Grover Norquist Takes On the War Party

[TakeAStepBack]

Grover Norquist Takes On the War Party by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

Conservative leader attacks Romney-Ryan for refusing to cut the military budget

by Justin Raimondo, August 15, 2012
Print This | Share This Grover Norquist is a bit of a punching bag for both the Hollywood-DC left and the neoconservative right. On the left, he’s often held up as an example of everything that’s supposedly wrong with the conservative movement and the GOP: his “no tax hike” pledge is excoriated by the Huffingtonpost-MSNBC-TPM axis of Obamaism as typical of “know-nothing” conservatism. On the neocon right, he’s viciously attacked as an “Islamist,” a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood far more dangerous than, say, Huma Abedin — in part because he’s an influential conservative married to an Arab woman. For both groups, he’s a bit of a Rasputin, with his weekly meetings of Washington-based conservative activists characterized as something between the right-wing equivalent of the Bilderbergs (or is that Bilderbergers?) and Opus Dei.

Now he’s gone and done something bound to induce paroxysms of rage — or disbelief — in members of both groups: he’s denouncing the newly-minted Republican ticket — particularly Paul Ryan and his infamous budget — for refusing to countenance cuts in the military, and he’s doing it in style. In a talk given at the Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center), he ripped into Ryan for refusing to consider cuts in the military budget.

First, some background: The Budget Control Act, passed in 2011, calls for “sequestration,” i.e. across-the-board cuts in both military and domestic spending in order to (eventually, in theory) balance the federal budget. The usual suspects have been decrying this, especially Republican hawks like Lindsey Graham and the powerful Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who want to increase military spending. Their solution? Close “tax loopholes” and end deductions to avoid sequestration. To our Washington grandees, any income they allow you to keep for yourself is a “loophole,” since they own you, body and soul — and they will close it if the alternative is giving up another war in the Middle East.

Norquist throws down the gauntlet at these spendthrift imperialists: “We can afford to have an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we don’t make some of the decisions that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves overseas and think we can run foreign governments.” Washington can’t give marching orders to its own citizens with much effect, he averred, so why do we think we can do it in faraway Afghanistan?

He takes aim squarely at the Ryan budget, which has been adopted by the House GOP and is now at the center of the presidential campaign, characterizing it as typical of the Graham-McKeon spend-spend-spend mentality, which is an echo of the Bush years. Ryan’s proposed budget would increase military spending by $20 billion and is bereft of cost-cutting reforms. As Norquist put it:

“Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money. I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.”

Even in purely domestic terms Ryan’s budget is a farce: it projects a balanced budget in thirty years, and politically it’s a joke. He’s basically telling American voters they have to give up their Medicare and other benefits so that we can ensure the eternal prosperity of the military-industrial complex and maintain our overseas empire. And while Ryan is handing out goodies to the Pentagon, Graham and McKeon “are saying ‘can we steal all your deductions and credits and give it to the appropriators.’ The idea is that you are going to raise taxes on people to not think through defense priorities.”

Ah, but we know what are the priorities of politicians like Sen. Graham, he who hailed the “liberation” of Libya and his now agitating for overt US intervention in Syria. To the Grahams of this world, the slightest hesitation to meddle in the world’s many trouble spots is “isolationism.” In the US Senate, he and John McCain and Joe Lieberman function as the three harpies of perpetual war: whenever an opportunity comes up for increased American meddling, there is Lindsey the Conqueror, and his cohorts, butching it up for the cameras. He could care less about balancing the budget — unless it’s on the backs of little old ladies living on all the cat food their tiny Social Security checks can buy.

Well, Norquist, you must realize that this is a losing battle. Because:

Norquist, in his talk, endorsed a non-interventionist foreign policy and vowed to fight the effort to avoid sequestration by increasing taxes and leaving the military budget untouched.

Norquist has said this kind of thing before, but it’s the timing that makes it significant. We’re at the starting gate of what promises to be a hard fought presidential election, and the Republicans have just rolled out their Achilles — only to see one of the most prominent leaders of the conservative movement take a few well-aimed potshots at him. And it’s over what is basically a foreign policy issue: sure, Grover frames it as part of his no-new-taxes crusade, but as Garet Garrett so presciently put it in 1952:

“A second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire is: ‘Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.’ That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. . . . The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us.”

I think it is beyond time that we address the bloated, wasteful, destructive and deadly military/security complex this nation has liquored up on foreign policy imperrialism. Anyone who is serious about the financial health of the US, like Ryan claims to be, should not be side stepping the "Offense Department".

 

[Turks]

No doubt that much can be cut from the defense budget. But aside from cutting, we need honest oversight of where and how it is spent. We could certainly do more with less. It's the waste and corruption that inflates the overall cost.

We also need to address the issue of foreign aid and who receives it and what benefit, if any makes it worth it.

From that perspective(financial), the government should be run like a business.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's the same old. The minute anyone brings up defense spending cuts, teh chicken hawks start squabbling about national defense. That's where I see the problem. We've spent so many decades meddling in foreign affairs, we now veiw the matter of foreign policy as national defense. Viewing the entire world as yours in that sense, does not lead people to see viability to cuts of any kind.

We need strong national defense, we do not need any offense. We need leaders who are strong, willing and able to stand up and separate the two and how we can better control our spending, the use of our service people and our technology.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But I do find it funny that Ryan is really nothing more than a neocon. Balance the budget in 30 years?

Oh, and no touching the military! Also, we need war with Iran.

 

[SniperFire]

Sorry, TakeAStepBack, but you told the entire board you wish for America to collapse as soon as possible.

You really don't have any cred.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Link?

 

[SniperFire]

You are denying it, then?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Am i denying what?
That the federal governments debt policies will lead to its financial demise. It's a mathematical fact without big changes in policy. Paul Ryan isn't that guy. He's a neocon war promoter. His budget is a joke.

The federal government does not = America. Although I realize statists believe that it is.

 

[SniperFire]

Am i denying what?
That the federal governments debt policies will lead to its financial demise. It's a mathematical fact without big changes in policy. Paul Ryan isn't that guy. He's a neocon war promoter. His budget is a joke.

The federal government does not = America. Although I realize statists believe that it is.

That you are anxious for the collapse of America, the sooner the better.

Are you denying you have argued that you want America to fail?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes. Because that is not, nor never was anything I argued. Now, you want to stay on topic guy, instead of worrying about your perception of my credibility?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No doubt that much can be cut from the defense budget. But aside from cutting, we need honest oversight of where and how it is spent. We could certainly do more with less. It's the waste and corruption that inflates the overall cost.

Spot on!

We also need to address the issue of foreign aid and who receives it and what benefit, if any makes it worth it.

Yep, too often the aid is in reality a bribe.

From that perspective(financial), the government should be run like a business.

I'm not sure government should ever be run like a business; it's duty is to the citizens in the whole not one person, one family, an LLP or a group of stockholders. That said, I do believe more money invested in the Dept. of State would reap benefits greater than our investement in arms. An idea shared by Ike & JFK - both strong on defense - who experienced war up close and personal.

 

[SniperFire]

Yes. Because that is not, nor never was anything I argued. Now, you want to stay on topic guy, instead of worrying about your perception of my credibility?

Do you want me to pull up your quotes right now, or are you just going to admit you are lying?


Your call.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Post your quotes. I dont give a fuck. I already know what you're trying to argue and your argument is fallacious. The federal government does not = America. If I have to say it again AFTER you post your arguments, which have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I'll do that. Or you can stay on topic.


Your call.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes. Because that is not, nor never was anything I argued. Now, you want to stay on topic guy, instead of worrying about your perception of my credibility?

Do you want me to pull up your quotes right now, or are you just going to admit you are lying?


Your call.

Lord knows you certainly don't have anything better to do (ie. a job)

 

[SniperFire]

Post your quotes. I dont give a fuck. I already know what you're trying to argue and your argument is fallacious. The federal government does not = America. If I have to say it again AFTER you post your arguments, which have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I'll do that. Or you can stay on topic.


Your call.

Ahhh.. Slowly but surely. You did argue that you wanted the government of the United States of America to fail and collapse, right?

 

[SniperFire]

Yes. Because that is not, nor never was anything I argued. Now, you want to stay on topic guy, instead of worrying about your perception of my credibility?

Do you want me to pull up your quotes right now, or are you just going to admit you are lying?


Your call.

Lord knows you certainly don't have anything better to do (ie. a job)

I made more this morning than you will make this month.


But it has been a slow day.


LOL

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Post your quotes and STFU. This "argument" is concluded.


But your boy Paul Ryan is a neocon. With a lousy budget.

 

[SniperFire]

Post your quotes and STFU. This "argument" is concluded.


But your boy Paul Ryan is a neocon. With a lousy budget.

You got that right.

Somebody such as yourself who wants to see the United States of America fail has absolutely zero credibility in any discussion on how we spend our money.

Perhaps you should confine your posting to the cooking or travel sections, because each time you want to blast Republicans for trying to fix things, I am going to remind you that you are basically a traitor.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you want me to pull up your quotes right now, or are you just going to admit you are lying?


Your call.

Lord knows you certainly don't have anything better to do (ie. a job)

I made more this morning than you will make this month.


But it has been a slow day.


LOL

Doing what?

You've used this lame line before and I suspect that like last time, you'll ignore my question again.

...and go!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Post your quotes and STFU. This "argument" is concluded.


But your boy Paul Ryan is a neocon. With a lousy budget.

You got that right.

Somebody such as yourself who wants to see the United States of America fail has absolutely zero credibility in any discussion on how we spend our money.

Perhaps you should confine your posting to the cooking or travel sections, because each time you want to blast Republicans for trying to fix things, I am going to remind you that you are basically a traitor.

You go right ahead and do that, Corky. And yet still not one quote to back up your claims.

Now, lets resume the talks about how Paul Ryan is a neocon.