-Presidential Debate Sees G.O.P. Shift on Use of Force-Where was this GOP in 2003?

It's fun watching the neo-conservatives within the Republican establishment pretending to be fiscal conservatives
It must be kind of maddening for people like Dr. Paul, though, as he watches his own message be co-opted and distorted by people like Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman.

Is it just a coincidence that we now have a 'new' batch of Republicans a few years removed from the 2003 vote to invade Iraq contradicting the party's previous mantra of "big military all the time, Go USA!"

Not that anyone thinks there is any substance to their claims. One can see quite quickly that their criticism remains heavily partisan, and is not bringing into question larger foreign policy questions that actually got us into this mess in the first place. It's mainly a way to try and A) steal some of Ron Paul's fire, B) perpetuate the notion that the results of our our foreign policy over the past decade is somehow solely the result of the current party in the WH.

But still, perhaps one can see a light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe the neo-conservatives like Romney and the Christian, Social Conservatives like Bachman are seeing the light? That we can no longer afford, nor justify spending trillions of foreign policy while neglecting our infrastructure at home?



Pretend Libertarians

Mitt Romney campaigning in Derry, N.H., on Tuesday. In the Republican presidential debate on Monday night, he said it was "time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can."

....

“But I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation,” he said. “Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former governor of Utah who just finished a two-year stint as ambassador to China in the Obama administration, said Tuesday that the cost of a continued military presence was a leading factor in his belief that a major troop drawdown should begin in Afghanistan.

“We were not attacked,” Ms. Bachmann said. “We were not threatened with attack.”

of course, in 2007, she said: "the dangers posed by Islamic terrorism in Iraq, Britain and Pakistan justified the continued American military presence in Iraq." She continued; "We don't want to see al-Qaida get a presence in the United States. Al-Qaida doesn't seem to show any signs of letting up. We have to keep that in mind."

John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a Republican spokesman on the Senate Armed Services Committee during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, said Tuesday that the party’s unified approach to foreign policy is steadily shifting. “Republicans clearly sense fatigue among voters with our decade-long effort in Afghanistan, particularly after the killing of Bin Laden and the lack of a reliable partner,” Mr. Ullyot said. “There is no stampede yet, but more Republicans are willing to raise tougher questions when it comes to committing our forces and sustaining long-term and costly engagements.”

www.nytimes.com...

politicians speak with a forked tongue and out of both sides of their mouths. i don't know if the are oblivious to their hypocrisy, don't care or still think the american people are as stupid as they think they are.

i suspect it's a combination of all three.

i have yet to hear any politician say the word peace.

It would be nice to see Ron Paul take the posers to task a bit more in one of these debates.

Maybe he thinks it works in his favor to have them watering down his talking points?