Sunday, May 09, 2010


Looks as if Chuck DeVore, the teabagger candidate Palin was supposed to endorse in the California Senate if she wanted to maintain her conservative-correctness credentials, is actually to Obama's left regarding war in Afghanistan. Shocking! This is from a debate held today; DeVore begins by commenting on the health care law, then pivots to Afghanistan:

Transcript, via Free Republic:

"Short answer to your question is yes, it is unconstitutional and for that reason, I signed a pledge to repeal Obamacare four months ago. Carly Fiorina signed it the day after it passed and Tom Campbell still signed the pledge.

To go back to the previous question, though, I think it's very important what's going on in Afghanistan. It's very important that we understand that the Taliban and Al-qaida does not present a existential threat to the United States. They don't have an industrial base. They don't have armies. They're terrorists. Now, because of the fact that Afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army, where is the endgame? Are you proposing that we just stay in Afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy? For heaven's sakes, their constitution was drafted by the French as part of the NATO mission and it envisions a strong central government which is inimical like afghan culture and tradition. I'm an intelligence officer. I'm a lieutenant colonel. I've studied this issue. We need to kill our enemies. We don't need to build a modern nation state where one cannot exist for 100 years."

Wow -- "where is the endgame?" That's almost paleoconservative talk -- Ron Paul talk, Pat Buchanan talk. I know Bush (and candidate McCain) thought Iraq was the important war, but the jingoier-than-thou party is mostly pro-Afghan War now, even if it means agreeing with Obama (and you know how much that must kill them).

DeVore's talked like this before. Back in January, in a Washington Times op-ed, he criticized Obama's Afghanistan policy, writing:

Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the result we want: deadly consequences for attacking Americans. This can be done with special forces, drones and better human intelligence.

For this, The American Spectator dubbed him "DeVore the Dove."

Sarah Palin may be a low-information voter, but even she might have managed to become aware of this, perhaps after being informed of it by an adviser or by the Fiorina campaign. It's hard to imagine a simple-minded flag-wavin' gal like Sarah Palin backing less U.S. military involvement anywhere. I really wonder if this played a part in her decision to endorse Carly.

No comments: