Posted on 02/14/2010 8:26:58 AM PST by big black dog
ping
What really brought the isolationist backlash by voters was the invasion of Iraq and Bush didnt sell Israel as the reason for that. The main reason for Iraq was WMDs. Even when the WMDs criticism became mainstream Bush never tried to counter it with a main argument by saying he was defending Israel.
I didn't see many Jews voting interventionist in 2008, they voted for Obama. Are they anti-sematic?
Very good comments and succinct.
For those who say that Ron Paul says the right things on some single issue or another, as we have seen with Medina, they aren’t who they say they are.
No. There were a whole list of reasons. WMDs was the reason that placated the British Left for Blair.
Good comment, but I do have to ask: Does Rand share his father’s nutso views on Israel and not wanting to project power “over there,” ignoring that this helps keep the fight “over there” as opposed to here?
Serious question. It looks like Rand isn’t a true Paulian, but that could be projection of an image for political purposes. Then again, people aren’t their parents and shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ nutso views.
See, the only problem I have is that so many supposed conservatives put their concern for Israel above their concern for the US. Why should Israel be driving our foreign policy. It has proven time and time again to be able to handle it’s own against middle eastern and north african islamic nations.
Sorry, You can google it and see all the Sunday news-show interviews with Cheney and Rice warning of mushroom clouds over US cities. That was the Bush administration that did this. Later Bush defenders tried to re-write history and claim it never happened but it never sold outside of a small isolated group.
I like Bush Sr now. He told us the war (Gulf I) was about oil and the US economy and got mid-East rich countries to pay for it. It was a win-win for the US.
AKA, the Paleocons? I hope so!
How many Semitics are anti Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is the supreme economic and social conservative.
He is not a security conservative.
The problem is that almost no one is all three.
Democrats support welfare, unions, illegal immigrants, abortion, minorities etc. no matter which group an individual belongs to or how they conflict with each other. All or nothing. Republicans could learn from that and stop being 1/3 or 2/3 Democrat themselves.
Oh, I do. That’s why I said “help.” Main battle action and bombings still happen mostly “over there,” but that is likely (certainly?) to change. That said, the more of them we kill on the battlefield, the fewer we will have to deal with here. Precipitously abandoning the fight in the ME would help bring the fight here all the faster, too.
Yeah it’s not like they found 50 tons of yellow cake uranium or banned missles or migs buried in the desert....
Yeah saddam was harmless....
Bleh...
There is no sane counter argument against Invading iraq now that we know where the mass graves are...
A far cry from Mushroom clouds over the US. Sadly there was no way the Bush administration could take back those ‘warnings’ after the fact, but Hannity tried, and tried..
If Bush administration believed that they should have made that case, before the 2006 midterms.
There were many reasons. WMDs was one of them. I did not say that the Bush administration did not mention it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.