Election Over, Neocon Republicans Talk War

Election Over, Neocon Republicans Talk War

November 4th, 2010

(KurtNimmo) – It is time to get down to business now that Republicans are flush with victory. You’d think that business would be dismantling Obamacare or moving to outlaw the Federal Reserve. For establishment Republicans and their neocon buddies, however, the first item on the agenda is to make sure the war agenda moves forward.

Buck McKeon promised to take the forever war agenda into the 112th Congress.  

Hours after the Republicans realized their historic victory, U.S. Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, who is the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, wasted little time revealing the “broad vision for national defense policy that emphasizes winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while also investing in the capabilities and force structure necessary to protect the United States from threats of tomorrow,” according to The Santa Clarita Valley Signal.

McKeon was elected as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee in 2009 and is looking for the chairmanship of the committee for the 112th Congress. The United States House Committee on Armed Services is responsible for funding and oversight of the Department of Defense and the United States armed forces.

McKeon and the neocon Republicans want to sock your kids and grand kids into the misery of eternal debt in order to pay for the invasions of small backwater countries where there are recalcitrant Muslims who have problems with international banksters and world government organizations running every minute detail of their lives.

“Our citizens have spoken, and they want a defense budget that is sufficient to address the challenges of today and the threats of tomorrow,” McKeon said. “One percent real growth in the base defense budget over the next five years is a net reduction for modernization efforts which are critical to protecting our nation’s homeland” from dazed and confused underwear and stupendously inept barbeque grill canister non-bombers.

Mr. McKeon promised to take the forever war agenda into the 112th Congress, but also said “there is still work to be completed this year,” namely passing a National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 “that is not weighed down by the current majority’s social agenda items,” or for that matter the demands of millions of Americans who told the Republicans they want fiscal responsibility from the government and a return to the constitutional principles the country was founded upon, including the cherished principle of noninterventionism as spelled out by George Washington.

“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad,” wrote Ron Paul in August. “We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”

“A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health,” said Paul.

If the attitude of Buck McKeon and the establishment Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are any indication, it looks like the neocons will rule the roost under Republican control of Congress and it will be business as usual.

In addition to the never-ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can look forward to new manufactured conflicts in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere.

8 Responses to “Election Over, Neocon Republicans Talk War”

  • Patriot says:


    November 3, 2010

    Republican Eyes Defense Spending, Not Afghan Deadline
    By Phil Stewart, Reuters

    WASHINGTON — A Republican lawmaker who is expected to play a central role in setting military policy in the new Republican-led Congress said on Wednesday he wanted to boost defense spending but would not alter President Barack Obama’s deadline to start pulling out of Afghanistan.
    Analysts say the Republican capture of the House of Representatives on Tuesday may stiffen U.S. resolve in the war in Afghanistan, but raises questions about a range of defense issues, from defense contracts to gays in the military
    Howard “Buck” McKeon, expected to become the next chair of the House Armed Services Committee, balked at Obama’s plans to potentially push through a repeal of the military’s ban on gays in the “lame duck” session before the new Congress takes power in January.
    “I think that’s unwise,” McKeon told Reuters in a telephone interview.
    “I think the only reason they’re trying to do it is political. And I don’t think the military should be used as a political football,” he said, adding decisions like repealing the 17-year-old ban should not be made by outgoing lawmakers who had lost their elections.
    Republicans in Congress, including Obama’s 2008 presidential rival John McCain, have pressed the president to back away from his July 2011 date to begin troop withdrawals, saying it has backfired and fueled Taliban rhetoric about waiting out the West.
    McKeon said he always had objected to the July 2011 deadline for precisely that reason. But when asked whether he would seek to change Obama’s mind or change the drawdown date, he said: “No. I think that’s installed.”
    “We just want to be very careful that this isn’t used as an opportunity to pull everybody out, and leave the Afghans hanging, and leave the potential for al Qaeda to come back in for another safe haven,” he said.
    McKeon added that any withdrawal needed to be conditions-based and informed by the commanders on the ground.
    McKeon also praised a crackdown on militants in Pakistan under the Obama administration, which has included covert strikes by pilotless drone aircraft.
    “I think that all we have to do is just make sure that we keep the pressure on and understand that we have to win in both places (Afghanistan and Pakistan),” he said.
    With Republicans controlling the House and focused on the economy rather than the war, which was not a major issue in the election, analysts said Obama could feel less pressure to make the more sizable reductions in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
    “You could get, on Afghanistan, a little more space for the administration,” said Daniel Markey, an international security analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. “This is not going to be the primary focus of the new Republican majority in the House.”
    The sheer size of the defense budget — about 19 percent of the total federal budget and half of discretionary spending not already mandated for a particular purpose — makes it harder to balance the budget without touching military spending.
    That tension between spending on the war and the need to trim the budget could lead Congress to target the billions of dollars in civilian spending going to Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the war effort.
    “You continue to have this strong right arm of the military and this increasingly spindly left arm of the civilian side and that gets further hollowed out,” Markey said.
    If there is an intraparty squabble over defense spending, McKeon will be on the side of bigger defense budgets.
    McKeon said he opposed the Obama administration’s plans to boost core defense spending by just 1 percent over inflation, a figure Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying cope with by streamlining defense spending to free up more cash.
    Gates proposed a 2011 defense budget of $548.9 billion, not including war spending.
    The question has broad implications for the Pentagon’s largest suppliers — Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, BAE Systems Plc, General Dynamics Corp and Raytheon Co.
    “We have underlying costs that are taking such a high percentage of our budget that we’re not going to have enough to do the (necessary) R&D and do the weaponry spending,” he said.
    “I think we need more money in defense and I think we need to do a better job spending that money.”
    Additional reporting byDavid Alexander.

  • Patriot says:

    Wingnuts on Parade (by Philip Giraldi):


    Election puts pro-Israel Neocons back on Top:


    Press TV talks to James Morris on Yemen Bomb Scare Scenario


    Neocons Resurfacing under Obama:



  • Patriot says:

    Press TV’s Waqar Rizvi talks to Mark Dankof on Democratic Failure


    US Elections: Israel Won


  • Patriot says:

    Neocons down…but not out (Buck McKeon shown as well)


Leave a Reply