Ronald Reagan didn’t just attempt to arm the Nicaraguan Contras—he did so, in violation of U.S. law. (Photo: Ryan Dickey)
The New York Times‘ Michael Shear has a piece today (3/15/13) about the CPAC conference and Rand Paul—specifically the divisions that are emerging in the Republican party over U.S. foreign policy. Paul, of course, led a filibuster of CIA nominee John Brennan over the White House’s drones. To Shear, it’s a battle between Bush-era neocons and Bush Sr.-era internationalists.
Some Republicans don’t think there’s much to this, though—the usual practice of the opposition party being, well, opposed to the White House. But Shear has a weird way of explaining this:
Some Republicans are less worried. They view Mr. Paul’s crusade as nothing more than the usual attempt by members of the opposition party to undermine the assertive foreign policy of an incumbent president.
In the 1980s, Democrats harshly criticized President Ronald Reagan’s attempts to arm Nicaraguan rebels. During the 1990s, Republicans derisively called President Bill Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo “Clinton’s war.” In Mr. Obama’s first term, critics assailed his expansion of the war against terrorism, including the expanded use of drones.
Huh. The thing about Reagan’s “attempts to arm Nicaraguan rebels” was that he actually did that. The Contras were essentially created by the United States. And Democrats didn’t just criticize the arming of the Contras, they passed a law that made it illegal to do so; the Iran/Contra scandal was about the Reagan administration continuing to support them in violation of the law. It’s strange to see that characterized as an “attempt.”
Moving on, some conservatives and Republicans did criticize Clinton over Kosovo—that one seems about right. Others of them, like John McCain, advocated sending in ground troops.
But when exactly did a lot of Republicans stand up and criticize Obama’s drone policy in his first term? The Paul filibuster was obviously not happening then. And the overriding Republican critique of Obama’s foreign policy has been that it hasn’t been militaristic enough—too soon to retreat from Afghanistan, too unwilling to intervene in other countries like Syria, too eager to close Guantanamo and so on.
If anything, the first term of Obama showed the Republican party advocating for a more belligerent and militaristic foreign policy—more or less as usual.
I think the salient question to ask here is
Would Paul have made his “brave” stand
(Perhaps “grandstand” is more accurate)
If Mitt Romney were taking his morning dump in the White House master bathroom?
CODEPINK likely would have saved the cost of flowers and chocolates – and delivery charges – had that been the case, don’t you think?
That almost every Democrat voted for Dear Misleader’s designated drone driver is the real story here
Not Paul’s “maverick” political calculus.
Who exactly did stand up and Criticize the continuation of the war and use of Drones by Obama. I think the list is very short, and I don’t recall a lot of blather about it on the Fux Network of bloggers. So ya, there is another story hidden in here. It was not unlike when Bush called for War and I think there was one Democrat who stood against total unanimous agreement.
In one way it was just like in Clinton’s day, when he launched the majority of our Cruise Missiles everyone was so hot to use in War. It was his war; and lets not forget the Mistakes on the Chinese Embassy and the Pill Factory in the Middle East. Our invincible ‘drones of the day’ cruised right in and leveled that little gem.
So really there is no real news here, this has been going since the Reagenites stole the government and the bank. As Jim Hightower used to opine back in the day – People say we need a third party, but I think the first thing we should find ourselves a second party.
Thanks for sharing such a nice thought, post is nice, thats why i have read
it entirely