It’s a sad commentary on people who fancy themselves driving down the middle of the road politically that having reached a dead end in their philosophy, blame it all on their navigation system. It’s not their fault that they’ve gotten lost; it’s that female voice that comes from the front of the car.
In every possible way, these people are blaming conservatives for all the problems in our nation’s foreign policy. Anyone who favors Donald Trump opposes NATO, likes Russia and has lost all faith in our nation.
Example: the Wall Street Journal’s Gerry Baker, who claims that anyone who opposes the spend-it-all policies of our government must love Vladimir Putin, and saying Joe Biden has ever done anything wrong to his opponents is both stupid and evil. It was all there in a column headlined “The Moral Blindness of Putin’s Apologists on the Right”:
The only response of all decent people to the death of Alexei Navalny, the brave critic of Vladimir Putin’s regime, in a Siberian prison camp is grief, disgust and unqualified condemnation.
Translation: To something bad that happened on the other side of the globe, you are allowed one emotion (“the only response”) and anything else automatically makes you a bad person (“decent people”).
In the same edition, Journal editor Bill McGurn blames our stunning lack of support for Ukraine—barely $100 billion so far—on both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, but mostly Trump:
Mr. Trump has always been skeptical about what we get for our alliances and treaties, especially the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. “ McGurn says Trump is okay with the occasional drone strike, but “longer-term commitments, especially multilateral ones, he tends to view solely as an expense that ropes us in to fights that aren’t our own.
Translation: How dare we back away from our commitments to NATO members and other nations we’ve promised to defend?
Except: Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO and we never had any sort of defense treaty with it. Ukraine’s capital is 2,500 miles away from the North Atlantic, hardly making it a prime candidate for a group named after that ocean.
An Associated Press analysis by Nicholas Riccardi noted Trump’s opposition to further aid to Ukraine (aka “money down a rathole”) and wrote:
But several experts noted that Putin has alluded to plans to retake much of the former Soviet Union's territory, which could include NATO countries such as Lithuania and Estonia that the U.S is obligated under its treaty to defend militarily.
Translation: Russia hasn’t done anything to any country we are obligated to defend, but maybe they could, you know, sometime in the future. And then we would have to, you know, defend them, so why wait?
The people who object to conservative trepidation over Ukraine are people who went through school in the post-World War Two glow of absolute American superiority in the world, militarily and otherwise. America had money and soldiers to defend any place we decided to help. To them today, all we have to do is write a few checks, Ukraine wins its war and bad-man Putin slinks away in shame.
So how has that worked? The battle lines in Ukraine are in the same location they were in April of 2022. Is that winning? Well, Russia hasn’t defeated Ukraine yet, supporters of massive aid say, claiming some sort of moral victory in the bloody stalemate. Neither side wants to admit its losses, will not publish lists of those killed and American journalists seem very uninterested in finding answers. But we’ve got to send them more money!
Sadly, our nation’s pride in its post-World War II superiority has taken a few hits that senators and other traditionalists are deliberately ignoring:
Korea: tie (borders still where they were after 1953 cease-fire)
Vietnam: big loss
Desert Storm: win
Iraq: quick win over crummy army, slow loss to radical opponents. But Saddam is dead!
Afghanistan: huge loss after spending $2 trillion and leaving $80 billion in weapons to use against us.
Any team with a 1-3-1 record isn’t going to the playoffs.
What makes these people think we should continue to support a country we have very little to do with, that 95% of Americans couldn’t find on a map, against a country that hasn’t attacked us and has no plans to do so? Any money we send them will be borrowed and add to the $34 trillion in debt we already have.
And why don’t we do anything about the invasion of our own country by almost ten million people with no right to be here? Why is defending a country 5,000 miles away more important than defending our own borders?
Ignore all that, the mainstream media and Uniparty tell us. Any problems we’ve had were caused by the Lady in the Dashboard. We got the wrong directions, but this time will be different. Ukrainian soldiers will march through the streets of Moscow and we will be praised by all the world. Another hundred or two hundred billion in borrowed money will turn things around. NATO, a group set up 75 years ago to stop an enemy that no longer exists, will be extended to every country everywhere and we will write checks forever to defend them.
So who’s delusional? Conservatives who believe we don’t have infinite money and power, or people who believe we can trust policies that have yet to show they work?
Everything will be explained, they say, as soon as we do two things:
1.Give them the money.
2. Shut up.
I'm going to write you in as my choice for Vice-President in all those emails I get from Trump. You should at least serve as his Countering MSM Czar.
I don't think there are many big savings/checking accounts just sitting around that they can 'dip into' to willy nilly (and then redistribute the dollars as they see fit).. which these scheming clowns now unashamedly compete (against each other) to see who can dip deeper into any type of 'set asides' and/or future entitlements that may have accrued-usually by replacing all the cash with their worthless IOU's (which they have no plans of ever repaying and/or that someone else will have to answer for down the road). They are absolutely dependent upon the constant inflow of cash coming in daily.. most of it from payroll taxes and the numerous other schemes they've ALL helped implement, that require more of our 'fair share' (be sent to them). If we could just come up with a way to legally reduce, postpone, and/or delay (but not shirk) sending our cash to them.. and there are many legitimate reasons available for this.. we could cut the incoming cash flow they need (and are counting on to finance their self-serving schemes and boondoggles) back substantially. How long would it take for them to start really feeling the heat from this intentional lack of 'revenue' (which they had been enjoying)???