While hypocritical Democrats were hiding under their beds today instead of pointing out that Barack Obama has turned into Lyndon Johnson, the Libertarians Party is not afraid to call out the president on his ill-conceived "surge-then-surrender" strategy in Afghanistan.Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, said in a prepared statement, "Rush Limbaugh should buy Obama a nice cigar. The liberal president has done exactly what the conservative leader wanted: escalate the war."
William Redpath, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, issued this comment: "This is further evidence that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, at most, rhetorical. This president, whose votes made him the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has just announced an escalation of a foreign war. His campaign promise of 'Change' now sounds a lot more hollow."
Redpath continued, "Some congressional Democrats may make a rhetorical show of opposing Obama's decision, but that is all it will be. Obama is guaranteed to get the additional troops and funding that he wants."
Redpath continued, "Instead, Congress should re-assert its authority in matters of war, by passing legislation that terminates the president's authorization to make war in Afghanistan, and that calls for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. If the president vetoes it, Congress should override the veto."
In September 2008, the Libertarian National Committee adopted a resolution calling for a military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Benedict commented further, "One problem with the president's strategy is that it demonstrates a hyperinflated fear of terrorists. When we act worried and threatened, we make the terrorists feel like they're having their intended effect, which encourages them to keep doing what they're doing."
Redpath continued, "According to the Cato Institute, 'the U.S. military's counterinsurgency doctrine says that stabilizing a country the size of Afghanistan would require far more troops than the most wild-eyed hawk has proposed: about 600,000 troops.' President Obama is proposing to put a total of about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, which won't come close to accomplishing anything."
Redpath concluded, "The president's speech was surprisingly content-free. The speech was nearly all platitudes, which is typical for politicians, particularly presidents. Will someone please restore substance to American political discourse?"
1 comment:
IT’S OBAMA’S WAR!
It belongs to Obama. His rules of war differ from professional military. The soldiers sent into the war zone have one mission, which is to “watch your back.” The enemy is both in front and behind. The most recent proof of that is the three Navy Seals who, accomplishing their mission to capture a known terrorist, are accused by that terrorist with unnecessary roughness. He was punched in the mouth. He must be treated as a criminal suspect would be treated when arrested by our police, with care, comfort and lack of stress. He is innocent until proven guilty, must be thoroughly informed of his rights under our Constitution, be provided legal counsel before questioning, and treated with greater respect than he treated his victims. God help the soldier who mistreats an enemy combatant on the battlefield, lest he have Congressman Murtha or Senator Kerry publicly charging him with overly violent behavior. Our soldiers who mistreat an enemy will be tried in a military court, while the terror suspect would be tried in an American civilian court under American trial rules, say in New York or San Francisco. When released, as expected, he will be well rewarded and allowed to settle into an American neighborhood, compliments of the American taxpayer. That is how Obama’s war will be fought, mainly against our own troops. Obama must prove to his anti-American American supporters that he is ready to allow America to be destroyed in more ways than just by his legislation. Claysamerica.com
Post a Comment