Upside down and as confused as ever, career politician Scott Walker really doesn't see how his own preemptive war policy, known as the Bush Doctrine, got us into Iraq for all the wrong reasons in the first place.
That became obvious when Walker decided to attack Jeb Bush for saying he would still support invading Iraq knowing what he knows now. That's the thing about preemption, the facts and unintended consequences only become known later. That's what made Jeb's comment so horrific.
And that's what makes Walker's political one-upsmanship of Jeb Bush so ridiculous and dangerously clueless. jsonline:
Fresh off a trip to Israel, Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker said that the U.S.
invasion of Iraq doesn't hold up in hindsight. "Any president would have
likely taken the same action Bush did with the information he had, even (then
U.S. Sen.) Hillary Clinton voted for it, but knowing what we know now, we
should not have gone into Iraq," Walker said in his statement.
And like George Bush, Walker will make the case for preemptive war, not knowing what we will only know after the fact, having learned nothing from the past.
"We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us. We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." - Walker
Who knew preemptive war was still a good idea, especially after Iraq.
And yet, our meek and cowering career politician and sometimes Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is coming across like the most unapologetic hawk since Dick Cheney, and then some. For a guy who's foreign policy experience doesn't extend beyond the Illinois and Minnesota borders, Walker is turning out to be one of the scariest authoritarian threats to world peace ever.
The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address (in N.H.). Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us. We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil."
If there ever was a failed policy, and an outright scary one at that, it was the Bush/Cheney preemptive war policy. It made the U.S. the global bully. It also went horribly wrong, spreading al Qaeda throughout Iraq and spin off groups like ISIS.
What, learn from the past...never!!! Scott Walker apparently wasn't paying attention when we were fighting two wars on the credit card, a common problem on the right, where petty distractions have run amok.
Walker made it clear, preemptive, never ending war is coming. Walker mentioned watching the horrific ISIS videos. Maybe it's just me, but I never felt the need to watch a caged prisoner burned to death or get others get beheaded. Guys like Scott Walker had to watch, and take in the moment. And like your typical conservative terror junkie, it motivated him to breathlessly fear monger an already paranoid tea party gun toting audience.
While Sen. Tom Cotton thinks bombing Iran, for just a couple of days is cool (it won't result in any kind of military blowback?), our own frightened Dumb Ron Johnson is taking Walker's side; war, war, war. Wipe ISIS off the map:
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson said his preferred method for dealing
with ISIS is to "wipe them off the face of the Earth" as he blasted
President Obama for being too soft on the issue. "For me, defeat is, you know, defeat. Get rid of them, kill them! Wipe them off the face of the Earth. Wipe that evil, that
barbarity off the face of the Earth. President Obama's definition of defeat is
'Let's kind of just contain this thing, kick it down the road and let the next
guy or gal take care of it.'"
Johnson even thinks we should have stayed in Iraq. Both Bush and Obama tried to keep some military presence in Iraq but backed away when told our soldiers would be exposed to the whims of Iraqi law. Johnson is unaware the facts, as usual:
Johnson also blasted Obama for pulling
U.S troops from Iraq, saying "the war had been won" but that the U.S
should have stayed to build a stable democracy. Obama, Johnson said, "bugged
out," causing U.S. casualties and money spent to be "wasted." Johnson
told WisPolitics.com afterward that he would not vote to authorize troops
to fight ISIS in Syria and elsewhere because he doubts Obama's commitment to
success.
As an added bonus, here's my little tribute to that grating Walker "head-bob & believe" gimmick:
Who would have thought Scott Walker's tired old speech, with a little injected energy, could result in something like this;
ABC/This Week's Martha Raddatz stopped Scott Walker from "going back" to Obama's "red line," pressing him to "go forward" and explain what his "big bold idea" in Syria would be:
Ironically, Walker represents more of a rerun of the Bush/Cheney years than Jeb Bush himself. Walker's calm detached demeanor is almost scary in light of taking the nation back to the Bush and preemptive wars, a failed foreign policy that ended tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. The cost of treating physically and mentally injured veterans will continue for 50 to 60 years, and opened the door to ISIS and other terrorist groups seeking power:
WALKER: Well, I think - I go back to the red line. RADDATZ: Let's not go back. Let's go forward. What is your
big, bold idea in Syria? WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to
ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because
it's not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I
should say, it's when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only
amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we're willing to take
appropriate action. I think it should be surgical. RADDATZ: You don't think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to
ISIS in Syria and Iraq? WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy
anywhere around the world. I think it's a mistake to - RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don't know what
aggressive strategy means. If we're bombing and we've done 2,000 air strikes,
what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy? WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be - go
beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods.
And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that's
what it takes, because I think, you know-- RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the
ground in Syria? WALKER: I don't think that is an immediate plan, but I think
anywhere in the world-- RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out. WALKER: I wouldn't rule anything out.
One more thing. Matthew Dowd said what the lazy press will be saying till the next election, and it's a major sticking point with me; what about Walker's actual record?
"He's a competent governor, so he's done that well..."
Republican governors have failed miserably, worse than their Democratic counterparts, and yet the media doesn't seem to care.
That became obvious when Walker decided to attack Jeb Bush for saying he would still support invading Iraq knowing what he knows now. That's the thing about preemption, the facts and unintended consequences only become known later. That's what made Jeb's comment so horrific.
And like George Bush, Walker will make the case for preemptive war, not knowing what we will only know after the fact, having learned nothing from the past.
