John Dennis updates his National Defense postion

The first serious campaign to challenge incumbent Nancy Pelosi in 20 years, has updated their position on National Defense.  The initial policy was weak, and we pointed that out in several blog posts including the John Dennis campaign's Facebook page.  The updated position is a little stronger, but still truly falls short.  When you take a position on U.S. Government action overseas in someone else's country, it's no longer just "National Defense" it's International Policy.  If you limit your Position to Military Action only, then you are doomed to the historical failures of Reactionary International Policy.  If a candidate for congress wants to have a complete and proactive position on National defense/ International Policy then you have to site the current issues and how you propose our Nation address such issues.  The root issues in the mid-east are unlimited amounts of Petro-dollars paid to Wahhabi and other Sponsors of Terror, and a culture of violence towards women.  A strong candidate position of Federal Government action would be to halt/end petro-dollars to sponsors of Terror and a Federal Policy to contract Female owned and operated businesses in the Region.  These would be proactive Policies that could easily gain world-wide support.

So why the wishy-washy position from a Republican Liberty Caucus candidate in San Francisco.   His statement: "I am concerned with the current U.S. timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. The final exit of December 2011 creates the realistic possibility of U.S. troops being drawn back into battle should civil war(s) break out."  is perhaps an effort to hedge his bets and gain cover with some traditional Republican War hawks who are, however ironically, currently voting against ALL Mid-East War funding bills that pass through Congress every 3 to 4 months.  The statement in itself is ridiculous, the British, Canadians, & Chinese could say the same about the U.S. the way the Red-Blue State battles have been accelerating (Yes this includes the Coffee/Tea-Party, PANC/ DowningStreet campaigns as well).

This is further a ridiculous position in that: the vast majority of San Franciscan's would support John Dennis if he had the courage to site Nancy Pelosi's negligence, complacency and collusion in Leading congress to Fund month-after-month the Wars, Occupations, Fraud (Military contracts to Political supporters only) Bribery(195 Billion lost in cash payments) and loss of American Tax Payers money and future for a "War of Choice".
If John Dennis wants to lead our country away from a wreck-less path of wasteful spending and destruction, then he really needs to hit the incumbent Nancy Pelosi hard for her misdeeds, bad policies, and collusion with a bad administration over the last decade.



Below is the Dennis campaign position as of St. Patrick's day 2010:

"People do not make wars; governments do." - Ronald Reagan

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." - George Washington

War is maybe the greatest tragedy that men inflict upon each other. It must be used only in retaliation or under threat of imminent attack.
Most importantly, the Constitution is clear on who bears the responsibility of the power to declare war: the Congress. The danger of allowing a President to use force at his discretion ought to be clear now. I am strongly opposed to Congress passing resolutions granting the President the authority to use force. Unless there is an imminent attack, the Congress should never disregard its Constitutional obligation over the war power.  A decision to declare war requires debate, a process that clarifies the country's situation and leaves a clear conscience whatever decided.
As a country we should welcome trade with all countries, resolve our outstanding disputes with countries considered unfriendly and have diplomatic relations with all.
I support ending both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and withdrawing our troops as safely and quickly as possible.
I am concerned with the current U.S. timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. The final exit of December 2011 creates the realistic possibility of U.S. troops being drawn back into battle should civil war(s) break out.
I do not believe our foreign military bases are Constitutional, nor do I believe they make us safer.
A compromise position/exercise would be to recommend a review of all of the 700+ bases the U.S. has around the world, such as the review conducted in the early 1990's at the end of the Cold War. Each foreign base would be required to justify its strategic importance to the defense of American citizens in order to continue to receive funding.

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."  General Smedley Butler

National Defense | Defeat Pelosi by John Dennis 2010