Sunday, March 20, 2011

GOP missing opportunity to become Anti-War party

I may be going out on a limb here, but after years of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now taking sides in a civil war in Libya, the GOP is acting more like a “me too” party instead of drawing a clear distinction between themselves and President Obama.

Where is it written in stone that the GOP always has to be for war, any war?

In the 1960s during Viet Nam, the GOP was the anti-war party.

I think getting sucked into the conflict in Libya, which by the way increases spending,, is a missed opportunity for the GOP to pivot and make a push to pulling all our troops from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and include that in the argument to cut spending.

Let president Obama defended continuing the war if he wants. And if he doesn’t and agrees, it cuts spending anyway, and the GOP would have taken the lead on the isuue.

The mood of the Middle East has shifted towards regime change which makes Afghanistan and Iraq redundant. The United States has spent enough blood and treasure in the Middle East and that’s exactly the argument the GOP needs to make now this time with a Democrat in the White House.

Stop being a bunch of “me too” and start drawing bold colors.


  1. I wonder if other conservative bloggers will write the same.

  2. For a lot of different reasons voters saw what they wanted to see in Obama. In some very real respects he’s no different than Bush on foreign policy. That said ultimately the fault lies with the American people. Something is wrong with the system if no matter who you vote for, you get war. Wonder if Obama feels that he has to overcompensate to show that he’s not “Palin’ around with terrorists”. This action against Libya is truly hypocritical and disgusting, especially when you consider what the ruler of Yemen just did.


FAIR WARNING-Due to high volume of Anonymous spam comments Anonymous comments will be automatically deleted. Spam is not welcome here.