Paul Ryan’s foreign policy: weakness through strength
by digby
In case you came away confused, Adam Serwer helpfully broke down the two arguments at the VP debate over the Benghazi attacks. Neither side is covered in glory, but then the facts remain somewhat muddied and the Republicans are, as usualy, being particularly hypocritical.
But this I found quite illuminaitng:
Ryan’s logic breaks down completely when it comes to his contradictory views on funding for defense and for the State Department. “When we show that we’re cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak,” he said. “It projects weakness.” (Ryan, you’ll recall, voted for the sequestration deal that could end in defense cuts. Is he therefore also responsible for the Benghazi attack?) The historical record on attacks on US diplomatic targets shows that Ryan’s theory—that Republicans ostensibly “projecting strength” stops terrorist attacks—is nonsense:
We all knew about Bush Sr’s “wimp factor” but it looks to me as if Uncle Ronnie wasn’t exactly “projecting” strength either. All that bellicose sabre rattling for naught. What will we tell the children?
.