Neo-Cons Appear To Still Control Republican Candidates

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 9, 2011.

  1. I called the good citizens of Iowa naive hicks for appearing to be intoxicated on the gingrich koolaid. Maybe I owe them an apology. I think I am the naive hick.

    I really thought after the disastrous Bush presidency the twin neo-con doctrines of trying to convert backward middle eastern states into Switzerland and making Russia sorry they ever broke up the USSR were totally discredited. Apparently not.

    We get the weekly spectacle of Rick Santorum hissing at Ron Paul in the endless debates that Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy somehow puts us at risk. Excuse me, but were we following it when Reagan sent marines to Lebanon in the '80's to get blown up? When we sent our soldiers off to fight for the kings of Kuwait and Saui Arabia, leading to embassy bombings and 9/11? When we invaded Iraq and thereby handed iran the big prize it had long coveted? When we invaded Afghanistan and thus created an impossible situation with ally/enemy Pakistan?

    Now we get more insane attempts to expand NATO. Can someone even tell me why there still is a NATO? It was formed to counter the USSR, which was thought to be a threat towestern europe. Well, there is no more USSR, there is no more easte and weat Germany or europe, there is no threat of an invasion, except by job hunters and rich mobsters. But still, NATO lumbers on, trying to invent reasons for its existence, other than to provide a cushy billet and resume enhancer for the brass of member nations.

    As revolting as Obama is, the alternatives seem to be doing their best to remind us why he got elected in the first place.

    PrintForwardMarco Rubio vs. Rand Paulby Patrick J. Buchanan12/09/2011
    CommentsIn August 2008, as the world's leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

    It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of Russia. As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into Russia.

    Saakashvili's blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

    Until, that is, Russian armor, on Vladimir Putin's orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili's army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

    The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on Iran.

    The humiliation of Saakashvili was total, and brought an enraged and frustrated John McCain running to the microphones.

    "Today, we're all Georgians," bawled McCain.

    Well, not exactly.

    President Bush called Putin's response "disproportionate" and "brutal," but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

    What made this war of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into NATO. Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

    And had Georgia been a member of NATO when Saakashvili began his war, U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

    A U.S war with Russia -- over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

    Days later, there came another startling discovery.

    McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia's side in any clash with Russia.

    What makes this history relevant today?

    Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone's short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia's plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

    Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

    Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

    And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

    The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it -- Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote.

    The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

    Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the excesses of Russia's response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous rage and ready for military action.

    In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia had conducted an "invasion," that Georgia had been a "victim of aggression," that America had "fiddled while Georgia burned," that we had played the "paper tiger"when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.

    As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved results "approaching Neville Chamberlain's moment in the spotlight at Munich."

    But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?

    "This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury's rule in South Ossetia," scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this "rape" because brave little Georgia refused to be "Finlandized."

    Restoring America's credibility, said Bolton, now requires "drawing a clear line for Russia" in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

    And who is John Bolton?

    Newt Gingrich told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary of state.

    With Newt appointing as America's first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney's foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with Iran, a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

    Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
  2. Max E.

    Max E.

    All i can do is shake my head in disbelief when i watch the republican debates and all the candidates on stage besides Ron Paul are trying to "1 up" each other on who would go to war with Iran first. Fucking idiots learned nothing from the last decade.

    For the life of me, I cant understand who buys into that bullshit, and how that type of attitude garners votes.
  3. Our only REAL hope is Ron Paul. The MSM can/will prevent him from advancing.. so we're left with a gaggle of fools... perhaps none of whom can defeat Odumbo and the greedy bastard parasites... what a tragedy for America THAT would be.

    :mad: :mad:
  4. Neo-Cons run the GOP. Accept that, and decide what you are going to do about it.

    Neo-Cons, which most you are, will definitely hand Obama the election in 2012.

    Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, likes Neo-Cons.
  5. Lucrum


    That's strange I read earlier today that "progressives run every facet of this nation". AND it was written by a self important guy who claims to be always right and a master debater to boot.
  6. Maverick74


    Obama is a neo-con. So is our Secretary of State. And you were saying?
  7. jem



    the neo cons (the people) are running both parties right now. I think the leftists of the world should learn who the founders of the neo con movement were.
  8. damn. is it possible that a light was switched on and some of you are figuring out that you really dont want to live in the republican worldview that is being offered to you?
  9. Maverick74


    Neo-conservatism came from the left, not the right. They are socialist jews for the most part. And atheist.
  10. Well if you had even a piece of a brain, you would exempt certain obvious things, like the GOP, you dumbass.
    #10     Dec 9, 2011