Posted on 07/27/2013 1:46:41 PM PDT by Route797
In the last month, conservatives looking for a possible 2016 presidential candidate with a serious approach to defense and foreign policy were starting to wonder if they would be stuck with outliers rather than frontrunners. The only reason why people like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and Rep. Peter King—men who are respected voices on these issues but not likely to have a chance at the nomination—were getting even minimal attention for their presidential trial balloons was the fact that all of the likely contenders have been ignoring the question of America’s need to maintain a forward position in the world and in the war on Islamist terror.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
If there is nothing but Democrats on the ticket, the future of the GOP is the least of our worries.
He is a ‘Rat masquerading as a Republican.
I’m just plain sick of seeing American lives and money being wasted in the mideast anyway. The whole place is worse today than it was 10 years ago.
I’m a bit smaller than Gov. Christie and there’s no way I would be able to take the stresses and strains of the presidency. If he were to select Gov. Palin as his running mate I might vote for them [wink, wink]
Rand Paul will not have trouble convincing the American people to be sympathetic to his basically neoisolationist philosophy. It is very difficult to demonstrate to the average American on how all the foreign costly entanglements have benefited the United States.
Chris Christie isn’t even ANY candidate, at the moment. Not ready for prime time as a Democrat, his support lies in tatters at moment even among the Establishment GOP. It will take a lot more than has already been done to properly groom this fence-straddler for national office.
William Howard Taft was much more remembered for his corpulent girth than for any great executive accomplishments. Is Chris Christie trying to achieve similar distinction?
Are donuts considered foreign policy... or brown nosing obama?
LLS
Christi is a fat pig RINO... sueeeeeeeeeeeee....
Here is what I would like to see for the GOP nominee’s foreign policy. Seal the borders to keep foreigners foreign. Stop granting citizenship, asylum, residencies and student visas to members of societies or cultures that have been at perpetual, mostly undeclared war against western culture for over 1,000 years. Stop funding and hosting the United Nations. If we have a war, let’s declare one and decimate our enemies before trying to win hearts and minds. Stop protecting enemy civilian populations over the well being of our troops with ridiculous rules of engagement.
That will do for a start.
I can sum up what I want in foreign policy in three words:
AMERICA FIRST ALWAYS
Christie is the quintessential GOP candidate—an overstuffed sack of hot air with a complete disregard for the Constitution.
Conservatives are no longer welcome in that party, if they ever were...
Foreign policy to Krispy Kreme, is a diet and good health.
I’m no libertarian but the GOP has to stop being the party of Any war, Any time, for Any reason.
Absolutely. If we do have to use force... declare war and destroy the enemy... come home... no nation building and no aid. Let the un clean up.
LLS
exactly
My grandfather fought in Europe but I think watching Korea is why he was willing to help my uncles stay away from Vietnam. One went to college and the other went into the National Guard.
He was anything but anti military but I don’t think he was ever prouder of me than the day he took me to sign up with the selective service.
Well Jersey is certainly "foreign", so he has has more experience than cankles and so far he hasn't abandoned an ambassador and heroes to be slaughtered.
We haven’t fought an all out war to win in a long time. Our guys could end all of this crap quickly if they were allowed to go all out on these enemies but politicians will never commit and never declare war... which would demand execution of war. I thought maybe with Bush things would be different... but he was just another political animal. No doubt he loved the troops... and they him... but he should have followed General Franks advice. He also should never have bought into the nation building garbage. The only way nation building has ever worked is where we have so decimated the enemy... so decimated his civilian population that when our guys rolled in with clean water, food and clothing... the enemy would bow down in thanks. This goes right to the heart of not fighting an all out war to win.
That is fantastic about you and your grandfather!
LLS
Granddad trusted Reagan. I turned 18 in 82 and he knew that Reagan wasn’t going to send me off to fight in a pointless war.
We could really use some of that Reagan restraint today.
You are correct and remember when (I think it was sam donaldson) asked Reagan with regards to the soviets as to what his plan was for the cold war... Reagan answered, “We win, they lose”. He didn’t take the use of force lightly.
LLS
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
Rand Paul will not have trouble convincing the American people to be sympathetic to his basically neoisolationist philosophy.
&&&
What is the point in being an isolationist if you are willing to let illegals flood the country?
He has a number of policies that are foreign to us.
Yep - this article is just an attempt to try to sell folks that he has some "niche" qualities because they know that nobody in their right mind respects him anymore.
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.