Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
I am not aware of the increases you are referring to, but it sounds like Obama was continuing with what he thought was a productive course of action started by W. Things have changed since then. Would you have Obama ignore the recent changes in Lybia and continue with aid to Libya?Not true. Just because the US is not willing to allow Qaddafi to wipe out large chunks of his country's population does not mean that we are engaged in regime change, even if that is the result we would prefer.
Having said that, I am not convinced that Obama should have gotten us into this Lybia thing.That's for people much better informed than I, but I like how he is getting other countries to carry the load for a change. As a broad generalization, Obama seems to be pragmatic, which is probably a good thing.
|
I don't disagree. A good argument can be made for no foreign excursions for US military power. But Obama intervenes in some (apparently) civil disputes, and not in others. There are literally dozens of repressive regimes around the world who kill or oppress their populace. What prevents us from intervening there?
I'm just looking for consistency. ( Evidently Hillary, too, is fed up with the apparent lack of consistency and wants out as Sec State)
As for Newt, his role, IMO, is similar to Palin's. Both of them can solidify the conservative base (and funding) for the GOP--provided the GOP leadership pursues a conservative approach. If they continue being " me too, but not as liberals as the dems" they will be rejected by the conservatives and then we will have a GOP split and three parties. Who knows what might come out of that?
Newt's marital woes are no worse than Bill C's, and no one seemed too concerned over that. Unless its a purely partisan thing.
Newt SAYS most of the right things for a Conservative. The trouble is, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says--and THAT is important for a conservative candidate.