And this presidential candidate wants to increase defense spending and put more US troops everywhere.
Read it and weep, liberals. When it comes to foreign policy, Barack Obama appears little different from George Bush.
Politics in the Zeros
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Politics in the Zeros
"A republic, if you can keep it."
This should be no surprise. There hasn’t been a non-interventionist president, Democrat or Republican, since before FDR, and few since Teddy. It was a Democrat who got us into Vietnam (Truman), and a Republican who got us out (Nixon). Even Carter intervened in Afghanistan (where Osama Bin Laden was on our payroll). The only real difference between two schools of interventionism is the motive: Republicans (since Reagan) often seem to be in it for the money. Dems often seem to actually believe they are doing the right thing. Though history has shown that belief is all too often mistaken.
What DJ said. Isn’t he bringing that stuff to the table because he wouldn’t get elected otherwise?
I think Obama is a Clinton, slick and liberalish on the exterior, but not really liberal at all.
That Democratic populace opposes the war, even as few of their own ruling class does. That’s the disconnect that’s going on.
Clinton was the first of what is now a very large club: “What I believe is whatever you want to hear.” There was an editorial once in the LA Times that said, “Remember, Bill, when you’re in LA, you’re FOR the B-1 bomber. When you’re in San Francisco, you’re AGAINST it.”
This is in part a result of the two-party system, which eliminates choice. We’re going to elect one of the two, so tell ’em what they need to hear. I’m reminded of Sri Lanka’s political landscape, where the opposition party always opposes the war, and the incumbent party always supports it. When the two parties change positions, they change beliefs.