Subject: MUST READ: Wall Street Journal op-ed: Bill Burton: “Isolationists vs. Interventionists: The Latest GOP Split”
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:48:28 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*Wall Street Journal op-ed: Bill Burton: “Isolationists vs.
Interventionists: The Latest GOP Split”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/18/isolationists-vs-interventionists-the-latest-gop-split/>*

By Bill Burton

September 18, 2014, 11:22 a.m. EDT

In attacking Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, Republican Sens. Rand Paul
and Marco Rubio are doing a pretty good job of underscoring their own
differences on isolation versus interventionism. In their estimation, one
stance or the other accounts for the rise of Islamic State militants, and
either way, Mrs. Clinton is to blame.

Huh?

Mr. Rubio wrote an op-ed recently attacking Mrs. Clinton for being an
“isolationist” when it comes to foreign policy. He accuses her of paving
the way for the rise of Islamic State by not arming the moderate Syrian
opposition.

Mr. Rubio is completely wrong. Mrs. Clinton did in fact advocate for arming
the moderate Syrian opposition in order to prevent extremists from taking
control. But why take my word for it when his colleague is already pointing
out that truth?

In an op-ed a few weeks ago, Mr. Paul said the exact opposite of Sen.
Rubio, labeling Mrs. Clinton an “interventionist,” and asserting that
arming the moderate Syrian opposition would have “created a haven for the
Islamic State.”

You don’t have to read that closely between the lines to see that their
attacks weren’t only aimed at their straw woman du jour but also at each
other. Talk about an elephant in the room.

According to Mr. Rubio, “Members of my own Republican Party have also at
times embraced the Democrats’ narrative that too much American leadership
is the problem, rather than the solution to global instability. Not too
long ago, some neo-isolationists even claimed that America has no
significant national interest in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and that
American support for the Syrian opposition fueled the growth of the Islamic
State.” Hmm, I wonder who he’s talking about?

Mr. Paul didn’t hold back either in his criticism of the likes of Mr.
Rubio: “But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said
it would be ‘catastrophic’ if we failed to strike Syria. What they were
advocating for then—striking down Assad’s regime—would have made our
current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional
counterweight to the ISI[L] threat.”

Regardless of whether the Isolationists or the Interventionists prevail in
the GOP civil war, one thing is for sure: The Republican Party is divided
more than ever. And, I will remain hopeful that somehow, someday,
Republicans will get their act together, join in finding solutions and stop
the nonsense and silliness that helps no one.

*Bill Burton is executive vice president and managing director at the
Global Strategy Group and a senior fellow at the Center for American
Progress. He was deputy White House press secretary from 2009 - 2011. He is
on Twitter: @billburton. *