-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
To her great credit, Sarah Palin is absolutely right on target in her insistence on maintaining a strong defense. Yesterday’s Washington Post featured a little report about how Palin is “waging a battle inside the “tea party” movement to exempt defense spending from the group’s small-government, anti-deficit fervor.” Good for her. The GOP Class of 1994 in Congress had too many members who did the same thing Palin warns against: letting their admirable enthusiasm for lower deficits/balanced budgets get in the way of a commitment to putting national defense first. Palin rightly warns against abandoning the central part of the Reagan belief system that insisted that freedom at home is dependent on a strong, unmatched military — firmly under civilian control, of course, and fully answerable to the need for efficiency and effectiveness, but not subject to arbitrary budget limits. Palin even directly took on that extremely disappointing Defense Secretary, Robert Gates: “Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers. He went on to ask, ‘Do we really need … more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?’ ” Palin said. “Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must.”
Hear, hear. Praise for Palin. Conservatives, and all Americans, should listen.
View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/09/praise-for-palin
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The Welfarians
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 7.9.10 @ 4:51PM
Military spending should be reduced, BUT ONLY AFTER SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN THE HUGE WELFARE EXPENDATURES ARE MADE. The socialists Democrats should be made to cut/reduce their historical WEALTH REDISTRIBUTING welfare that they use as a quid-pro-quo for thei indigent-constituents' votes. After same is reduced/eliminated [or converted into WORKFARE, where recipients are required to perform minial labor for their government benefits]; then discussion can be contemplated on reducing military expendatures where absolutely ellential to eliminate waste/fraud/abuse. With Muslim extremists as the greatest threat to our security, we don't need supersonic bombers and missles to deal with same!!!!!!
JR| 7.10.10 @ 6:56PM
Just remember, most of these terrorist thugs are sponsored by Islamic countries that would love nothing better than to see the USA crawl into a corner somewhere and become a third world. Look at Turkey, who up until recently was a candidate for NATO. My goodness, what a disaster that would have been.
Regretably, force is still the universal language that gets the most respect. Those that are afraid, or can't, use it will continue to be bullied by those that do. Military certainty will breed peace, not the other way around. Been that way for centuries and remains so today, more than ever. Our leadership would rather that little truism just go away.
Oldefarte| 7.9.10 @ 4:53PM
With THE CHOSEN ONE now having NASA performing political outreach activities to the Muslim community, the current deficit/debt problems should no doubt disappear from the cost reductions from same [just kidding!]!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary| 7.9.10 @ 4:58PM
Sarah Palin has common sense. Something sorely lacking in Washington.
We need to focus like a laser on 2010, and taking back Congress, but I so look forward to seeing Sarah Palin take the Oath of Office as President of these United States on January 20, 2013.
Lee Von| 7.9.10 @ 5:07PM
Sarah Palin is full of common sense solutions and needs to be listened to.
dad29| 7.9.10 @ 5:39PM
By all means, let's keep troops in Japan, Germany, and Croatia (or whatever.)
NOTHING could be more important than those installations, right?
Not even national bankruptcy.
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 7:48PM
Conservatives don't think you can remove troops just like THAT; they think you have to play the cards you are dealt with.
But if you can figure a way to do disengage from our foreign entanglements, please let us know how.
dad29| 7.10.10 @ 9:18AM
Agreed that we don't simply call them home tomorrow.
So to the obvious:
1) Determine if there is a problem which DOES require troop-presence;
2) Determine what such presence should be (minimum, not maximum);
3) Implement rational and justifiable changes.
It's one thing to advocate for national defense. It's another thing entirely to defend all of Western Civilization (and non-civilizations such as Afghanistan) from imaginary threats.
RacerJim| 7.11.10 @ 1:22PM
By all means, let's keep adding and expanding domestic "redistribution of wealth" and/or "social justice" programs.
NOTHING could be more important than those ideological programs, correct?
Not even national defense which, lacking same, relegates all else to inconsequential. Yes/no?
John MacC__| 7.11.10 @ 7:28PM
To DAD29. Ever hear of prepositioning? Having a force closer to the enemy is cheaper (and not just financially) than keeping them here at home, and then having to move them back when something warrants their being needed. It's cheaper to send wounded soldiers to Germany than back to the US as far as saving their lives are concerned. Think about that.
Margie| 7.9.10 @ 5:49PM
That's right all you Nonnies. Read it and weep!
GO SARAH!!!!!
Kentucky Colonel| 7.9.10 @ 5:53PM
Glad to see that Hillyer has gotten smarter. A year ago, he accused Palin of dereliction of duty. I guess he wasn't smart enough then to understand why she resigned.
iamse7en| 7.9.10 @ 6:06PM
Who doesn't want a strong national defense?
Ron Paul has been calling for a strong national defense, but he's saying what we are doing is making us weaker. And his argument is a good one. Does it make sense to be in 135 different countries? Conservatives should be the first ones to know that throwing more money into a government enterprise means money well spent. Does it make sense to occupy countries for a decade, only to push our enemies to other countries? Does it make sense to place trade sanctions on millions of innocent people because their leader is a tyrant? Ron Paul has finally convinced me that our foreign policy is naive and war-mongering. This is not a strong national defense. Cutting spending and bringing troops home from so many places around the world would make a stronger national defense. Wake up you neocons.
iamse7en| 7.9.10 @ 6:07PM
I mean "Conservatives should be the first ones to know that throwing more money into a government enterprise DOESN'T mean money well spent"
John MacC__| 7.11.10 @ 7:33PM
Hey iamse7en! Would you rather have the police out patrolling neighborhoods throughout your city, or all sitting downtown waiting to hear from a citizen that their services are need 40 minutes away? I already know the answer to that question. And the same thing goes true for firemen too.
John W.| 7.12.10 @ 2:27PM
Speaking of naiveté…
To begin with, the military personnel in those “135 different countries” range from defense attaché staff of two or three to the multiple brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. The missions range from liaising with local defense organizations to combat, and include support for Foreign Military sales, training, and monitoring events. So, yes, we do need them where they are and it does make sense. (Presenting the situation without context or explanation is, at best, misleading.)
As for the rest, cite some specifics. What does this mean “Does it make sense to occupy countries for a decade, only to push our enemies to other countries?” And, yes, it “does … make sense to place trade sanctions on millions of innocent people [when] their leader is a tyrant,” since it is an approach short of armed conflict that attempts to induce said tyrant to amend his ways.
jomo2009| 7.9.10 @ 6:19PM
I agree with Gov. Palin that our military should be second to none. However, that shouldn't preclude a thorough re-evaluation of our force structures. For example, the nations that comprise the EU have a greater combined population and GDP than the US.
jomo2009| 7.9.10 @ 6:23PM
Surely the time has come to consider withdrawing from NATO and let Europe worry about defending itself. They no longer face an existential threat from the likes of the old Soviet Union. The savings to be used for debt reduction.
jomo2009| 7.9.10 @ 6:24PM
Or tax cuts.
Andrew Keirns| 7.9.10 @ 6:45PM
What stands out for me is that the tea party is saying cut defense. Are they saying that? If they are, they need to read 'provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare' -- Welfare needs to be cut, not Defense in every instance.
SoCon| 7.9.10 @ 7:11PM
Pigs are flying and hell's frozen over--Quin Hillyer has actually praised Sarah Palin.
Imagine that!
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 7:40PM
Sarah is tough, so she may very well be elected POTUS someday. But almost certainly not until the next decade.
Yet she may decide instead to run again as governor in some state. Now she can run in any state after she becomes a legal resident.
RacerJim| 7.11.10 @ 1:28PM
Why would Sarah Palin need to become a legal resident to run for governor in some State when Barack Obama was allowed to run for POTUS in every State without any State actually verifying he is a legal natural born citizen?
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 7:44PM
... yes, it would appear Sarah might want to seek another high office again, before she would run as POTUS.
PCC| 7.9.10 @ 8:38PM
It seems there's quite a bit of consensus here.
Yes, we need a strong defense, but it needs to be as efficient as possible and right-sized for the mission. Our troops and their families should not be on food stamps, either.
Every single foreign deployment should be rigorously evaluated and cut back or eliminated wherever possible. We should be shot of the foreign freeloaders just as soon as possible.
While the Chinese are determined to compete with us economically, they have no intention of challenging us militarily because they know it's a fool's errand to police the world for everybody else. Why do we do it? Is it some kind of national ego that commits us to this huge waste of resources?
We should pull out of NATO or massively restructure our involvement with it, and bring all of our troops home from Korea, Japan and Europe.
While we're at it, I wouldn't mind pulling the plug on the UN and replace it with a huge public housing development, a giant parking lot, or maybe a thermonuclear waste treatment plant.
J. Bolton| 7.9.10 @ 8:55PM
It's already a sewage treatment plant.
JR| 7.10.10 @ 7:05PM
It generates copius amounts of sewage very efficiently but is terribly inefficient at processing!
JB| 7.10.10 @ 10:42PM
Tru dat!
Nate| 7.10.10 @ 1:15AM
Is ANY spending labeled "defense" justifiable in an age of sky-rocketing deficits?
I agree there should be robust defense spending, but a trillion dollars a year? More than all the nations of Europe and Asia combined?
It seems like a boondoggle of epic proportions.
SoCon| 7.10.10 @ 2:25AM
Sky-rocketing deficits? Whatever sorts of boondoggles have caused those, Nate?
The same Progressive-Marxist social policies that have caused sky-rocketing unemployment, out of control debt and the Obama administration's criminal negligence regarding the Gulf eco-disaster clean up.
Corruption and incompetency of the unions and extremist eco-nazis--terrible legacies of Obama's radical Leftist regime.
John Elward| 7.10.10 @ 6:23AM
Has ANY Defense Spending Reduction EVER resulted in a lower Total Budget, Deficit Reduction, or a lowering of the Total National Debt? My recollection is that every Defense Spending Reduction has resulted in Incresed Budgets, Increased Social Spending, Increased Deficits, and whopping Increases in the Total National Debt!
dad29| 7.10.10 @ 9:23AM
The Party-In-Government (PIG) has seen to it that the National Interests is subservient to the interests of Government--which is growth-of-Government. That necessarily causes more and more spending and debt. The fact that Dick Cheney doesn't care about debt doesn't change the facts: SOMEONE has to pay that debt.
That's what Sarah Palin should concentrate on. It's what the TEA Parties have figured out.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 7:45AM
Bill introduced on June 30, 2010 by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). Brown's bill is deficit neutral and could have easily solved the current problems in passing the unemployment benefits package:
" My compromise bill uses unspent stimulus funds and cuts wasteful and unnecessary spending in other areas to pay for these important programs. Believe it or not, there is about $37 billion in stimulus money just sitting in a Washington slush fund when it should be put to good use immediately.
While my bill pays for additional FMAP assistance for one more year, this phase-down provides states an opportunity to get their fiscal houses in order — but also makes it clear that they can no longer pass the buck to the federal government, which has budgetary problems of its own. "
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 8:06AM
“$13 trillion in debt is a serious problem, and Republicans are offering the serious solutions necessary to fix it. The RSC has proposed a balanced budget for the next decade that would improve our fiscal outlook every year and lead to surpluses in the future. We must commit ourselves to cutting spending and reducing this debt if we hope to pass on a strong America to our children.”
Note: The RSC has introduced a balanced budget plan (H.Con.Res. 281) that achieves surpluses in 2019 and 2020, and improves the budget outlook in every single year.
martin j smith| 7.10.10 @ 8:06AM
The Democrat Party calls for shared sacrifice. Fine, lets ee how much sacrifice every government worker hired during Obama's reign gives up say 10-15% of their wages in support of o our national defesce. And, I would add this would apply to every member of congress and the President himself. And since he is the president BHO can donate 20% of the family income. That would be change I could believe in.
William R| 7.10.10 @ 10:54AM
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. The country is broke an anyone with a lick sense knows we can't begin to tackle our budget deficit unless defense is on the table. Palin once again shows she's more of a NeoCon than a conservative. And NeoCons like Hillyer continue to misrepresent Reagan. In 1981 the Soviets were a real threat. We don't face anything like that today. Thankfully there are people like Robert Gates willing to state the obvious.
49 years ago President Eisenhower warned the country about people like Palin and Hillyer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
William R| 7.10.10 @ 11:11AM
There is a battle for the heart and soul of conservatism going on. When its all said and done Sarah Palin represents the NeoCons. A militaristic foreign policy. On the other side are the realist. Not just in foreign policy but the budget.
James Antle has a good article in the new issue of the American Conservative
Will the Tea Parties Turn Anti War
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00008/
tonypal| 7.10.10 @ 12:42PM
There's nothing "militaristic" about Sarah Palin's point of view. Militarism implies an aggressive approach akin to the Soviet Union, whereby an enormously powerful nation simply annexes nearby smaller countries for the purpose of expansion. I hear nothing of the sort coming from Palin.
Palin indeed embodies the Reagan model of peace through strength. The idea is to put current and potential enemies on notice not to f*** with us, that we have both the willingness and capability to blast you into oblivion. Our current Clown in Chief seeks to limit our defensive capabilities while at the same time signaling to the world that the US no longer has a self-interest in defending itself. Incidentally, self-defense takes on many forms, including the occasional preemptive application of force.
The next president, hopefully someone with the vision and attitude of Sarah Palin, may actually have a bigger task ahead of him/herself than Reagan in 1981. That's hard to imagine, but whereas Carter was simply negligent, Obama actively seeks to weaken us. We can all try to psychoanalyze the man, but for whatever reason, he is hellbent on destroying our defensive capabilities. If by the grace of God we get a new president in 2013, that president's single biggest task will be to reverse all of Obama's defense policies - actually, all of his policies, period - and begin the long process of rebuilding our military. It's been a long time since we've done that. After Reagan and the first Bush, Clinton was fairly negligent but had a republican congress to deal with. George W. Bush had 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Obama is laying waste. So it's gonna be 1981 all over again and we could do far worse than taking the Palin approach.
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 10:57PM
The battle's over Willie--you have no heart and no soul. We won.
Brian72| 7.10.10 @ 12:14PM
Sarah Palin is correct.
Defense spending should be subject to strict oversight and reviewing the priorities is always a good idea.
We cannot afford to sacrifice the position of America as the #1 superpower in the world.
Name a country that you would be comfortable with taking over as the #1 military power in the world. I can think of no one else who is dedicated to freedom and liberty as we are.
Defense industry spending actually does help the economy, as well as help secure our nation.
For all of you mentioning Ron Paul, I would remind you of something.
Remember how angry everyone got at McCain for teaming up with Ted Kennedy for the Immigration Reform Bill?
Ron Paul found common ground on defense spending with Barney Frank.
They want to slash the capability of America's Armed Forces beyond anything reasonable.
They want to cancel just about every new platform development program, across the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marines.
They also want to reduce the number of Carrier Battle groups from 12 to 8, slash the number of active duty Army personnel by several tens of thousands, and reduce the Marine Corps to such a low level that they can no longer be ready for their core mission, should it be required.
This proposal should be ridiculed and derided, because it is dangerous fantasy.
The Constitution charges the Federal Government with the defense of the country and it's people.
That means in today's world being engaged globally. There is no retreating to our shores and turning North America into a defensive fortress. Again, dangerous fantasy.
The more free the rest of the world, the more free and prosperous we are.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 1:40PM
" Although the Tea Party has an identifiable antiwar wing—one poll found that the elder Paul was the group’s second-most admired politician, after Sarah Palin—by and large the Tea Partiers’ instinctive patriotism makes them a tough audience for criticism of U.S. intervention. To them, the relevant question is whose side are you on? They know they are on America’s.
But there is a limit to their willingness to spend American blood and treasure, especially as the nation teeters at the brink of insolvency. Many of them are tired of paying for the defense of Europeans they regard as fairweather friends and freeloaders, propping up foreign welfare states that serve as the model for everything they oppose at home. Neither do they want their tax dollars spent indefinitely in Middle Eastern countries whose populations don’t greet us as liberators and whose governments look more like the sharia states we claim to oppose than the democracies we are supposed to be creating."
Deficit Cuts from Welfare , to Stmulus , Foreign Aid ,To Defense Waste can all be reviewed .
Neoconservative Foreign Nation Agendists Don't Own We ,Tea Party Rebels .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Can See November From Our Houses .
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 12:15PM
I don't want a militaristic foreign policy and I don't want Ron Paul's isolationism--is there an alternative?
Janemarie| 7.10.10 @ 12:37PM
One of the things our military does is train young people to be excellent and productive civilians if they don't make a career of enlistment. I was talking to a colleague yesterday, a bleedin' heart liberal, who is (understandably) worried about her young adult son who has decided to enter the military because he wants to be in Special Forces. I can't fault her for worrying about her son, but was reminded of how the military helped my younger brother become a highly successful adult who has a good career and home life now. I know this doesn't happen for all military recruits, but I do think it is a career path that has value. My brother wasn't "college material" but has done quite well nevertheless.
William R| 7.10.10 @ 12:43PM
Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. In the eyes of NeoCons you are an isolationist if you don't want to fight never ending war in the Middle East.
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 1:15PM
Yes he is. In the eyes of an isolationist you're a militarist if you believe in Israel's right to exist.
Turnabout's fair play.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 1:53PM
There's no turnabout .
This is The United States and The U.S. Military we're talking about , Not some foreigner nation like Israel and their military.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Remember In November .
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 7.10.10 @ 5:02PM
Remember Tim, Israel & the Israelites are STILL GOD's chosen people. Those who align themselves against Israel are also in danger of aligning themselves against GOD. If the Tea Party is more important to you than GOD Tim you had better do some rethinking on your priorities.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 5:39PM
Remember Kenneth fulfillment theology , supersessionism , replacement theology .The New Covenant with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes the Mosaic Covenant (or Torah) with the Israelites and B'nei Noah.
Take your own advice Kenneth .
William R| 7.10.10 @ 2:07PM
Ron Paul believes in open trade. That by itself disqualifies him from being an isolationist. If you had a lick of sense you'd know that. How do you spot a NeoCon. Bring up Israel when it wasn't being discussed.
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 3:41PM
Admit it, it's always about Israel with you Paultards: Until you recognize their right to exist, there will be NO peace among Conservatives. It's just that simple.
You can try to hide your true intentions, but we know where you're coming from.
Palin NOT Paul is the next standard bearer of the Republican party--you'll see.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 5:14PM
No Missy , it's always about Israel with NeoCon Israel Firsters , like yourself .
Registered Republican , never voted for Paul or gave a penny to his campaigns , but like many other Tea Party Rebels , re-examining Paul .
Also , many of Us Fell Off The Israel Sled after Spies Ben Ami Kadish , Jonathan Pollard , The C.F.I.U.S Investigation Of Israeli Company Checkpoint Systems Sourcefire Deal , Illegal Israeli Sales of U.S. weapons technology to Red China , jeopardizing U.S. allies Japan & Taiwan , The Deliberate IDF attack on Our U.s. Naval Vessel ,The U.S.S. Liberty ,Killing & wounding U.S. Seamen , etc.
We agree with Sarah Palin on many issues but want to review spending cuts across the board to take down Our National Debt .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
We Can See November Form Our Houses .
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 5:55PM
I wasn't addressing you earlier, fool--you're just an anti-Semitic punk conveniently hiding behind budget cuts and the flag. What an egotistical ass you are to presume to speak for the Tea Party movement.
Palin's the one and you know it--glad to see you're finally admitting the obvious.
What are you going to whine, moan and cry about now? You're a joke.
William R| 7.10.10 @ 8:48PM
Palin is the quintessential empty skirt. A good lookin Bimbo. A disaster waiting to happen. More Bush Cheney Kristol foreign policy. The reason Obama is President today.
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 10:49PM
Big man Willie talks real tough but look where big bad boys like him got us today. Talk's cheap, nitwit.
Sarah's got bigger balls than whiny wimps like you can ever hope to have--let's see how the girls do this time.
It couldn't be any worse than what you limp lizard cowards have done to our country.
Tim*| 7.10.10 @ 9:22PM
Uh Oh , Israel Firster Missy Is Upset !
Tough !
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Remember In November
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 10:55PM
Daddy taught me a long time ago not to get into peeing contests with worthless little skunks like you--so I shan't.
Glad you finally agree with me that Palin's the ticket! Better late than never.
GO SARAH!! 2012
Tim*| 7.11.10 @ 9:35AM
You Must Be Daddy's Little Mannygirl .
Ya talk Butch.
Missy| 7.12.10 @ 7:25PM
Only to little weak-willy beta males like you. Loser.
Rio Grande| 7.10.10 @ 4:16PM
WR, in case you missed it, this thread is about our national defense posture not our trade policies.
William R| 7.10.10 @ 8:49PM
She brought up isolationism without knowing what it means.
Missy| 7.10.10 @ 10:51PM
I know what it means, bimbo--you're just trying to skirt the real issue because you know I'm right.
Nice try, though, Paultard.
William| 7.10.10 @ 12:53PM
We could cut our defense budget in half and we'd still be spending more than Russia and China combined. The solution is to get out of the Middle East and stop defending wealthy Europe, Japan and Korea. Lets restore our Republic and stop trying to be an empire. Because Empire always collapse. The disastrous foreign policy under Bush is responsible for Obama. Joe Scarborough said it best yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
PCC| 7.10.10 @ 9:25PM
Amen, William.
tjh39| 7.11.10 @ 9:34AM
Every since the democratic party got control of congress the pork barrel and earmarks added to every expense bill including the military requests far exceeded the militarty spending. They knew Bush would sign them to fund the military and the same thing is still going on today.
edgard| 7.12.10 @ 8:09AM
Yes, Sarah Palin is right; keep a strong defense;
You idiots that want to pull out of nato and the Far East, for that you would have to pay dearly.
Within 10 years after pulling put from these places they will start nipping at your heels. The left took over in Japan a while back ( thank GOD it was reverted back this Sundays ellection) and they used tiny Okinawa to cause you a lot of grief under the pretext of moving MCAS Futenma off the island instead of moving to a more rural area up north, which was agreed upon under the former LDP Administration. You should stay till the last generation of YANKEE HATERS has passed away. ed
PCC| 7.12.10 @ 6:39PM
Well, Mr. Edgard, it's true I don't agree with you, but I thought you might like to hear this story.
I recently said to a thoughtful and well-educated friend of mine, pace the Okinawa dispute, that we should just pull out of Japan and let them fend for themselves.
His response was that we won the war, we paid for Okinawa in blood and treasure, and that the Japanese should just shut the hell up and be grateful for small mercies, or words to that effect.
I think he's got a point!
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 5:59PM
TAS's own Jim Antle has a column this month in The American Conservative on the possibility that the TEA Parties will start to trend anti-war. I know the thought drives the interventionist "conservatives" crazy, but the right is trending toward non-interventionism and all your frantic hysterical fear mongering will not change that. ALL the movement is in the non-interventionist direction and NONE is in the interventionist direction. When was the last time you heard of a prominent non-interventionist renounce his position and say he has seen the error of his ways and now embraces interventionism? It ain't happening. But people are moving our way all the time.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2.....-have-def/
Missy| 7.12.10 @ 7:27PM
You keep repeating the same mindless drivel, ad nauseam, but Palin NOT Paul will be our next standard-bearer.
Get used to it, loser.
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 8:01PM
"Get used to it, loser."
Such an intelligent reply. Is Joe Scarborough a loser also? The interventionist crowd is losing its grip and they know it. That's why they up the name calling.
Missy| 7.12.10 @ 8:08PM
You're ignoring reality again. As usual.
There's no "grip" moron--it's just a fevered figment of your delusional imagination.
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 9:05PM
"Moron"
Did you get past the third grade? Just curious.
Missy| 7.12.10 @ 9:14PM
Are you still in a mental institution?
You need to ask for your brain meds stat!
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 10:00PM
Missy, let me explain to you how this give and take works. You call names and I suggest you haven't gotten past the third grade because calling names is what little kids do. Get it? The insult was actually tied to the thread of the conversation. See how this works? So what about the preceding conversation lead to the charge of insanity? Kinda random and hence not as effective. Next time why don’t you just call me a big ol’ poppy head?
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 10:01PM
oops ... meant poopy head.
Missy| 7.12.10 @ 11:50PM
Nice spelling--you'd know something about being a poopy head, dork.
You're so dim-witted my clever repartee was lost on you completely! The monstrous NeoCons and their humongous power are figments of your own fevered imagination. You just can't see your own crazy obsession! Amazing.
You've lost your grip on reality.
I'd like to perform a psych study on you in the lab--just you and the white mice. That would be one hell of a hoot!
Red Phillips | 7.12.10 @ 11:56PM
Missy, try formulating an actual case to justify your opinion. I know its hard, but it's how rational adults argue. Try a course in rhetoric maybe. I'm sure it will inform you that calling someone a dork is not effective argumentation.
Missy| 7.13.10 @ 1:02AM
You take exception to me calling you a dork after you called me a poopy head and then misspelled it?
Okaaaay now, Mr/Ms Crazytalk.
Pot call kettle.
Red Phillips | 7.13.10 @ 11:49AM
I didn't call you a poopy head. Re-read it. What I said was that you might as well call me a poopy head because it would make as much sense and be as immature as calling me a mental patient.
Missy| 7.13.10 @ 4:57PM
Okay, if you insist, Red--You are a poopy head.
Happy now?
Geez!! The things I have to do to make you happy, little weirdo.
Red Phillips | 7.13.10 @ 7:31PM
"weirdo?"
So mature.
Missy| 7.13.10 @ 9:02PM
If you're so mature, why do you keep coming back to this inane little exchange, Red? You know it's silly.
You're always so proper and serious, it's fun to tease you sometimes. I know you're nice somewhere under all those smarts of yours. We may disagree (a lot) but I'm a fan. :)
Bye, Redster.
Missy| 7.14.10 @ 1:20AM
Oh, Red, btw--your intelligent, well reasoned and sensible(mostly) arguments over the last year have taught and influenced me a lot. I am a loyal American first and I do NOT believe in nation building. We should come home; too many of our great kids have died and too much of our treasure has been wasted in our interventionist folly.
I'm tired. Bring our kids home. GWB's an ass.