The Nation: GOP Peacniks?

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/gop-peaceniks

Some interesting quotes from here, which I have posted below

Last December, when President Obama launched his second escalation of the Afghan war, he did so with the unflinching support of the Republicans, the right, and neoconservativies. But a small group of conservatives, libertarians and assorted contrarians on the right has opposed the war, and yesterday I journeyed to the Cato Institute to find out whether that nucleus of anti-war opposition is significant or not. The answer: maybe, but probably not.

The Cato conference was entitled "Escalate or Withdraw? Conservatives and the War in Afghanistan," and it brought together several ultra conservative members of Congress: Tom McClintock (R-CA); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); and John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), for a panel hosted by Grover Norquist, the right-wing activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform

Part of what motivates Norquist today is that the Bush-era wars did two things that small-government crusaders are unhappy about: they enlarged the federal government and, by mobilizing voters against politicians who supported the wars, they contributed to crushing national defeats for the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

According to Norquist, it's difficult for Republican members of Congress to speak out against the war, because the adventure was initiated by President Bush. But, he suggests, there is a kind of silent majority of Republicans in Congress who'd come out against the war if the right political opportunity emerged. Indeed, during the panel discussion with McClintock, Duncan, and Rohrabacher, Norquist asked the three members of Congress how many of their colleagues in the House shared their dissident views on Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's escalation, and the nation-building project underway. And all three said that Republican opposition is high

"All three of them [McClintock, Duncan and Rohrabacher] came down strong, close to saying that practically everybody" in the Republican caucus agrees that the Iraq-Afghanistan efforts are misguided. The problem is, he said, most of the Republicans believe that the Republican voter base won't tolerate anything other than lock-step support for the war. Why? "Because Bush identified the Republicans with Iraq and Afghanistan."

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, no matter what Obama does, I'm sure Republican opposition will be high.

I am not trying to be smarmy, but if they were really against the war, they would have been against it in 2001-2002 (as a lot of people were). Its not particularly awe-inspiring to see a few Republicans saying that now that Obama is doing something that they were previously for, they have to re-think if they are for it.

[ACW]

Ugh, at least he classified Cato as conservative, but that DOESN'T MEAN ON THE RIGHT :soapbox:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Well, no matter what Obama does, I'm sure Republican opposition will be high.

I am not trying to be smarmy, but if they were really against the war, they would have been against it in 2001-2002 (as a lot of people were). Its not particularly awe-inspiring to see a few Republicans saying that now that Obama is doing something that they were previously for, they have to re-think if they are for it.

I think over the course of 8 years, one can shift his position.

In 2002 I was firmly for both wars. Around late 2007, I started to shift my views on both wars.

Iraq needs to end. And keeping 50k "non combat" troops isn't ending it.

Afghanistan is becoming an even bigger hopeless blackhole. The bad guys are all in Pakistan

I would think that Democrats who are anti war would welcome this sentiment in the GOP House Caucus

[ross3909]

I have to say if Obama agreed with me on something, I would have to seriously rethink my position.