BUT HAS HE CHECKED AMERICA’S STOCKPILE?
It’s been all ISIS, all the time lately …
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – which as we’ve noted previously owes its existence (and much of its weaponry) to America’s failed policy of interventionism in the Middle East – has effectively hijacked the U.S. presidential campaign with its recent terrorist attacks in Paris.
All of a sudden, war rhetoric is ramping up … with 2016 hopefuls seeking to out-bravado each other as it relates to what they would do to ISIS, which recent intelligence reports reveal is far from contained.
The winner? U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
During a visit to early-voting Iowa over the weekend, Cruz dialed the anti-ISIS rhetoric up to “eleven.”
“We will utterly destroy ISIS,” Cruz said. “We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out. And we are going to make abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the planet, if you wage jihad against the United States of America and try to murder innocent Americans, you are signing your death warrant.”
Damn …
We’ve got no problem with that sort of tough talk. In fact we said as much in our recent “Hit Reset” column. The only problem? America – which spends $600 billion a year on its military – is running out of bombs.
That’s right … the “War on Terror II” is almost out of ammo after only 20,000 munitions have been dropped.
Kinda hard to make the sand glow in the dark at that rate …
30 comments
Another tough talking Republican “chicken hawk” who has never served a day. Send Cruz to Syria. He’d wet his pants.
Really? The “chicken hawk” argument? That’s about as old, tired, and irrelevant an argument as they come.
How so? Promising to send other peoples family to fight a war, when you or your family have no chance of going to fight is a chicken shit thing to do…whether you’re a Republican or Democrat.
UHH-RAA
If the “chicken-hawk” argument is your only point then you’re not really engaged in any serious thinking about a legitimate humanitarian and national security concern that deserves our attention. You’re only attempting to depict those you disagree with as hypocrites and warmongers. I guess that’s fine if that’s all you want to do, but is meaningless regarding policy position. If Cruz did have a family member engaged militarily (and I don’t know whether he does or not), the same argument wouldn’t be used (it would be something else), therefore it’s disingenuous to use it to begin with. The military doesn’t make this argument of their political leaders, so why should other people who are completely uninvolved.
Who said anything about it being my only arguement. It is something to take into account when judging ones character. If you are threatening to go to war without considering the wellfare of the people who will be doing the actual fighting, you’re immature and shouldn’t be given that power. I know that’s rarely a reality today, but it’s still something to consider when vetting a potential POTUS.
No, it isn’t. Nobody gave Obama that litmus test. Nobody said he had to have an Air Force pilot in his family before he bombed Libya. It’s just a nice cheap little argument the left thinks it can use as a gotcha. “Considering the welfare of the people” means doing what’s necessary to ensure national security. Every president has a group of military advisers, as well as cabinet members who likely have family members in the military. How far do you want to take this? Require president’s simply have at least a distant cousin involved? or a sibling? or a child? or a neighbor? This is why it’s absurd to bring up, not to mention irrelevant.
Obama is a fucking chicken hawk too. They are in both parties. It isn’t a partian arguement. Obama doesn’t just open his mouth a threaten annilation of people. The president isn’t a pro wrestler cutting a promo. Cruz looks like a dumb teenager when he says those things. I guess you eat that shit right up?
He hasn’t responded in an hour, I think you hit the nail on the head.
I laughed when he talked about humanitarian concerns regarding ISIL. Anyone paying even a slight amount of attention to America’s foreign policy should know by now that we only promote one concern when meddling in the affairs of other countries, and that is our own corporate interests.
The nice thing is that the defense contractors and the corporate interests that lead us into war are nice enough to generate makeshift “causes for concern” so that people like Daniel Boome walk right over the cliff of fiscal insolvency with the other lemmings begging for trillions of dollars in war spending that we aren’t paying for.
It isn’t hard to shut Daniel down.
No, actually it’s because it’s pointless. There’s no use arguing you liberal fundamentalists.
Also, I never “talked about humanitarian concerns regarding ISIL”, so I don’t know where the hell you got that. It furthers my point that it’s pointless to argue with you people. So do your last point, that people like me “walk right over the cliff of fiscal insolvency with the other lemmings begging for trillions of dollars in war spending that we aren’t paying for”. How does that have anything to do with what is being debated in this string so far? It doesn’t, that’s the answer. It’s an incredible non-sequitir. You are so steeped in your presumptive misrepresentations that you can’t even keep on a simple topic.
All people who hold or aspire to positions of leadership or responsibility need to be thoughtful, circumspect, and conscientious about questions of war. In war, people get killed — and not just those who deserve to die. Loud mouthed, blustering, swaggering, “big talkers” seem often to be those who dodged service. Remember: “Bring ’em on” spoken by Mr. “Mission Accomplished” himself? I prefer cautious, reasonable, and calm any day. If Cruz thinks war bluster will make him president, he’s wrong.
And how much time did Obama serve?
How about Biden?
You really don’t want to go there.
They don’t play the swaggering “tough game” game.
Yeah, in other words, they never served.
Cruz will be leading Trump soon.
I don’t think Ted’s own mother likes him.
http://gawker.com/watch-the-most-deeply-uncomfortable-moments-of-the-ted-1746198836
Cruz saw the result of Trump’s statement on immigration and said, “Gimme some of dat.”
Trump has put the issue on the table and it is getting a lot of press, and it is not going unnoticed.
Ernie, you are reading my mind again. ;-)
Yes , Cruz will be a moderate on the issue.
He will not go as far as trump on requiring NO immigration of certain groups.
The Democrats may end up losing votes because of this issue if Cruz takes a moderate stance.
Hey dipstick, ISIL predates the invasion of Iraq.
ISIL or ISIS or Daesh or whatever the hell you want to call it was founded in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as JTJ (The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad). They aligned with Al Qaida in ’05-’06 and then broke away in ’13-’14 declaring the reconstitution of the Caliphate in June of 2014.
Gotta say Col, your avatar pic has some snap and pop!
I’m pretty sure that gentleman’s bones snap and pop as he renders the hand salute… Mine damn sure do!
What ?
Cruz is one of those monkey see, monkey do, candidates. Crazy is working for Trump, so shit, may as well try to out crazy him.
Exactly. Cruz is the hated guy in the Senate. Even in his own party.
When reporters literally cannot find a SINGLE person who has worked with the guy who will say anything postive about the man, and those were Republicans, it doesn’t look good for this grinning turd.
Glad to see some people stirred up about ISIS. Relatively speaking, anyone criticizing ISIS as compared to Obama would be seen as a war-monger since he does not have a clue.
Something must be done to control this threat and in the end it will be something our military is capable of doing and the general public is capable of accepting. Some of the rhetoric lately has been over the top, but something more acceptable must be done. The Obama strategy has been proven to be a disaster.
1,000 +++