PDA

View Full Version : Doug Bandow: loving the Pentagon turns conservatives into big-spending liberals



Winehole23
02-07-2012, 04:09 PM
Advocates of a colossal military trash their opponents as “isolationists” who want to undermine America. Columnist Lurita Doan accused President Obama of seeking “to render our military neither well-armed nor well-planned.” New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon—neoconservatives are nothing if not globalist—charged that “hard-bitten Leninists and disciplined Marxists” were behind plans to reduce U.S. military outlays.

Just look at the hype. Reductions in military spending, we are told, would be “totally destructive” and “very dangerous to the survival of the country,” would “destroy” the Pentagon, set America on a “perilous course,” be “dangerous and irresponsible,” leave America “in the greatest peril,” “would decimate our military,” threaten America’s “national security interests,” be “totally devastating,” send “a very horrible message” to America’s enemies, create the “threat of gutting national security,” “break” the military, “invite aggression,” cause “severe and irreversible impact,” leave America “teetering on the precipice of disaster,” cause “catastrophic damage,” “put our national security on the chopping block,” leave “a hollow force,” “disarm the United States unilaterally,” result in “American lives lost,” fail “to provide for the safety and security of our country,” and call “into question our nation’s ability to remain a free people.”


All of this from returning military outlays to 2007 levels.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/attack-of-the-pork-hawks/

EVAY
02-07-2012, 04:50 PM
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/attack-of-the-pork-hawks/

This has essentially been the accusations leveled against anyone who disagreed with the military spending agendas of the Republican policies under Reagan, under Nixon, under GW Bush.

The questioning of anyone's patriotism who doesn't agree to spend whatever the Republican policy wants to spend is a long standing but not very pretty position.

Remember that the government grew under Reagan mostly because of his 'Star-Wars' programs, which to this day have yet to show effectiveness.

Remember how much Cheney decried Democratic opponents who were running against them because they were 'soft' on terrorism? It was just what Nixon and Reagan used to say about being 'soft' on Communism.

It belies the actual agenda of the GOP since Nixon, and that is not to have
less governemt, but to have less social programs in favor of more military programs.

During Clinton's presidency, the Republican Congress did actually cut military spending and foreign aid spending due the perceived 'peace dividend' accruable to the end of the Cold War.

Remember Charlie Wilson's War?

Winehole23
02-07-2012, 05:03 PM
During Clinton's presidency, the Republican Congress did actually cut military spending and foreign aid spending due the perceived 'peace dividend' accruable to the end of the Cold War. ...and swiftly blamed Bill Clinton for gutting the military, I seem to recall.


It belies the actual agenda of the GOP since Nixon, and that is not to have
less governemt, but to have less social programs in favor of more military programs.Very true. Both parties favor big government, but with slightly different flavors, as revealed by historical spending patterns. BTW, Dems like a real big military too, and Republicans, loathe as they are to stress it publicly, pioneered the greatest expansion of public entitlement since the Great Society.

Winehole23
02-07-2012, 05:04 PM
Medicare Part D