The Robert Taft Republicans Return

WSJ ^ | September 3, 2013 | Bret Stephens

[nuconvert]

The Robert Taft Republicans Return - Isolationism has never served the interests of America, or the GOP.

'We'll be lucky to get 80 Republicans out of 230." That's an astute GOP congressman's best guess for how his caucus now stands on the vote to authorize military force against Syria.

At town hall meetings in their districts, the congressman reports, House Republicans are hearing "an isolationist message." It's not America's war. The evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons is ambiguous, maybe cooked. There isn't a compelling national interest to intervene. "Let Allah sort it out." We'd be coming in on the side of al Qaeda. The strike serves symbolic, not strategic, purposes. There's no endgame. It would be another Iraq.

[Resolute Conservative]

What is better times for $1000 Alex?

[Iscool]

Regarding Syria, “isolationist” does not apply. This is a civil war. It really is NONE of our business.

Fortunately the U.S. had outside help during our Civil War...So I can see the whys of U.S. aid during another Country's civil war...

Apparently however, had Obama reigned in the 40's he'd expect us to help Hitler beat Stalin...Obama's on the wrong side...And I ain't goin'...

[Resolute Conservative]

I prefer prudence over isolationism.

[wideawake]

Did you read my post?

[Ben Ficklin]

"Think Palin had the right summary"

Palin is a good summary of evolving from a NeoCon to an Isolationist. She evolved just like the freepers and many rank and file evolved.

Like most governors, she didn't know a lot about foreign policy. So when she joined the campaign, Randy Scheunemann was assigned to get her up to speed. He is/was a very prominent NeoCon and was the top foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign. After the campaign he stayed with Palin as a top advisor. He was a constant companion, even traveling with her on the Asian trip. Palin was a strong advocate of NeoCon foreign policy.

In Early 2010, another NeoCon, Michael Goldfarb, join Palin as a second advisor. That rocked on until 2011 and Libya.

Palin turned against the NeoCons because they were instrumental in the Libya intervention. She fired Scheunemann and Goldfarb and hired the Realist foreign policy advisor, Peter Schweiser.

That rocked until 2013 when some of the Realists started joining the NeoCons on intervening in Syria. That is when she joined the isolationists .

It was just a few years ago that the vast majority of Freepers backed NeoCon foreign policy, now most of them have become isolationists.

As for the WSJ, they switched to NeoCon when they were bought by NewsCorp/Murdoch.

[arthurus]

I am seldom opposed to an intervention when it is designed to prevent a larger catastrophe.

And this proposed intervention seems sure to cause an even larger catastrophe

[arthurus]

Now that the US has ramped up the Moslem Brotherhoođ and torn up several countries in the process, it is in the US interest to allow the moslems to do as much damage to each other as possible. Intervening overtly is not necessary and should not be done to help one group win over another but rather to keep them fighting tooth and nail. The wealth of the Saracen world needs to be dissipated and fractured so that it is not available to use against the West. We should be helping one side until it is at the point of getting the upper hand then we should switch sides and prop up the other side ad infinitum and it should be done unofficially. We should certainly NOT be trying to spread peace or any type of social system or government. We should be sub rosa promoting mayhem and destruction.

We have built the modern version of the Mohammedan Monster by shoveling our resources into its maw but it only uses its excess resources, those resources beyond sufficient to maintain a tiny elite in splendor and the masses in just-above-starvation, for Jihad and its perpetual war against everyone else.

[livius]

Verbal twerking. Hmmm, that’s a good phrase (and I must admit, I had to google “twerking” to find out what it was...).

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Taft Republicans? I would like to see any kind of Republicans in place of the RINO—Vichi Republicans we have now. McCain and croud should just switch over and be Democrats—they have taken their 30 pieces of silver.

[livius]

I agree, I was simply talking about Rubio, who is being criticized for having decided that we had no interest in this and couldn’t solve the problem anyway. He’s being contrasted with Rand. But Rand was always opposed to any foreign venture, and I don’t agree with that. Sometimes, a country like the US does have to act. But I agree with Rubio: this isn’t one of those times.

[GeronL]

Rubio flipped and flopped, probably after seeing some polls.

[livius]

Isn’t that what we want? Don’t we want our representatives to be responsive?

I have written to Rubio (he’s one of my Senators) and I’m sure others have too. But I guess you’d rather that he just threw all our letters into the circular file or its electronic equivalent.

[dforest]

It is not curious. They have been for it all along. Think natural gas to Europe if we oust Assad. Russians own it now. Saudis own it if Syria falls to the Brotherhood.

And the “good” part is that Americans get to die for it. All bought and paid for by Saudi money and American blood. But hey, there are some big players that stand to rake in billions. Meanwhile, we, the average citizen, bury our soldiers. Hell of a deal.

[livius]

I’m not sure why they love him. They don’t like his Constitutional positions (or lack thereof) and find him arrogant. And “slave labor” is not good for business, and they’re certainly not supporting Obama’s position on immigration, which is all Muslims, all the time, no background checks, etc.

I think there’s an element of fear there.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Robert Taft was pro-Israel. Many of the people who call themselves “Robert Taft Republicans” are not.

[livius]

I don’t think any rational person thinks there will be much in the way of $$$ in this war.

I have heard that a lot of senior officers in the military are actually afraid to give professional advice to their superiors when asked , and that the top command is afraid to relay anything to Obama or even to give him their frank opinion.

Hitler was responsible for his ultimate defeat because he decided that he knew better than anybody else, and they were all terrified of opposing him. The same may happen here, but it could also touch off WW III and bring us all down.

I actually think we’re facing the same situation here, with Obama being enabled by a bunch of terrified (or senile, in the case of McCain) elected representatives and nearly silenced journalists. Virtually every single popular poll has come out hugely against this “war,” but have you seen a single MSM report? They’re all afraid.

[Daveinyork]

My 26 year old assistant had to tell me what it meant, and I had the (heh, heh) clever idea when I heard Rush call Kerry’s testimony “verbal diarrhea.”

[Romulus]

As for the WSJ, they switched to NeoCon when they were bought by NewsCorp/Murdoch.

Long before. The Journal was totally in the neocon tank when we invaded Iraq in 2003.

It was just a few years ago that the vast majority of Freepers backed NeoCon foreign policy

True -- though for the record I was never one of them. Still can't figure out why I wasn't banned. Maybe nobody reads what I post.

[Elle Bee]

since Bob Bartley left the paper and the E Board have turned left

and they've lost the likes of Fund and Morrison

.

[Alex Murphy]

This isn’t isolationism. We have exactly ZERO national interest in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War, and one could argue that it’s in our interest to let them keep fighting each other.

Oh, but there is a national interest at risk here. The risk of Obama losing face!