Idiotic Warmongering from Presidential Candidates

We are used to and expect stupid statements from the GOP candidates about abortion, taxes, states’ rights and food stamps, but we ought to shake in our boots over the warmongering coming from this set of GOP presidential candidates. Rick Santorum, in an interview on Sunday,  criticized Barack Obama for being too soft on Iran and said he would bomb the country’s nuclear sites unless it opened them to UN inspectors. Apparently he is humming John McCain’s tune, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.’

Then there was the most uninformed statement flowing off of the tongue of Rick Perry who called the President of Turkey an Islamic terrorist. One pundit pointed out that Turkey has been a member in good standing in NATO since Perry was 2-years-old. “Rick Perry: what an idiot,” tweeted Mustafa Akyol, a columnist with the English-language Hurriyet Daily news.

Yesterday Newt Gingrich, in his usual hyperbole, declared that he witnessed “the biggest act of weakness by any American President in my lifetime.” Perhaps you missed this Big Act by President Obama.  Most news media also missed it. I had a hard time this morning finding the quote. Gingrich referred to the fact that the U.S. and the Israelis announced the postponed  a joint missile-defense exercise in the Persian Gulf because it would be too provocative at the moment. Gosh! Duh? Yet, I’m betting that the statement raised the testosterone level of the reactionary right-wing or several hours.

Of course, Newt is into hyperbole and he knows that the reactionary right-wing will respond like Pavlov’s dog. Remember that Obama is “the most radical President in American history.” By the way, it may come as a shock to note that Newt considers himself an historian.

Do the followers of Rick Perry care [or know] that his Turkey remarks nearly caused an international kerfuffle? One Turkish official said that the United States has no time to waste with candidates “who do not even know their allies.” Another was not so gracious and wondered how idiots like that can run for president.

So much for those three GOP candidates.

Then there was the much-booed candidate Ron Paul during the South Carolina debate. Apparently South Carolinian Republicans love war-making [even after the Civil War!]. The none-too-bright audience castigated Perry when he tried to explain that our rouge military adventurism has gotten the United States into lots of trouble in past decades. Makes you wonder if the men there have GI Joe dolls on their bed stands.

Then there is Mitt Romney. What’s his attitude towards war? Well, first-off, his advisers include people who have been cheerleaders for war with Iran, and were cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Should I go on? He has pledged to increase the military budget.Further, he opposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Romney also hawks a policy of  ‘defeating the Jihadists.’

Not exactly a peace dove.

Meanwhile President Obama moves along quite nicely on his foreign policy, receiving kudos from retired military and even Republican pundits. Isn’t it ironic that in this presidential race, the GOP holds the losing military cards. The GOP is left with the economics game and the so-called values game. But, the values stuff is trumped by the economics.  Who will hold the better hand in that game is yet to be determined.

Here’s a photo of what I might label, Mt. Idiotmore:


7 thoughts on “Idiotic Warmongering from Presidential Candidates

  1. Additionally, it is to be noted that Rick Santorum offered a ‘unique theory’ behind the location of Iran’s second major uranium enrichment site. Speaking at a town hall in Salem, N.H., Mr. Santorum said the site, outside of the city of Qom, had been chosen as a way of hasten an “end-of-times scenario” based in Shiite Islam.

    End times! Gaud. Just what American needs is a bible-thumping, end-times president.


    Microdot has a splendid summary of the recent S.C. debate:

  2. “Then there was the much-booed candidate Ron Paul…..”

    Paul made two important points in that debate. One is that he differentiates
    between militarism and national defense. He said that when he refers to
    militarism he means the wars and all the military basis around the world..He would end the war in Afghanistan tomorrow and start closing military
    bases outside the United States. Paul maintains this militarism is weaking
    out national defenses and weaking the country as a whole. He did say,
    probably for political reasons since S.C. has seven(7) military basis in that
    small state, yep 7, he would open more military bases in the U.S. and even
    right there in S.C.

    His second point that caught my attention is his criticism of President Obama’s
    position on Iran. It’s not a cricism of President Obama being too weak toward
    Iran, rather it is a criticism of the Obama Administration being to
    militaristic toward Iran. President Obama has put some heavy sanctions
    on Iran to have them backoff on developing a nuclear bomb, especially
    oil exports. Paul believes this is tantamount to a declaration of war on Iran, or any country. And, if we look back to 1992 up to 2003 in Iraq, the no fly
    zones gave way to economic sanctions under Bush I and Clinton, and
    finally to all out war. So, Paul was against this policy of President Obama
    in the debate and was booed for it. My point, M_R, is that President
    Obama has escalated the tensions with Iran. In a way, it is a way to get
    into a war through the back door. When they violate the sanctions or it
    is determined the sanctions don’t work, then he or a successor will have no
    choice but to bomb the nuclear sites. OR, and this is important as well,
    if the Iranians feel that they have been pushed to the brink, will they
    meekly give in to the United States and Israel or will they react militarily
    in the area? That can be one response to this foolish economic sanctions
    policy. And, there is Iranian nationalism involved. The sanctions hurt the
    people who are opposed to the government , the hope is that they in turn
    will force the government to back done. But, the Iranian people want
    nuclear power; it is just not the leadership. President Obama is playing
    the same card that got us into Iraq!

  3. President
    Obama has escalated the tensions with Iran…

    That’s why he backed off of joint military operations with Israel, which is then why Newt jumped on him for doing so.

    Obama is playing a strategic game with Iran, but is being very careful not to back them into a corner from which they cannot escape. Imagine what a ‘war’ in the Strait of Hormuz would do to the price at the pump.

  4. If that strategy backfires then what?

    There are ‘backdoor’ memos being sent between us and Iran, you can bet your ass on that. Our State Department knows just how tough and/or lasting the sanctions should be. And clearly we don’t need some blowhard presidential candidate shooting from the hip to get in the way of all of this.

  5. Speaking of warmongering…

    On one of the right-wing posse’s blog this AM is a ‘Happy Birthday’ to Robert E. Lee. I’m waiting for the Confederate Flag to be honored next.

    Yet, speaking of warmongering, the blog host, referring to Lee said this:

    Had he followed up his early victories with an immediate invasion of the North, we might not have to tolerate such atrocities as federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws.


    Well, folks, there you go. Adolescent mind, man’s body.

  6. Hello Muddy,
    “Had he followed up his early victories with an immediate invasion of the North, we might not have to tolerate such atrocities as federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws.” (WTF!!!)

    Robert E. Lee did follow up with an immediate invasion into the North with mass forces secured by his early victories…. It was called “The Battle of Gettysburg!!” (No wonder I see you taking this site towards an Educational trend. There is obviously a need!)

    Now the befuddling question is how does one’s mind link Robert E. Lee to not having federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws….as if this is a bad thing? Is it because of “State’s Rights” over riding “Federal Government Laws” if the Confederacy had held out and secured a victory? Here is a perfect example of the “Simple Minds” reference that was the topic in my latest posting on my site. And They Allow These People To Vote!

Comments are closed.