Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Fri Sep 12, 2014, 09:47 AM Sep 2014

If Republicans want full-scale war, they should say so

By Paul Waldman

While there were a few Republicans who reacted favorably to President Obama’s speech last night describing what we will be doing to combat ISIS, the reaction from most on the right was predictably negative. Which is fine — it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, after all. But when you hear what they have to say, you notice a yawning gap in their criticisms: They were missing clear articulation of what exactly Republicans would prefer that we do.

After Obama spoke, John McCain shouted at Jay Carney that everything would have been fine if we had never removed troops from Iraq, saying “the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is.” He and Lindsey Graham later released a statement advocating a bunch of stuff we’re already doing, along with some language that sounded like they might be advocating waging war on the Syrian government, but it’s hard to be sure. Ted Cruz said Obama’s speech was “fundamentally unserious” because it was insufficiently belligerent and fear-mongering.

Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: “War is hell. So go big or go home, Mr. President. Big means bold, confident, wise assurance from a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief that it shall all be worth it. Charge in, strike hard, get out. Win.” Which is about the “strategy” you’d get for defeating ISIS if you asked a third-grader.

The only one who was clear on what they would do instead, oddly enough, was Dick Cheney. He pronounced Obama’s strategy insufficient in a speech bordering on the insane, in which he essentially advocated waging war in every corner of the earth.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/11/if-republicans-want-full-scale-war-they-should-say-so/?tid=rssfeed

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Republicans want full-scale war, they should say so (Original Post) n2doc Sep 2014 OP
"missing clear articulation of what exactly Republicans would prefer that we do" LisaLynne Sep 2014 #1
There is the dillemma to be a Republican you have to fear or hate someone. gordianot Sep 2014 #2

LisaLynne

(14,554 posts)
1. "missing clear articulation of what exactly Republicans would prefer that we do"
Fri Sep 12, 2014, 09:53 AM
Sep 2014

I think that's true of pretty much ALL their "criticism" of the President. They don't like what he's doing, but they don't know what they would do differently. They either DON'T have any ideas or some of them may have ideas that they know that can't really tell everybody. Unless they are Dick Cheney who is, as the article hints, insane.

gordianot

(15,234 posts)
2. There is the dillemma to be a Republican you have to fear or hate someone.
Fri Sep 12, 2014, 10:32 AM
Sep 2014

Therefore you must be in a constant war with those who are not you.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Republicans want full-...