Joe Scarborough: For Too Long, McCain, Kristol, Graham & Lieberman Have Defined GOP Foreign Policy
More on the Asscrackistan crack-up among conservatives:
And more here, as well.
... Anybody that understands how the conservative movement runs, how the Republican Party runs, there are columnists that people listen to. Ann Coulter is one of them on the hard right. And when Ann Coulter starts coming out, criticizing Republican foreign policy, policy that you can date back to George W. Bush and the second inaugural address . . . you know a real debate's about to begin in the Republican Party.
The party has been the party of endless wars now for the past five, six, seven years, with George W. Bush promising to export democracy across the globe and, quote, end tyranny across the globe. The debate's begun.
For too long you have had John McCain and you've had Bill Kristol, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman define what it meant to be a Republican when it came to foreign policy. When, in fact, historically, the Republican Party has usually been for restraint. They've been accused of being isolationists in the past and it seems like a small group of people want to fight every war at every corner of the planet and not good for the party. . . . This is a very important op-ed that Ann Coulter wrote yesterday.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party Redux
The War Party [UPDATED]
Labels: Conservatism, Military, Republicans, The Stupid Party, War on Terror
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:02 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
In fact, Coulter's column applauded Bush's policies, but criticized the changes Obama has made to it, such as the surge in Afghanistan.
Yeah, the dustup isn't over Steele criticizing the war in Afghanistan, the dustup is the way Steele presented things. After all, the chairman re-affirmed that he supports the war in Afghanistan. His mangled comment was more of a jibe at Obama's expense, considering that candidate Obama presented Afghanistan as the "good" war and Iraq as the "bad" war, and we need to concentrate our efforts on the good war - and now look at how he's mucking things up.
And as Paul said, Coulter and Kristol are pretty much on the same side of things when it comes to the war.
Lastly, Scorborough is an idiot - oh no I'm not saying this because of what he said here, it's just a general comment. I'm positive the guy probably needs assistance tying his shoes in the morning.
Actually, looking even more closely at Coulter's column, I think my comments about Scarborough's mental acuity definitely apply here. I mean this:
. And when Ann Coulter starts coming out, criticizing Republican foreign policy,
is pretty much the opposite of what she wrote. Did Joe even read past the headline on Coulter's column?
Finally, let me just add that this doesn't mean I disagree with all or even much of what Jay has brought up about this dichotomy. I think there's something to the idea of moving away from the William Kristol ideas on foreign policy (though I probably am not as far off from Kristol as Jay or Scarborough). It's just that I think Scarborough is misrepresenting what the beef is all about. But then he does work for MSNBC, and I can only imagine what repeated exposure to the same air that Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews breath must do to someone.
Post a Comment
<< Home