Posted on 01/15/2010 5:41:36 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Since President Obama’s inauguration, the man who previously occupied the vice presidential mansion has not tired of criticizing the current commander-in-chief’s foreign policy moves, but he appears to be coming under increasing fire from those who are considered to be his closer ideological allies.
Dick Cheney has gone on record in the past few months saying the administration’s polices—especially the desire to scale down the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and setting a public timetable to do so—are endangering America’s national security.
However, in a recent appearance on CNN, Rep. Ron Paul (R – Texas), a prominent libertarian, said Cheney’s eight-year tenure caused "a lot of trouble" for America.
"He perpetuated a war in Iraq that was unnecessary and wrong-headed," Paul told the news network, adding "14 or 15 of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. We didn’t attack Saudi Arabia, [instead] we attacked Iraq."
"I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now," the Texas congressman concluded.
Paul has long argued that the U.S. involvement overseas stimulates much of the anger encountered in places like the Middle East, and fuels many extremists’ willingness to sacrifice their own lives to fight America.
The author has to assume that the readers are total idiots. No one believes that Ron Paul is considered to be a close ideological ally of Cheney. Cheney has always been strong on national defense. Ron Paul has never been any different than Code Pink.
You my friend are spot in your analysis. It’s surprising that we even have idiots on FR who support this nutjob named Ron Paul.
I agree with Ron Paul on many fiscal issues however his foreign policy ideas are stuck in 1792 and NOW the ‘Barnaby pirates’ are desperately trying to obtain nukes.
I like your correct choice of the year 1792. It was only a year away from a serious wake-up call -- the 9/11 of it's day. But note that even in 1794, not every Congressman could understand the reason for a United States Navy.
"In 1793, the wars of the French Revolution between Great Britain and France began and a truce negotiated between Portugal and the Algerians ended Portugal's blockade of the Strait of Gibraltar which had kept the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean.
"Soon after, the pirates sailed into the Atlantic, and captured 11 American merchant ships and more than a hundred seamen.
"In reaction to the seizure of the American vessels, Congress debated and approved the Naval Act of 1794, which authorized the building of six frigates—four of 44 guns and two of 36 guns.
"Supporters were mostly from the northern states and the coastal regions, who argued the Navy would result in savings in insurance and ransom payments, while opponents from southern states and inland regions thought a navy was not worth the expense and would drive the United States into more costly wars."
Neither presidents Washington nor Adams were willing to use their new Navy against the Barbary pirates. They continued to pay the tributes. But President Jefferson had different ideas... ;-)
Well the voters in his district have the opportunity...
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.