Republicans are up in arms, no pun intended, about the past support of the Iraq war from some of Joe Biden’s nominee’s, but at least one left some damning evidence behind that he also supported that war.
In a newly uncovered blog post, controversial Senator Josh Hawley (R. MO) lays out his clear support for a war that he now conveniently opposes.
According to CNN, Hawley wrote the post before he became a lawmaker. In the 2005 blog post about Iraq, Hawley said:
“The question should not be, When do we get to leave? But instead, How are we going to win?”
“Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has an excellent column on Iraq in this morning’s Washington Post. Kissinger understands the importance of linking the security and political situations in the country.”
Hawley’s blog concluded:
“That is, we must both train Iraqi troops and use them to suppress the insurgency as well as push forward with the formation of a stable, democratic government,” Hawley continued. “He also understands that military operations in Iraq must be subordinated to and integrated with our broader geo-strategic goals in the region. Read the piece. It’ll make an excellent primer for the President’s Oval Office address tonight.”
Last November, the Trump loving Senator tweeted a picture of Biden’s Cabinet nominees, captioned “What a group of corporatists and war enthusiasts.”
“Take Tony Blinken. He’s backed every endless war since the Iraq invasion. Now he works for #BigTech and helps companies break into #China. He has no sense of what working Americans want or need.”
Like former President Trump, of whom he was a top supporter and defender, Hawley initially expressed support for the Iraq War and changed his mind while running for office in 2016.
Phil Letsou, Hawley’s spokesperson Phil Letsou, defended the Missouri Senator:
“Senator Hawley’s views have definitely changed since his school days. If the twenty-year failed experiment in ‘neo-conservative’ globalism in the Middle East doesn’t convince you that nation-building doesn’t work, nothing will.”
This is hardly the first time that Hawley wrote in the past has come back to haunt him.
Senator Josh Hawley (R. MO) is one of a handful of elected Republican officials that Democrats believe should be investigated for their role in inciting and violent, armed, pro-Trump insurrection at the Capitol Building on January 6.
Hawley has followed in the footsteps of fellow Republican lawmaker Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, remaining defiant and claiming his actions did not contribute to the violence.
As Hawley’s past has been drudged up following the chaos on January 6th, the hand-wringing from many of his former supporters has irked many Democrats. The GOP colleagues are seemingly pretending that Hawley wasn’t always the person that seemingly helped incite the horribly violent acts at the Capitol.
But, as the Kansas City Star reports, Hawley has a history of racist, pro-militia, and defender of domestic terrorism rhetoric. The Star dug up a column Hawley wrote at 15, defending militia members associated with the infamous Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.
The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City led Hawley to pen a column defending the Michigan Militia from the criticism they received for being domestic terrorists.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who were found guilty of carrying out the bombing which killed 169 people, including 19 children, and injured hundreds more, were connected to a Michigan militia.
Hawley, writing for The Lexington News while just a high school student, played the ‘good people on both sides’ defense, claiming that “Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped.”
Hawley claimed that media outlets and elected officials have “dismissed” them and they are simply coming together to express their anger at the status quo.
Hawley also defended disgraced racist LA police officer Mark Fuhrman, saying, “In this politically correct society, derogatory labels such as ‘racist’ are widely misused, and our ability to have open debate is eroding.”