Graham, who is in his third term in the Senate, has gained a reputation as one of the few Republicans who has, in the past, acknowledged the science finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and has worked across the aisle on legislation to deal with it. Among the Republican presidential contenders, former New York Gov. George Pataki is the only other candidate who has been proactively engaged on climate.

But while Graham gets a lot of credit for his views on the climate, his record on the issue has been mixed and at times contradictory.

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/06/lindsey-graham-has-entirely-reasonable-position-climate-change-sometimes

See toon at top.

From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones

My body is continuing its revolt against all things good and true, so my mental acuity is scattered at best. But here's something I've wanted to get out of my brain and onto pixels for a while. It's based on nothing at all except my personal opinion. It's not based on polls, nor anything the candidates have said, nor any detailed analysis of which blocs of voters each one will appeal to. It's just my gut feeling. So here it is: my ranking of the 2016 Republican presidential field:

Vanity candidates: 0 percent chance of winning

• Rand Paul
• Ben Carson
• Carly Fiorina
• Mike Huckabee
• Rick Santorum
• George Pataki
• Lindsey Graham
• John Kasich

Not quite 0 percent, could maybe catch on if something really lucky happens

• Bobby Jindal
• Ted Cruz
• Marco Rubio
• Chris Christie
• Rick Perry

Legitimate candidates with a real shot at the nomination

• Jeb Bush
• Scott Walker

Right off the bat, I know there are at least two people on my list who will generate some dissent: Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. But Rand Paul has no chance. Sorry. He has nearly Sarah Palin's instincts at working the press and getting his base excited, but his views are just flatly too far out of the tea party mainstream to win the Republican nomination. As for Rubio, I just don't see it. I know most people would put him down with Bush and Walker as having a legitimate shot, but.....really? The guy kinda reminds me of Pete Campbell on Mad Men. He's got some talent, but no one really likes him that much. And he's kind of an idiot, really. Still, he's young, good looking, and appeals to older tea party types. To me, that means he's an ideal running mate, but has no chance at the brass ring.

read more: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/06/what-do-so-many-obvious-losers-think-they-can-be-president

Senator Lindsay Graham, who has never met a war he didn’t like, lamented to Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin: “My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the region, our national security and eventually the world at large.”

A failure to reach a deal with Iran would have almost certainly have led to a military confrontation, so naturally poor Lindsay is sad that a small portion of the Middle East will now likely be off the table for bombing. Indeed, what a nightmare.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/republicans-hate-iran-nuclear-deal

Gus's own poll (YDPollreads) places Donald in front, Jeb in second place, Lindsay in third place and Rick last. Hopefully none of these warmongers will make it to the White House...

For some mysterious reason, Lindsey Graham is taken seriously when he talks about foreign policy, and yet everything he has to say about these issues is either nonsense or maniacal. Here he is rambling about why the U.S. should be willing to attack North Korea despite the massive loss of life that would follow: 

Well, you know, so let’s understand what we’re saying here. We’re saying that as a last resort, we’ll use military force to destroy the regime’s nuclear program, which basically means destroying the regime. Now yes, that will be, that will be difficult. It will be devastating to the region. But 20 years from now, if they keep building nuclear weapons and missiles, they’re going to sell it to somebody who will use it. Iran is different. They have a religious mission. They’re religious zealots. They’re religious Nazis. If they get a nuclear weapon, they’ll use it for religious purposes, to purify the Sunni faith, destroy Israel and come after us. So where does a terrorist get a weapon, a nuclear weapon, that they would actually use? From a regime like North Korea or Iran. So the President has calculated for the good of the world, for the good of the United States, I’m going to take off the table North Korea having nuclear capability to threaten the homeland and the world at large. And if it takes a war to end that nuclear threat, so be it. And the war will be over there. The people dying will be over there, and he doesn’t want to do that. But he’s going to pick regional conflict to secure the homeland [bold mine-DL]. I hope people understand that.

Graham has shrugged off the likely deaths of millions several times before by asserting that they will be “over there.” Never mind that hundreds of thousands of Americans live in South Korea and would suffer along with the rest of the population there, and never mind that North Korea likely already has the ability to strike U.S. targets with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Graham is enough of a warmonger that these things wouldn’t make him think twice anyway. Just consider the monstrous inhumanity required to talk up the virtues of starting a war that would devastate multiple countries and claim millions of lives and then shrug it off because it supposedly won’t affect us. Add to this the nonsensical raving about Iran’s supposed zealotry that would lead its government to commit national suicide, and you have a very clear window into the warped and disturbed thinking of one of our country’s leading pro-war fanatics. 

It is tempting to dismiss Graham’s rhetoric as nonsense and leave it at that, but there is a strong and worrying likelihood that the president shares Graham’s demented views and may be willing to act on them. Now that Bolton is advising Trump, the president will have another equally fanatical voice in his ear telling him to do just that.

Read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-madness-of-lindsey-gr...

Read from top...

Read also:

The Atlantic Bridge Research and Education Scheme was an educational charity founded in 1997 with Margaret Thatcher as its president to promote Atlanticism, an ideology of cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States regarding political, economic, and defence issues. It was set up by Liam Fox, former Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom.[1] Cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne and William Hague,[2] and Chris Grayling have previously sat on its advisory panel, as have American senators Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. The organisation's principal staff included Catherine Bray (US Executive Director), Adam Werritty (UK Executive Director) and Kara Watt (Operations Director).[2]

It was dissolved in September 2011, following a critical report from the Charity Commission the previous year.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Bridge