A Republican candidate for president in 2012 today has the opportunity to distance himself from the pack by declaring that America’s self-interest is not being threatened by Libya. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor facts on the ground support American military intervention in Libya. Some neo-cons are now referring to Republicans as the party of freedom and suggesting that liberations and invasions are one in the same thing.
For most of my adult life I had been a Republican. I am strongly pro-business, anti-union, pro-states’ rights, limited central government, and a firm believer in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Well, after eight years of President George Bush and his neo-con-based handlers, I had had it. Even though I was not enthused about a potential John McCain presidency, in the end, I voted for Mr. McCain because his pile of negatives was smaller than those of his Marxist-influenced opponent.
Today we are stuck looking at a list of warmed-over RINOs and neo-cons. The folk I see talked up as Republican presidential candidates would not have been held in any esteem by the founders I most admire—Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, John Taylor of Caroline and Nathaniel Macon. In his “Farewell Address,” George Washington, cautioning against alliances with any portion of the world, urged the United States to maintain a position of neutrality and avoid European entanglements. In his inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson expressed his desire for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. President Jefferson would have had no part of the nation-building activity continuing in Afghanistan or the attack on Libya. Libya poses absolutely no risk to the security of American citizens. In fact, once again butting our nose where it does not belong is likely to heighten risk for America in a variety of ways too obvious to enumerate here.
Some Republicans are calling for their party to embrace a candidate who will be for freedom at home and abroad. Was that not the goal of the Bush administration? If so, the job was botched beyond recognition. This was highlighted by the Franks/Rumsfeld failure to kill bin Laden as they recklessly roared into Iraq with a poorly thought-out plan and hideous execution. Meanwhile, a decade later, the U.S. and our allies maintain over 350 bases in Afghanistan with no stated endgame. In the year just completed, a record number of U.S. casualties were recorded. And all of this has something to do with the Party of Freedom? Some party.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Why is Angela Merkel Building a European Army Outside NATO? - May 24, 2017
- Immigrant Men Terrorize Women in Paris - May 24, 2017
- The U.S. Shouldn’t Fight another War for Oil it Doesn’t Need - May 23, 2017