randomname
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,712
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/great_minds_like_a_think_ted_cruz_denounse_christi.html
I compiled my prior column on Monday after a long phone call with Alan Steinberg, who writes his own column on Politickernj.com.
The subject was the threat from Turkish President Recip Erdogan, an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to turn Turkey into an Islamic state after almost a century of secular rule.
Both Alan and I agreed that Chris Christie and Marco Rubio showed a complete lack of foreign-policy acumen by taking Erdogan's side in that dust-up over a Russian jet that flew over Turkish territory for a few seconds and was hit by a missile.
Both Christie and Rubio argued that Erdogan has a right to shoot down fighters that stray into his air space.
Both seemed totally unaware that Erdogan regularly sends his fighters into Iraqi air space to attack our Kurdish allies.
And both are more interested in deposing our natural ally against ISIS, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, than in fighting ISIS.
I noted in the column that Texas Senator Ted Cruz was taking a far more intelligent approach by going after the real threat of U.S. interests.
That's Erdogan, who has been permitting ISIS to be supplied through Turkey and has aided ISIS by attacking the Kurds.
Here's a piece in which researchers detail that aid:
"A team of Columbia University researchers from the United States, Europe, and Turkey confirmed last week that the Turkish government has provided to ISIS: military cooperation, weapons, logistical support, financial assistance, and medical services."
This has been obvious from the beginning.
Yet Christie, Rubio and the rest of the left-wing "neo" conservatives have been supporting the ISIS side in the hopes of toppling Assad, who does not and never has represented even the tiniest threat to the U.S.
Later Tuesday I got an email from Alan.
Alan forwarded me a link to a Bloomberg piece in which Cruz makes the exact points we both made in the column.
Cruz noted that the neocons candidates were actually adopting Hillary Clinton's liberal talking points.
Here's an excerpt:
On Syria, Cruz inveighed against Rubio and Clinton, Obama's former secretary of state, for supporting a no-fly zone and arming "the so-called moderate rebels." "I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war," he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton "are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They've demonstrated they've learned nothing."
The reporter goes on to quote Cruz saying:
"The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling [Bashar al-] Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria."
By the end of the piece, Cruz has exposed the fraudulent nature of neocon foreign policy. Besides Christie, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina also push the neocon line.
Meanwhile Rand Paul and Donald Trump have attacked the neocon approach. When baited by a debate moderator to attack Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria, Trump instead said he'd get along fine with the Russian.
But then Trump understands just who's fighting whom and why. That doesn't apply to Christie and Rubio.
As I noted in this piece on his big foreign-policy speech last spring, Christie said he believes Assad is fighting in Yemen, which is nonsense.
And he clearly sympathized with some unnamed Arab countries that he said would fund ISIS to topple Assad if we did not do their bidding.
By the way, whenever you hear a politician mention Yemen, you can conclude that politician is on the Al Qaeda side in this fight.
The side the neocons are all supporting includes the Saudis and Al Qaeda against the Houthis, a mountain people about whom Christie and Rubio know less than nothing - except that they've been told to oppose them.
In that regard, check this excerpt in which Cruz embraces the traditional conservative America-first foreign policy over the warmed-over Trotskyism of the neocons:
Cruz said his decision-making test on military action would be about whether there's a "real threat" to American security. On foreign policy, he said he'll employ a simple test: "How does it keep America safe? If it's keeping America safe, we should do it. If it's making America more vulnerable, we shouldn't do it."
Or in other words, we shouldn't so a single thing Rubio or Christie want to do - especially give them the nomination of the Republican Party so they can advance the Clinton-Obama agenda. Both of them agree our first priority should be removing Assad, not defeating ISIS, as do Rubio and Christie.
On foreign policy they have the minds of teenagers who read too many war comics.
If you want to see how the adults handle this sort of thing, check this piece about what happened when a Soviet fighter crossed into Israeli air space for a few seconds.
Nothing.
"Russian planes do not intend to attack us, which is why we must not automatically react and shoot them down when an error occurs," the Israeli defense minister said.
The Israelis have clearly concluded they'd rather have Russia ruling that neighboring patch of ground than the Syrian rebels - even the "vetted moderate" ones the U.S. supports.
By the way, where does Obama think he gets the right to arm insurgents and send them into a foreign country to shoot government troops?
If Syria started sending in terrorists from Canada to shoot our GIs, I'll bet we'd be a bit miffed. Yet the neocons all think this is perfectly fine.
But if Rubio and Christie want to embrace the Obama/Clinton foreign policy then they should run in the Obama/Clinton party.
They can leave the Republicans primary to Cruz, Trump and Paul, all of whom want to end these interventions that are not in the American interest.
ALSO: Speaking of Trump, below is a video that at least partially vindicates the Donald concerning that statement about people celebrating 9/11. There were not "thousands" but there were "swarms" according to the reporter.
Also note toward the end that the mosque where the Blind Sheik preached was still in business eight years after his conviction in the first World Trade Center bombing.
There may not be a law against that, but it's pretty bothersome nonetheless. I also visited a mosque in Brooklyn where he had preached. That was in 2003 and it was still in business.
If Trump may get a few details wrong, he's right on the nature of the threat.
Paul Mulshine may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @Mulshine. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook
I compiled my prior column on Monday after a long phone call with Alan Steinberg, who writes his own column on Politickernj.com.
The subject was the threat from Turkish President Recip Erdogan, an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to turn Turkey into an Islamic state after almost a century of secular rule.
Both Alan and I agreed that Chris Christie and Marco Rubio showed a complete lack of foreign-policy acumen by taking Erdogan's side in that dust-up over a Russian jet that flew over Turkish territory for a few seconds and was hit by a missile.
Both Christie and Rubio argued that Erdogan has a right to shoot down fighters that stray into his air space.
Both seemed totally unaware that Erdogan regularly sends his fighters into Iraqi air space to attack our Kurdish allies.
And both are more interested in deposing our natural ally against ISIS, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, than in fighting ISIS.
I noted in the column that Texas Senator Ted Cruz was taking a far more intelligent approach by going after the real threat of U.S. interests.
That's Erdogan, who has been permitting ISIS to be supplied through Turkey and has aided ISIS by attacking the Kurds.
Here's a piece in which researchers detail that aid:
"A team of Columbia University researchers from the United States, Europe, and Turkey confirmed last week that the Turkish government has provided to ISIS: military cooperation, weapons, logistical support, financial assistance, and medical services."
This has been obvious from the beginning.
Yet Christie, Rubio and the rest of the left-wing "neo" conservatives have been supporting the ISIS side in the hopes of toppling Assad, who does not and never has represented even the tiniest threat to the U.S.
Later Tuesday I got an email from Alan.
Alan forwarded me a link to a Bloomberg piece in which Cruz makes the exact points we both made in the column.
Cruz noted that the neocons candidates were actually adopting Hillary Clinton's liberal talking points.
Here's an excerpt:
On Syria, Cruz inveighed against Rubio and Clinton, Obama's former secretary of state, for supporting a no-fly zone and arming "the so-called moderate rebels." "I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war," he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton "are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They've demonstrated they've learned nothing."
The reporter goes on to quote Cruz saying:
"The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling [Bashar al-] Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria."
By the end of the piece, Cruz has exposed the fraudulent nature of neocon foreign policy. Besides Christie, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina also push the neocon line.
Meanwhile Rand Paul and Donald Trump have attacked the neocon approach. When baited by a debate moderator to attack Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria, Trump instead said he'd get along fine with the Russian.
But then Trump understands just who's fighting whom and why. That doesn't apply to Christie and Rubio.
As I noted in this piece on his big foreign-policy speech last spring, Christie said he believes Assad is fighting in Yemen, which is nonsense.
And he clearly sympathized with some unnamed Arab countries that he said would fund ISIS to topple Assad if we did not do their bidding.
By the way, whenever you hear a politician mention Yemen, you can conclude that politician is on the Al Qaeda side in this fight.
The side the neocons are all supporting includes the Saudis and Al Qaeda against the Houthis, a mountain people about whom Christie and Rubio know less than nothing - except that they've been told to oppose them.
In that regard, check this excerpt in which Cruz embraces the traditional conservative America-first foreign policy over the warmed-over Trotskyism of the neocons:
Cruz said his decision-making test on military action would be about whether there's a "real threat" to American security. On foreign policy, he said he'll employ a simple test: "How does it keep America safe? If it's keeping America safe, we should do it. If it's making America more vulnerable, we shouldn't do it."
Or in other words, we shouldn't so a single thing Rubio or Christie want to do - especially give them the nomination of the Republican Party so they can advance the Clinton-Obama agenda. Both of them agree our first priority should be removing Assad, not defeating ISIS, as do Rubio and Christie.
On foreign policy they have the minds of teenagers who read too many war comics.
If you want to see how the adults handle this sort of thing, check this piece about what happened when a Soviet fighter crossed into Israeli air space for a few seconds.
Nothing.
"Russian planes do not intend to attack us, which is why we must not automatically react and shoot them down when an error occurs," the Israeli defense minister said.
The Israelis have clearly concluded they'd rather have Russia ruling that neighboring patch of ground than the Syrian rebels - even the "vetted moderate" ones the U.S. supports.
By the way, where does Obama think he gets the right to arm insurgents and send them into a foreign country to shoot government troops?
If Syria started sending in terrorists from Canada to shoot our GIs, I'll bet we'd be a bit miffed. Yet the neocons all think this is perfectly fine.
But if Rubio and Christie want to embrace the Obama/Clinton foreign policy then they should run in the Obama/Clinton party.
They can leave the Republicans primary to Cruz, Trump and Paul, all of whom want to end these interventions that are not in the American interest.
ALSO: Speaking of Trump, below is a video that at least partially vindicates the Donald concerning that statement about people celebrating 9/11. There were not "thousands" but there were "swarms" according to the reporter.
Also note toward the end that the mosque where the Blind Sheik preached was still in business eight years after his conviction in the first World Trade Center bombing.
There may not be a law against that, but it's pretty bothersome nonetheless. I also visited a mosque in Brooklyn where he had preached. That was in 2003 and it was still in business.
If Trump may get a few details wrong, he's right on the nature of the threat.
Paul Mulshine may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @Mulshine. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook
