...... with following the law or anything virtuous.




Owner59 -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 9:35:40 PM)

McCain, Graham Rip Romney Foreign Policy



http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2011/06/19/mccain-graham-rip-romney-foreign-policy




TheHeretic -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 10:01:47 PM)

We are seeing a surge of bipartisanship, aren't we Steve?

Here is an interesting press release, from the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Keep in mind, McKeon was one of those who accused the President of doing nothing in Libya.

We are told that ‘U.S. military operations in Libya…do not require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the [War Power] Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.’ The Administration seems to further suggest that military forces are not engaged in hostilities if the operation is sanctioned by the United Nations or if our forces are not subject to sustained hostile fire. But even after NATO assumed the lead for operations, the United States has fired Tomahawks at regime targets and we continue to use drone strikes, both hostile actions that take lives and increase the risk of U.S. casualties. In fact, at a House Armed Services Committee briefing less than two weeks ago, the Defense Department confirmed to members of the Committee that the United States continues to be engaged in hostilities. Congress intended the term ‘hostilities’ to be broader in scope than “armed conflict” and stated as much in the House report accompanying the War Powers bill. Unfortunately, it sounds as if the White House is playing word games, instead of simply asking Congress for authorization to engage in military action.

“Therefore, I would support Congressional action to ensure the U.S. military’s role is limited to combat support and that we no longer engage in hostilities without Congressional authorization.


http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=808af8f4-4318-4c9f-95a7-e95db2e65fbb





Owner59 -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/19/2011 10:05:50 PM)

Yeah,right here....[sm=ass.gif]




Brain -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/20/2011 2:35:04 AM)

Neo-cons are consistent in hypocrisy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

So, neo-cons support killing people any time any where for any reason. What's new. They are consistent on that point, it has nothing to do with what is getting bombed, it is just the fact that something is getting bombed that makes them happy.












DarkSteven -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/20/2011 5:26:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

We are seeing a surge of bipartisanship, aren't we Steve?



I don't like that term.  It has recently referred to times when the Administration has stampeded disastrous stuff through a buffaloed Congress like the invasion of Iraq and TARP, through misrepresentation.  What ew have now is nonpartisanship, which I like. 
quote:



Here is an interesting press release, from the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Keep in mind, McKeon was one of those who accused the President of doing nothing in Libya.

We are told that ‘U.S. military operations in Libya…do not require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the [War Power] Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.’ The Administration seems to further suggest that military forces are not engaged in hostilities if the operation is sanctioned by the United Nations or if our forces are not subject to sustained hostile fire. But even after NATO assumed the lead for operations, the United States has fired Tomahawks at regime targets and we continue to use drone strikes, both hostile actions that take lives and increase the risk of U.S. casualties. In fact, at a House Armed Services Committee briefing less than two weeks ago, the Defense Department confirmed to members of the Committee that the United States continues to be engaged in hostilities. Congress intended the term ‘hostilities’ to be broader in scope than “armed conflict” and stated as much in the House report accompanying the War Powers bill. Unfortunately, it sounds as if the White House is playing word games, instead of simply asking Congress for authorization to engage in military action.

“Therefore, I would support Congressional action to ensure the U.S. military’s role is limited to combat support and that we no longer engage in hostilities without Congressional authorization.


http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=808af8f4-4318-4c9f-95a7-e95db2e65fbb



Time for Congress to take an active role for a change, and sit down with the White House and hammer out terms of WHAT KINDS of action they do support, and what they will not support, and pass legislation along those lines.  Right now, they're using vague terms and letting the White House define those terms.  They've reduced themselves to bystanders who kibotz.




Owner59 -> RE: Old school republicans spank neo-con "isolationism" on Libya. (6/20/2011 5:42:17 AM)

Don`t think we`ll see anything that looks like leadership coming from the congress.

They have an election to win after all.[:D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125