Posted on 03/10/2014 12:54:40 PM PDT by McGruff
WASHINGTON -- The rallying cry at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference here last week was that President Obama had failed to show strength on foreign policy, but a new CNN poll found that even among Republicans, few support U.S. military involvement -- or even military assistance -- in the Ukraine crisis.
A plurality of respondents (48%) approved of Obama’s handling of the situation in Ukraine, the poll found. That figure was higher than the president's overall job-approval rating, which has hovered in the low 40s.
Russia has sent troops into the Crimean peninsula and encouraged what Obama has called an “illegal” referendum on March 16 that is to decide whether Crimea secedes from Ukraine to become part of Russia.
About 59% of poll respondents said they favored imposing economic sanctions on Russia -- a move that the president put in play last week when he authorized the Treasury secretary to freeze the assets of people found to be involved in subverting Ukraine's democracy or invading its territory.
However, fewer than half, 46%, said they favored providing economic assistance to the Ukrainian government. Secretary of State John F. Kerry traveled to Kiev last week to offer $1 billion in loan guarantees, part of what the administration hopes will be a larger aid package led by European nations.
Some Republicans, most notably Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have argued that the administration should be taking a more forceful approach. But CNN’s poll numbers indicate there is little public appetite for any sort of military involvement in Ukraine, even among Republicans, after a decade of intense engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The Svoboda Party in Ukraine has been identified as a Neo-Nazi organization by the Simon Weisanthal Foundation.
There are at least a half dozen Svoboda members in senior Ministry positions in the radical Kiev government, including the heads of the Defense & Interior Ministries as well as the prosecutors office and the intelligence service.
What other label would you assign such a regime?
The greatest irony is that the politicians who seem most concerned about protecting the Ukraine’s southern border (McCain, Graham, Clinton) are the same ones who are least concerned about protecting America’s southwest border from a de facto invasion. Could it be a case of displaced guilt by people who care so much about the sovereignty of other nations because they don’t give a damn about their own?
Liberal Rag and What It Really Said:
“Alert: War Mongers Deny Their True Selves!”
Liberal Rags being what they are, never expect the truth.
Here’s the truth:
1. The Ukraine is on Russia’s border.
2. Russia isn’t anytime soon going to be staging on the Arizona border to take back Cali, Az, NM, and NV from the US. Trying to stage on the border of a nuclear superpower is stupid.
3. Obama denied an ABM shield to all Russia’s neighbors...including the Ukraine. Therefore, Russia has automatic air superiority...supremacy probably.
4. There is absolutely no hope of a surprise attack in this high tech age UNLESS we’re talking nuclear.
Yeah. I was a bit miffed by that too.
Except among McCain, Graham, Cruz...
I wonder how much of the opposition is because everybody on the planet knows the Commander in Chief is a twit. I can’t see him doing anything but throwing away “the flower of our youth.”
Consider Afghanistan. The need arose for a “surge,” so Obastard asked Petreius how many troops it would require. “40,000 minimum or the effort will be a failure at a great loss of life.”
Obastard: “Here are 30,000 troops.” And then he’s shocked it fails and gets a lot of soldiers killed with his ridiculous ROE. I don’t want this Kenyan usurper sending US troops anywhere, at any time, if he won’t listen to his Generals. I’m disappointed the poll numbers against action aren’t a bit closer to 100%, Rats and Pubbies. All kinds of people have children in the service. Nobody wants them treated as cannon fodder.
Never let historical facts stand in the way of propaganda tropes. The media's narrative has been "Democrats/Liberals = Peace, Republicans/Conservatives = War" since at least the 1960's.
Not that I have any use for them, but as far as I'm aware not even McCain and his girlfriend Graham are actually advocating that the US goes to war with Russia over Crimea, so the whole premise is a strawman from the get-go. If anything, Hillary came closest to pushing for open conflict with her "Hitler" comments.
Nobody I’ve spoken to thinks it’s rational to get involved beyond providing material support and assisting the Uks in arming up to prevent future forays beyond the Sudetenland.. I mean Crimea...
As history repeats itself we need to be reminded that weakness begets aggression. It might not be here, it might not even be in Asia but the bad guys are taking notes and reading the polls too and sooner or later they’ll act.
“...beyond providing material support and assisting the Uks in arming up to prevent future forays beyond the Sudetenland.. I mean Crimea...”
Ha! A nice lite touch there! And I agree. We don’t need to throw troops everywhere but that nice missile defense that Poland wanted is worth another look as well as a few toys for Ukraine and other pals.
When all else fails, play the Hitler card.
Saddam was "Hitler," Milosevic was "Hitler," Assad is "Hitler," now it's Putin's turn. With somebody crying wolf over a new Hitler of the month each time I glance at a website, it's understandable that people have gotten a little skeptical.
The NeoCon Republicans were the first to want to intervene in Libya. The Realist Republicans opposed. Bob Gates, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker very publicly opposed. It was only after the Liberal Interventionist democrats negotiated the multilateral agreement that Obama intervened. The multilateral agreement was set up by Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary.
The NeoCons praised Obama for intervening. Bill Kristol proclaimed Obama to be a "Born Again NeoCon". Of course they criticized him too, saying he should have gone in immediately instead of waiting for the multilateral agreement. And since Obama went in multilaterally, they complained he was leading from behind. Hardcore NeoCon John Bolton complained because Obama didn't put boots on the ground in Libya.
As for arming the Syrian rebels, look at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to arm the rebels in May of 2013. That passed the committee 15 to 3. The NeoCons(R), the Realists(R & D), and the liberal interventionists(D) voted yes. The 3 no votes were the 2 antiwar dems(Udall and Murphy) plus the GOP isolationist Randy Paul. After that vote, Mike Lee joined Paul, Udall, and Murphy on legislation to block the arming.
Its not about a Republican versus Democrat. Its about NeoCons, Realists, and Liberal Interventionists.
On the recent issue of imposing additional sanctions on Iran before the negotiations played out, The NeoCons(led by Sen Kirk) and the Liberal Interventionists(led by Sen Menendez) wanted the additional sanctions. The Realists led by Sen Feinstein(D) and Sen Corker(R) opposed the additional sanctions. The antiwar dems and GOP isolationists also opposed the sanctions.
Hey Ukraine: you disbanded your military because we promised to protect you.
Bet you feel like morons now. :)
Neocons and Liberal Interventionists usually differ only in rhetoric (liberal interventionists tend to use more "humanitarian" sugar-coat for their crusades, but there's plenty of overlap here), not in substance. Both hark back to the Wilsonian tradition.
Come to think of it, most neocons are closer to liberals on a whole host of issues, from support for the welfare state (albeit less "wasteful") to support for liberal immigration policy than they do with traditional conservatives. Makes you wonder why neoconservatives don't just go back to the Democratic party where they belong and leave the GOP to the realists and libertarians.
PS - Which prominent Democrats are foreign policy realists? It seems to me that Democrats are either Wilsonian internationalists (the majority) or George McGovern-style pacifists (mostly a thing of the past). The only really prominent Democratic realist who comes to mind is the aging Zbiegnew Brzezinski. In contrast, in the GOP you have Wilsonian internationalists (neocons), realists (Reaganites), and “isolationists” (libertarians, paleoconservatives).
Can’t think of any compelling reasons to send Americans to die for Ukraine either.
The NeoCons say the new world order can't be built on multilateral agreements.
The party ‘Right Sector’ uses the Wolfsangel symbol on their armbands. Same as the 2nd SS Das Reich divisions emblem. They began as the socialist nationalist party.
We are being fed propaganda. But what makes you think only one side is feeding it to you?
For extra credit, explain why Lindsey, McCain, Hillary, the EU, and Obama agree with you.
In the senate Feinstein and Nelson(FL). John Kerry. Joe Biden(joined at the hip with Lugar), Obama(Lugar was his mentor)(Zbig was Obama’s mentor at Columbia?), Leon Panetta. When you say Zbig, include Sam Nunn and Lee Hamilton with Zbig.
The party ‘Right Sector’ uses the Wolfsangel symbol on their armbands. Same as the 2nd SS Das Reich divisions emblem. They began as the socialist nationalist party.
We are being fed propaganda. But what makes you think only one side is feeding it to you?
For extra credit, explain why Lindsey, McCain, Hillary, the EU, and Obama agree with you.
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.