The War Party Redux
I originally posted this as an update to my original post on the subject, but have decided that it merited a post of its own.
I don't normally go in for Ann Coulter ... her vitriolic brand of commentary isn't my style, nor do I believe it to be all that effective except in throwing some red meat to the true believers.
That said, I have to give the girl credit for knocking this one out of the park::
... But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.(emphasis added)
What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!
Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party [UPDATED]