Sen. Graham takes on Rep. Goode.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) smacked down Virgil Goode on Stephanopoulos’ show this morning. That makes him the first Republican congressional representative to speak out against (or for) Goode. Well done, Sen. Graham. Who’s up next?

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

9 replies on “Sen. Graham takes on Rep. Goode.”

  1. unfortunately Graham giveth and Graham taketh away. His unwillingness to talk with either Syria or Iran makes it that much more likely that more Americans – and Brits and Iraqis – will die because of the pigheadedness of this administration.

  2. The above more or less illustrates why most Americans do not trust the Left on foreign policy.

    “Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”
    — Idaho Senator William Borah, upon hearing of the Nazi invasion of Poland.

  3. The above more or less illustrates why most Americans do not trust the Left on foreign policy.

    Except that there’s nothing “left” about Lindsay Graham. He’s a conservative Republican Senator from South Carolina.

  4. Judge Smails,

    Sorry, second reading leads me to believe that you were referring to teacherken’s comment, rather than those of Senator Graham. (Perhaps I should do second readings before commenting.)

  5. Yes, Judge, the Bush doctrine is that diplomacy should only be a last resort, after all military options have been exhausted. We must not deviate from it. Bush must talk only with people who agree with him, whether they be other countries, members of Congress, advisers, or American voters.

    (Note, by the way, that Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with Iranian foreign policy.)

  6. gee Judge Smails, Americans so distrust the Left (by which I presume you mean the Democrats) that they just voted to give them control of Congress, with one of the key issues being their lack of trust of the administration’s foreign policy, as exemplified by the administration’s total botch of Iraq, and is now clear with the rearising of the Taliban, of Afghanistan.

    We do not have enough troops to impose our will. we will always need the cooperation of others. Funny isn’t it that many on “the Right” willingly cooperated and talked with and even financially supported rulers who were brutal like Pinochet, oh, and when it was convenient one Saddam Hussein (that was Donald Rumsfeld, not a “leftist” who shook his hand in the 1980’s, and it was Dick Cheney’s Halliburton doing business with Saddam through a European subsidiary to get around the US ban on such buiness), but are unwilling to explore how a combination of talk and the possibility of force might get greater cooperation from regimes that could do a great to either stabilize or destabilize the region?

    Tell you what – if you so strongly believe it is wrong to talk, since absence of talk could mean an expansion of millitary conflict, meaning more Americans might die, why don’t you prove how much you support this policy by enlisting, or like Dick Cheney do you simply have other priorities, as he did for his 5 deferments during Vietnam?

    Sorry Waldo, but since the gentlemen seems to think it appropriate to brush broadly without knowing about whom he is talking (and perhaps not what he is talking) I feel entitle to offer him a little of his own reasoning.

  7. Sorry if I don’t see how diplomacy’s going to get us anywhere with the mad mullahs or Boy Assad. We might as well try to make a deal with Lil’ Kim, oh wait, Clinton did make a deal with N. Korea. How’d that work out for us?

  8. We should be talking to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, not Syria and Iran. The aforementioned countries have more to lose from a ruined Iraq, and are more likely to work with us than the other two.

Comments are closed.