7 votes

Norquist: Ryan, Romney wrong on defense budgets

Pretty good op-ed. It even mentions non-interventionism. Remember back when that was a scary word?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, his would-be vice president Paul Ryan, and defense hawks in Congress are wrong that savings can't be found in the U.S. defense budget, according to Grover Norquist, the influential president of Americans for Tax Reform, who said that he will fight using any new revenues to keep military spending high.

"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," Norquist said Monday at an event at the Center for the National Interest, formerly the Nixon Center.

But Ryan's views are at odds with those of Norquist and other budget hawks, who argue that defense budgets can be trimmed. Ryan's budget plan provides for increasing military spending and doesn't suggest any tradeoff or specific defense reforms.

"Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money," Norquist said. "I wouldn't ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/13/grover_no...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The neo-cons are offense hawks, not defense hawks

Misuse of language is one of the primary tools of delusion and control.

Hmm, isn't Grover Norquist a

Hmm, isn't Grover Norquist a member of Council on Foreign Relations?!?!

What does it tell you when a CFR member says that our military budget is out of control & isn't really geared for our needs? This is quite telling.

I'm still going to be somewhat suspicious of his motivations to make this statement. But I welcome the fact that such statement is being made. My theory on why he's doing this:

It is purely for political reasons during election year, to present an illusion that a rational argument is being made by someone from the establishment. Basically lying with false promises (same as what Obama faction did in 2008) to get their foot in the door, but continue with neocon policies of murder & mayhem once their objectives are achieved.

Here is an old video regarding this, BTW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoJcI3VuFw

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

Rebrand

I think we should rebrand 'non-intervention' to 'neutrality'. The latter may be more palatable to the masses and more understandable.

Back in the day,

Back in the day, non-interventionism was auto-corrected to "isolationism.". Remember that battle we for for several years explaining the rather obvious difference? It seems like the intelligentsia have now abandoned that play call for the time being.