Skip to comments.Why I am no longer a Republican
Posted on 03/23/2013 8:01:30 AM PDT by lowbridge
It has a lot to do with the Iraq war
My own position on the war fits into none of these categories. Ten years ago, I was working as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine that's aptly been described as the New York Review of Books of the religious right. (And no, that's not oxymoronic.) The magazine strongly supported George W. Bush's original conception of the War on Terror, and so did I. In his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001, Bush stated that the United States would seek to decimate al Qaeda as well as every other terrorist groups of global reach. To this day I remain committed to that goal and willing to support aggressive military action (including the use of drone strikes) to achieve it. But thanks in large part to the Iraq war, I no longer consider myself a Republican or a man of the right.
The reason I continue (like President Obama) to support the original vision of the War on Terror is that it was and is based on a correct judgment of the fundamental difference between (stateless) terrorists and traditional (state-based) military opponents. Even the most bloodthirsty tyrant will invariably temper his actions in war out of a concern for how his adversary will respond, and he will likewise act out of a concern for maintaining and maximizing his own power. Political leaders can thus be deterred by actions (and threats of action) by other states. Members of al-Qaeda-like groups, by contrast, seek in all cases to inflict the maximum possible number of indiscriminate deaths on their enemies and demonstrate no concern about the lives of their members. They are therefore undeterrable, which means that the only way to combat them is to destroy them.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Sadaam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Sadaam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is calculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Husseins with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
The war in Iraq:
Supported by 7 UN resolutions.
A full vote in house and in the senate (with a majority of democrats voting yes).
Compare/contrast to Libya. And what is about to happen in Syria.
Yahoo found someone who likes Bambi's vision of war (not winning), exonerates him for screwing up the end game in Iraq (and probably for Benghazi) and then blames Bush so the reader won't want to continue to vote for a Republican.
Actually, it's perfect liberal logic........./oxymoron........
20 February 1998
TRANSCRIPT: TOWN HALL MEETING ON IRAQ AT OHIO STATE FEBRUARY 18
(Albright, Cohen, Berger outline U.S. goals in Iraq) (11350)
I was there. Heard it all, even the shouting from the CPUSA (”One, two, three, four. We don’t want your racist war.”)
"As I see it, there are three options:
1) Surrender. This means the end of globalization, withdrawal of any Americans who will come home to our shores, expulsion of the third world rabble from our land, and a militant defense of CONUS. I think this will prove more popular as an option than it appears now. Thirty years of Barney, Mr. Rogers, militant feminism and unrestricted immigration may have made this our only choice.
2) Trivial retaliation, and continued globalization with inadequate security. I expect Bush to choose this option. By trivial, I do not mean a few cruise missiles-I expect him to fight a Vietnam war in South Asia. We will have many dead, but we will not have victory-and we will have many more committed "terrorists" after we are finished than we do now. The toll on American assets abroad and on our national territory over the next hundred years will be horrific.
3) Carthaginian peace. There is a reason no young Japanese men are crashing planes into our aircraft carriers. It does not require "killing them all" or "paving Afghanistan", or any of that other BS. It does require turning the enemy masses from their present course, which empowers, encourages, and facilitates the martyrs of the future. We can (and we probably will) kill most of the present fighters-but we can't kill the system that births them unless we exceed the pain tolerance of their societies. This will be bloody, it will take years, and our European "allies" are going to turn on us after a few weeks.
I favor #3. I would reluctantly settle for #1.
I'm pretty sure we are going to get #2."
Linker was in a serious conflict with his boss and colleagues at the magazine First Things that ended with him dubbing them "theocons" and writing the kiss-and-tell screed, The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege.
That's an indication that maybe it wasn't all about Iraq. There was something else percolating in his cortex back then.
So I cry "BS!" in regard to this article. Yes, I literally cry it from the rooftops.
Who is this Damon guy? Never heard of him. Why would we care what he thinks? I have not considered myself a Republican for a long time, either, but that is because they are basically Democrats. It didn't mean I was going to join the Democrats.
Why post these inane and overly emotional thoughts of Damon 'conservatives are theocons' Linker on FR?
Wow. Very spot on. How depressing is that??
So why not become a libertarian. They generally have similar foreign policy views as Damon. Somehow this “conversion” rings hollow.
Be wary of another option. Some kind of merger of Christianity/Islam/Judaism into THE world religion.
The argument being that humanity cannot afford religious freedom anymore. And if Christians just give up their foolish devotion to the divinity of Jesus we are practically there.
When I came back from Vietnam I was a 1st Lt. I had saved money and went to buy a new Ford. I had half the vehicle paid for and needed a loan. I went to a bank in Massachusetts ( home state) and signed up for a loan. He handed me the paperwork and told me to come back after my father had signed. HUH? I had perfect credit and owed not one cent to anyone. I was a female and loans on cars and home needed a male cosigner. I walked out the door and went to a credit. co. They gladly gave me a loan I paid off in a year. I switched from Democrat to Republican because of the
Democrat horror show I had watched for over a year. I will never go back to the Democrat Party for any reason. Ever. I found them to be liars back then and still do. The GOP has warts. Democrats have a cancer that is ruining this nation.
Damon Linker(author) must be a Ferengi... all Ears but deaf as a post..
And the solution we found was called the "Texas Rangers".
The lesson taken from the Texas Rangers is, simply stated, "The best defense is a good offense". The Rangers took the war to the enemy in a big, unrelenting way, and it was very effective.