http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cpac-2013-day-one-recap-paul-victorious-breitbart-bitter/

Paul’s speech was also bookended by twin neoconservative panels, one on Islamofascism and Iran, featuring Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Buck McKeon, and one–on the main stage, no less–on Benghazi.

The latter featured Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, apparently a foreign policy expert in the CPAC universe, who told the crowd “we can remove Iran as a threat if we commit to a policy of regime change, by peaceful transition if possible, and by military removal if necessary.”

Our ability to do so, he contended, was a matter of American resolve, which is apparently in question because of Senator Paul’s filibuster. “The filibuster was a brave and heroic gesture of opposition. It proved that at least one leader–a Tea Party leader–was prepared to stand up for the Constitution and for the principle that individual liberty precedes government power. But Senator Paul was wrong about one thing: it is not as easy to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants as he suggested.”

He continued: “A foreign terrorist on foreign soil does not stop being a terrorist simply because he or she is far from the battlefield. If we accept the hypothetical example that he used, that a terrorist at a cafe is never a legitimate target, then we cannot protect ourselves from terror. In our zeal to roll back government power we will have placed our liberty in danger. Similarly, in embracing the sequester, we cannot accept defense cuts that may prove more costly over time by putting our security at risk. We must replace those cuts with other cuts.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cpac-2013-the-war-party/

Rep. Tom Cotton, next up, instantly made it clear why he’s a neoconservative darling. He blamed the nation’s war-weariness on President Obama’s alleged war-weariness and worried that he prosecuted the War on Terror as a law enforcement action. ...

“The president, I worry, is returning us to a law-enforcement construct, the kind that prevailed in the 1990s before the 9/11 attacks. Speaking of the 1990s, the final question is, can we afford this war? The answer is yes, we can afford it, and the answer is yes, we must afford it.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#22823337)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/senator-ayottes-hypocrisy-on-syria/

"In Syria, we sat on the sidelines while over 70,000 Syrians were slaughtered, ceding our policy to the vetoes of the Russians and the Chinese in the United Nations, to a bunch of United Nations bureaucrats. And in Afghanistan the president has undercut his commanders time and time again. In Libya the administration again led from behind and never took steps to secure Qaddafi’s weapons stash, and you know where those weapons are now? They’re in the hands of Islamic radicals in Mali, Egypt, and Syria, used by terrorists to harm us and our allies."

republicans, why do you keep electing these tards?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#22823454)

try to watch 2 minutes of this without wanting to slit her throat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evmvGd77lw&feature=player_detailpage#t=200s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#22829340)

republicans, why did you choose to "stay the course" of neoconservatism and go with mccain above all others?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#22829793)

hop to it, bro. lots of neocon asses out there to start kicking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#22835701)

usa can't spend 24 hours bombing 6 industrial sites because its "endless war".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2206859&forum_id=2Vannesa#25151676)