"Part II???! Where’s Part I?", you ask? I’m working on it, at the same time I’m working on part III, IV, and more.
From the debate last night:
MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul — (interrupted by cheers, applause) — Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.
Who said Iraq would ever be a "cakewalk"? Certainly not President Bush. And the ones who talk about the potential bloodbath that would follow a premature exit are more than just the Administration, or even right-wing war-mongerers. Even Michael Ware of CNN, who has spent the whole time in Iraq since the beginning, acknowledges the dangers of leaving Iraq, as is. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, aired Jan 30, 2007:
It’s widely acknowledged by the U.S. military and the administration and analysts and anyone in Iraq that if America were to pull out, then there would be a nightmare almost beyond imagination that would unfold in Iraq.
For Ron Paul to say "the war has not gone well one bit" is also a dishonest platitude. The past 4 years have been a series of ups and downs; good and bad. The anti-war crowd was calling Iraq a quagmire on the 8th day; and of course, they were predicting massive casualties even before major operations began. This was back when many were against the war even when they thought Saddam probably had wmds- they were against war period, under any circumstance, short of missiles aimed directly at us on the launch pads and a 60 second countdown (ok…now I’m spinning like Ron Paul; but it sure sounds good, doesn’t it?).
Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region?
Does this sound like a responsible man you want for President? Who does not weigh in with seriousness, the possible consequences? If one follows the pottery barn rule, Ron Paul is like the parent who warns his child not to pick up the vase; to leave it alone. The child picks it up anyway. Drops it, and breaks it. The parent wags his finger at the child, grabs him by the hand, and then proceeds to leave without paying for the pottery. That’s Ron Paul.
A "bring them home now, Iraqis be damned" attitude is irresponsibly selfish. I expect my country to be responsibly selfish. Make no mistake, a stable Iraq is in America’s self-interest and is related to America’s national security.
The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
So since when do we take our marching orders from al-Qaeda and the anti-American ingrates who blame America for all of the bad and none of the good? MECHa and La Raza want us out of America; do we appease them, as well?
Appeasement is not the answer.
We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.
Last I checked, we had withdrawn American military presence from Saudi Arabia; in 2003, I believe. And like a true-blue, blame-America first appeaser, apparently we’re the ones threatening Iran with war, rather than the other way around.
So while Iran interferes, sabotages, and has a share of responsibility in killing our soldiers in Iraq, we should also be taking our marching orders directly from Tehran, apparently.
Anti-war lefties: Meet the anti-war righty. Ron Paul’s come full circle. Which is why he’s earned the distinction of being known as the "Republican Dennis Kucinich".
I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend — (bell sounds) — our borders —
MR. WALLACE: So if — (Interrupted by cheers, applause.)
MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
Bingo!
And here’s Ron Paul’s unhinged comeback:
REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying — (laughter) — I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)
"Illegal under international law"?! So now we’re back to whether or not we can pass "the global test"?
I have a series of Ron Paul posts coming up in the next few days; one of them being about the claims of Ron Paul apologists for the "isolationist" charge. They may be partially correct; but also dishonestly wrong.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Ron Paul is an idiot. He can’t BE educated.
Can’t be educated? Do you suppose the Duke University School of Medicine just decided to give him a degree? Unlike our modern presidential elections, that isn’t something that can just be bought. By the way, parts of Iraq indeed are considered a part of the Arabian peninsula, and Iraq is considered the second holiest place in Islam. Also, the two goals of the authorization for the use of force have been accomplished long ago: protect against threat of Saddam, find WMD. There is no legal authority to be in Iraq now.
You are a either a liar or a retard, some quotes from the Bush Administration
Ken Adelman, 2/2002. – I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps. – Turned out wrong
Also Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. Turned out wrong
Wolfowitz, 3/2003. Iraq: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Turned out wrong
Bush, 5/2005.
“Good news to the men and women who fought … their mission is complete.” Turned out wrong.
BTW, The British have essentially withdrawn from Basra. No Bloodbath.
Finally, The international law is the Geneva convention, Of course, PArt of the reasons for going to war initially were stated as “Enforcing UN sanctions – so who is using a global test?
REP. PAUL: “The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war?”
hmmm, ok… let’s ask those people who advise not to go into the region and into the war:
Chris Matthews: “What’s a good reason for staying in Iraq? Let me hear one.”
Howard Dean: “Because if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos.”
MSNBC Hardball, Election night Nov 2006
http://newsbusters.org/node/8944
A pitiful attempt to smear a good man…
“A pitiful attempt to smear a good man…”
Who? Dr.,Gov., Maple Syrup King of Vermont, New England Democratic Party Director of Iraq Intelligence, fmr weapons inspector, DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Or
Congressman Ron “If we hide between the oceans everything will be ok” Paul
?
Joel, go back to DU you buffoon.
Appeasement worked great for Ronald Reagan. First he appeased Iran with a C-5 Galaxy full of Hawk missiles, Tow antitank weapons, and F-14 parts in exchange for the hostages.
Then he appeased the palestinian islamic jihad by pulling out of Beirut after 241 marines and 70 french soldiers died in a suicide truck bombing.
Sorry kiddies, the world isn’t a grade schoolyard. Its not about worrying what others think about us, its about doing whats right and correct, even if you are criticized for it.
There was a man who did this some time ago, and he’s respected to this day for it.
Oh yeah his name is JESUS.
somehow, methinks that if the Muslim world respected Jesus more than Jihad, they’d be Christian…not Muslim.
Seems to me that the other Republicans are taking their marching orders from Al Queda, since they are the ones basing their policies on Al Queda’s reactions.
Amazing to hear a Republican make sense, to give proper value to reason, history, and evidence. I had given up on the GOP ever being rational again. Even if Paul doesn’t win, I hope his supporters get a lot more active within the GOP. Take it over. It will be good for everyone on the planet.
If Ron Paul’s a Republican, I’m the King of f*cking China!
John Galt wrote:
How about “liartard”? Consolidates space.
You, sir, are a reading-comprehension-deficient retard.
I wrote:
“Who said Iraq would ever be a “cakewalk”? Certainly not President Bush. ”
Specifically, “Bush” and specifically the word “cakewalk”. It is a word that has been bandied about like “quagmire”. Not “easy”, not “piece of cake”, not “a breeze”. “Cakewalk” said by President Bush in regards to Iraq. Did you produce that? No.
Wrong. Turned out right. Again, reading comprehension problems. What was Ken Adelman specifically referring to? The occupation or “demolishing Hussein’s military power”?
I will concede the “liberating of Iraq” not from Saddam, but from the insurgency has proven not to be a “cakewalk”. As for his point #4, it’s yet to be seen whether or not America has what it takes anymore to win wars.
Actually, it turned out correct. We were greeted as liberators. The fact that things did not turn out so smoothly in the post-major combat operations phase, does not change the fact that our soldiers were greeted as liberators.
But, typically, y’all want to ignore and rewrite history. Who’s the liartard now, dumbass?
Conceded. Wolfowitz, you dumbass….
No. You turned out wrong (no reference to your conception- just your knowledge). You’re spinning and cherry-picking, hearing only what you want to hear and interpret.
Go back and read the full context of the speech. I’ll even help you out. I had one woman on one of my previous posts whose husband was on that carrier. And she said for the crew of the Abraham Lincoln, their mission was over.
Now let me cherry-pick what he said in that speech:
So, what part don’t you understand?
Boom!
Score Team Wordsmith!
This 6 year Navy veteran is supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy. I am sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils. This time the GOP has a chance to restore this country to its Constitutional roots. Sure, it can not be done by one man, and that is why a Paul presidency would not be as radical as many of you may think. The Constitution has built checks and balances into our government, and the Executive branch was never meant to dictate the course of the country alone.
To wordsmith:
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”
How can you possibly cherry pick this line and use it as a positive defense of your stance? You cannot have a “war on terror” and Paul is completely correct in his assessment of this. By claiming to be warring against “terror” and not a country or other tangible entity, that war can never be won. It can never be declared over and a victory for the US. Because there will always be terrorists no matter what we do. But our foreign policy under Bush has made us less safe by opening our country up to even greater scrutiny on the world stage and probably increasing the amount of enemies and potential terrorist threats against us. The policy is wrong and it is the policy that needs to be changed.
We can’t just stick our head in the sand, but we need to secure our borders before we can lose valuable military personnel to overseas combat. This war has done nothing to enhance our national security or lower our number of enemies…its done exactly the opposite. In fact, they just recalled 600 National Guard members who were trained and working border security to active duty in Iraq. How does that help our country?
God you people are naive.
Because from the very beginning, I understood that after 9/11, based upon what President Bush was telling us, we were about to enter “a new kind of war”. 21st century warfare would be unlike any war we’ve fought before. Where some thought we were only going after Osama and those directly responsible for orchestrating 9/11, I understood that our President saw all nations as threatened by global Islamic terrorism. That it wasn’t just al-Qaeda but all terrorist organizations, and the states who sponsor them, and give safe-haven, who would find themselves in our cross-hairs.
Under that doctrine, Iraq was a prime next target after our success in Afghanistan, having been in violation of the original cease-fire agreement, 17 UN Resolutions for the previous 12 years, a 1998 Iraq Liberation Act calling for “regime change” as America’s policy toward Iraq, and Saddam proving himself to be a constant menace.
From a speech the President gave in 2005:
This is true. Absolutely. Ron Paul is so often fond of stating, “Just listen to their own words on why they attacked us.” But he never points out their mission objectives of creating an Islamic super-state as a launching pad for waging war on the West and all infidels. He never addresses the religious fanaticism of the Khomeinites in Iran who await the 12th Imam. Iran is a prime example of what happens when Islamic militants are able to successfully overthrow a government in a strategic part of the Middle East. Do we wish to allow radicals to successfully overthrow other Middle East governments? Some of which are valuable allies in the same war against these hirabists?
Here’s more from the speech:
We’re fighting flesh and blood enemies as well as their ideology. So yes, you can fight a “war on terror”. It includes waging it on all fronts, from the frontlines and trenches of physical combat (of which Iraq is one battlefield, as Vietnam was one battle in a larger war against international communism), to counter-propaganda from all the UNJUSTIFIED anti-Americanism out there. Noam Chomsky is a tool of al-Qaeda, as well as all the blame-America-firsters, who present a lop-sided worldview of America’s place on the world stage. America: A country who gives foreign aid not only to Israel, but many countries in the Middle East; who comes to the rescue after a tsunami in Southeast Asia, with logistics, military support, and finances; who has come to the rescue of Muslims; who has sacrificed blood and treasure on behalf of many nations; who demonstrated its “imperialism” by giving back Japan, Germany, the Philippines and rebuilding the infrastructure of those nations from wrack and ruin.
When Iran suffered earthquakes, even as recently as a few years ago, did we or did we not offer condolences for human losses, as well as pledge financial aid to Iran?
America consistently uplifts the world, even in the face of those who are thankless and jealous.
Ron Paul may claim he doesn’t receive his marching orders from Osama; but when he parrots the propaganda Osama peddles (and al-Qaeda is intentionally deceiving both the West and fellow Muslims with propaganda) about U.S. foreign policy, and we should get out of Iraq….what is the perception if we followed the prescription of Dr. Paul? A U.S. defeat. Now, will that make us safer? From what I recall, recruitment went pretty well when Osama could claim victory over the Soviets when they withdrew from Afghanistan. And having left a vacuum there, who filled the void? The Taliban. Which has been described by bin Laden and Zawahiri as the closest to a perfect Islamic state that existed.
They have stated that Iraq is the central front; and that they wish to make Baghdad the capital of a new caliphate. And you want to hand them that victory?
How do you know this? What makes you think that the status quo policy of how we were living before, made us any safer? That status quo brought us 9/11. We ignored all the warning signs from the previous 20 years, that was screaming at us, “DANGER! DANGER!”
Perception and propaganda is a big part of this war. The “jihadis” are great at disseminating their brand of anti-Americanism and propaganda through the internet, and through a lazy, complicit media. Don’t buy into their “victimhood” propaganda, that America is the aggressor and the imperialist. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are responsible for more Muslim blood on their hands than anything the U.S. has ever done. We’ve acted on behalf of Muslims all over the world. Here in America, Muslims are able to practice their faith in freedom, alongside every other religious group.
How many times in his speeches does President Bush have to stress that this isn’t a war against Islam (to the consternation of the Tancredo conservatives on my side of the political aisle) and that “They’re trying to hijack a great religion to justify a dark vision”?
It’s not the war that’s the problem. It’s perceptions of the war. Newsweek printing a FALSE story of a Koran flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo? The NYTimes pushing the abu ghraib story for 33 consecutive frontpage stories….you think that might piss off a few Muslims who might otherwise see the “jihad” movement as a loser’s cause? It’s a story blown way, way out of proportion; just one of many.
What if it was sold to the Arab world that America and Coalition Forces were bravely fighting ON BEHALF of innocent Iraqis from the violence of al-Qaeda cutting off the heads of children, baking them in ovens, etc? Think that might actually help win the “war on terror”?
But no. We have the media push stories about Haditha. About U.S. body counts (ignoring the favorable 100 or 50 to 1 kill ratio in our favor); Iraqi body count (ignoring who, in fact, are the ones killing innocent Iraqis).
How does it help recruitment levels, when the media has painted the picture that this is “an illegal war”? When they push every anti-war story they can, and bury stories that might make one actually want to join the military and be “a hero”? How does it help relieve the strain and burden on military families in fighting a necessary war during difficult times, by destroying morale through negative news? By boycotting military recruiters from campuses at the high school and university levels? By making a warrior culture unattractive and unappealing, rather than noble and heroic?
This 8 year Air Force Veteran of BOTH wars will NOT vote for an imbecile like RP. His understanding of geopolitics is at the level of a 1st grader. His understanding of history is even worse. The man has no appreciation of the armed forces and wants us to patrol borders and REACT only. This kind of thinking and his policies are dangerous and deadly in this day and age. The tit-for-tat retaliation example was clearly shown as bullshit during the Clinton reign of terror.
I am voting for the man who will take the fight to the terrorists, not bring our boys home after we have gained so much ground and helped so many people gain independence. War is hard, war sucks, but it is necessary, unfortunately. And I’ll probably be casting my vote from 8,000 miles away, again.
Jim,
I think two books that Ron Paul should add to his reading list are Robert Kaplan’s Imperial Grunts, and his new one (long title)- the sequel to Imperial Grunts. Our military with smaller deployments all over the world are doing important work on behalf of freedom and democracy. They are helping to make the world a better, safer place than the silly notion that we are propping up dictators and that America’s “interventionism” is the problem in the world.
Thanks for your comment here.
And for your military service to our country.
How many liberties are we willing to give up to obtain safety? Benjamin Franklin stated that “those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither.” Many people today believe that ole man Franklin is outdated and obscure – surely he couldn’t have realized the modern advances of terrorism when he made these statements. On the contrary, our Founding Fathers probably saw more death and destruction than any technologically advanced culture like “ginger bread America” ever dreamed of. They brought down the brick wall of tyranny, greed, and supression – and replaced it with it’s worst enemy, the United States Constitution.
What liberties of yours have been taken away, Michael Bass? Please do tell me how you, personally, have been affected by the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance programs.
Wow…that is just so…profound. I’ve never heard that quote before. Do you realize that you’re the very first Ron Paul supporter who has ever cited that one, before? Ever?!
[/sarcasm]
Look, I can do it too: “The cause of America is the cause of all mankind,†-Benjamin Franklin
So how exactly are we sacrificing liberty? Without security, there is no liberty.
How do you propose we go about preserving and protecting our liberties?
how you, personally, have been affected
I think you are aware that this is a poor line of argument. Just as many are concerned about the security of their fellow Americans (and themselves) despite not personally having been victims of a terrorist attack, others worry about lost liberties even if they have not personally been hurt.
Without security, there is no liberty
Romney says something similar in his campaigning. I’m afraid I don’t get it. Without security, there is no … security. You still have liberty, just with an increased risk of death. Overall though I think the sloganeering just obscures the point that there is a tradeoff, and that different people are comfortable at different points on the risk/liberty curve.
How do you propose we go about preserving and protecting our liberties
At the risk of spending time on what might be a rhetorical question: we should be able to can most of the stupid airport security theater. Seal cockpit doors to avoid plane takeover, or mandate whatever other measure are necessary to avoid a hijacking if that’s insufficient somehow. For the rest, let the airlines decide how much effort they want to spend stopping someone from blowing their planes out of the sky.
Concentrate anti-WMD measures on detection of radioactive substances (for example, deploy a network of detectors on the borders and in major cities). Chemical weapons sound scary but historically haven’t been very effective for small scale terrorism. Biological weapons appear to be very difficult to create and use (for large effect, anyway), but a rapid-response quarantine plan in case of an infectious bioweapon would a good thing to have.
Plain old bombs can be dealt with the same way as we’ve been dealing with them for a century: don’t worry about them too much (not many people are killed by bombs), find and prosecute the perpetrators afterwards if they’re still alive.
Things not needed: warrantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, ‘enhanced interrogation’, RealID, and probably a bunch of other things that don’t come to mind right now.
Ultimately, though, the best, cheapest, and most proactive defense against terrorism is to make it clear that it won’t achieve anything. One big drawback of our security reaction after 9-11 is that it gave our enemies the impression that they’d really hurt us, when in reality all they had done was make us angry.
The point is…who has it affected negatively? Give me numbers. Because the question that needs to be asked is, do the benefits and gains outweigh the potential/actual instances of abuse?
How many lawsuits have been filed due to abuse under the Patriot Act? There is a provision in there for compensation, for anyone who had his rights abused.
Then compare the numbers to that of instances where law enforcement has abused their priveleges in weapons carry (such as tasering) or abuse of other powers. I bet the number is far, far greater….yet we do not call for the powers we give to law enforcement to be abandoned, because we recognize that the benefits of their “encroachments”, potential and actual, upon our civil liberties far outweigh the negative consequences.
He gets a plus, then. Perhaps he has been reading FA?
Then you do get it. Just nitpicking the semantics of it.
If we had no military or law enforcement to safeguard our freedom, kiss liberty goodbye. It is because of our strong military, that we enjoy the benefits of freedom. That we are able to prosper.
That’s well-stated; and I’m just answering one sloganeering with a slogan of my own.
I think the initial TSA laws were an over-reaction response. Perhaps it was needed initially, right away. But really…banning nail clippers? I could just as well stab someone through the eyesocket or subclavian artery with a ballpoint pen than I could snip his carotid artery with nailclippers.
I’m all for the efficiency of profiling.
The only ones who really need to worry about those things, are “the bad guys”. Not ordinary citizens.
I see your point here. (Of course, they really did hurt us- not just the lives lost, but also the economic blow). It’s related to how every IED that goes off and soldier that dies in Iraq, sends us into hysterics of “run away! Run away!”
How much less likely would those attacks continue, if we showed a warface on, that those actions on their part only make us more determined to win, not less? That rather than weep over the soldiers, we celebrate their heroism and steel ourselves to ensure that their sacrifice won’t have been in vain?
Aaah…I forgot all about my original “sloganeering” (read words at the top, under the blog title):
Thank you for being civil, i’m so used to defending myself and my fellow service men fiercely in these types of forum. Thank you for the recommended reading, I will look it up and if I get a chance to head to the library I will check it out. However I am always on a 6-ring notice for deployment (sucks when I’m drunk and have to have my wife drive me to the flight line for outprocessing) But my experiences in both wars, my research, and my family history (and all my family veterans) only reinforce what I know to be true. In order to keep the peace we need to intervene sometimes. I do not mean all the time. But new articles are showing a possible N. Korea/Syria/Iran buddy group going on. Thats something we can’t handle.
Was the war in Iraq handled in the best way, no of course not. Mistakes were made. It’s war, nothing is perfect, but progress is clearly being made in all parts. The example of Anbar province is being exported to other areas especially the Diyala province. No one said war was easy, and I think Bush made a mistake by doing his whole carrier speech. We defeated their army, but we knew that it would be hard, he should have been a little less optimistic there.
But I’ve been there done that, and going back again soon. Every time i go back, there is more progress, its tough going, no doubt, it sucks, its hot and I don’t like getting shot at but its going…we all just need patience. I know its alot to ask for that, but that’s what I’m doing. If you can’t afford us patience, whats to say in the next conflict we won’t pull out again quick because the next bad guy found out how to make some IED’s. It’s pretty simple logic, fight them now, show them that we aren’t scared, that we will fight them no matter what, and we’ll win.
Well that’s my two cents. I will not vote for RP, i think the man is a mental case. I will vote for a man that will protect this country, and hiding in a shell and apeasement wont’ work.
Not so hard for me to be civil, since you and I seem to be on the same page in regards to Ron Paul.
But I do try to be civil even to those who disagree with me. Sometimes I succeed; other times I don’t.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Robert Kaplan last week. Checkout the transcript, or listen to it. Hewitt had Kaplan on for all 3 hours.
I only got the new book over this past weekend.
Jim, please check my previous posts regarding the carrier speech.
Here.
And here.
In hindsight, the banner was a mistake and the overall optimism, only in that it’s provided plenty of fodder for the detractors and latenite pundits.
But in and of itself, it was the right speech at the right time.
I think our show of irresoluteness and wavering support only encourages them all the more to continue. It tells them that what they are doing is having a negative effect on the morale of the American public, and Congressional leaders.
One of the things that Robert Kaplan brings up in Warrior Politics is the role of media (just touches upon it). He brings it up again in his Hewitt interview:
It’s a great interview, and an amazing book.
Stay safe, Jim. And God bless you for the important work that you are doing.
Jesus, way to keep it pithy guys…
1. The Iraq war is stupid, it does nothing to enhance our national security, Mike Huckabee Acknowledged as much with his retarded “We broke we bought it, bullshit!”
2. The Republican party IS going to lose if we run a pro-war candidate. The majority of the people are against the war, and those that are against the war are more pssionate than those that are “For” the war. This means that they will turn out to the polls in greater numbers to vote on that one issue.
3. If we lose this next election, the Democrats will increase their majority in both houses and we will lose the presidency. This means that America become a fully socialist State.
4. Winning in Iraq is not as important as losing the America to a bunch of goddamned commie democrats!
4b. Haven’t we already won in Iraq? I thought we kicked their ass a long time ago.
5. The government cannot solve our problems, why in the world would we think that our governmnet could solve anyone elses problems? How would you like a bunch of fuggin frenchmen to come over here and start telling us how its done? I don’t know, but I might become a suicide bpomber myself!
6. Remember this is a battle for freemarket capitalism v. Commie-ism here at home. Not in Vietnam, but on our home turf via the Democrats! The same assholes that brought us Waco, and the Great Depression!
Ron Paul is the only Republican that can win the national election, and this is a national election that must be won. The rest of the republican have lost their way, the only candidate besides Ron Paul that is not CFR is Duncan Hunter and he is further behind in the polls and cannot win the national election.
Johnnyb: You keep rattling off those prescribed and approved talking points. But aside from your fellow Ron Paul fantasists, no one is buying it.
You people haven’t got a clue and Ron Paul hasn’t got a prayer of winning either the GOP nomination or the presidency.
When you do face reality, I want to be there.
With all due respect, it is you sir who needs to face reality. The Repubicans are rapidly becoming a 3rd party. The Party is dying. The Republicans cannot win without the support of Christian Conservatives, libertarians and Constitutionalists.
The libertarians and constitutionalists have already endorsed Ron Paul. Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanon has endorsed Ron Paul.
Newt Gingrich has said that the Republicans have about 1 chance in 5 of winning the elections with one of the current front runners, and went on to say that the party has to make a radical break from Bush if it wants to have any real hope of winning.
The party base may not like ROn Paul, but Ron Paul is the only chance the Republicans have at winning. That sir is reality.
Right now oil is trading at around 80 dollars a bbl. The Pound Sterling is trading at over $2 dollars, the Euro at around a $1.50 and now the Canadian Dollar has reached pariety with the US dollar. All of this is a direct result of our idiotic national policies, and that sir is a reality that affects everyday Americans and has made us all poorer and people are sick of it.
Bush has an approval rating of around 29%, congress 11%. Our government is not popular, the Republican Party is not popular, and if you are too blind to see that a radical shift is coming, then you sir are the one who needs to wake up and see reality for what it is.
You are right. Our government is not popular. Bush isn’t getting any popularity points because all the people here in America hear is bad news from Iraq. And any time some good news comes out, especially out of the mouth of a decorated war veteran, all that is shown is the blowback from the lunatic left.
Congress is not popular, mainly because they promised the moon and the stars, they stumped that they could get the troops out immediately, and they have failed miserably, about the only thing they did was raise the minimum wage 2 bucks over a couple of years, wow, great job.
Now with Mr. Paul, he may make grandstanding speeches, but he ignores the reality of this world, and he knows absolutely nothing of history. It’s great that he spouts out about the constitution, but who wants a man in office that can’t protect the country from those out to destroy the ideals in that constitution?
He also does not have near enough support. You can claim the libertrians and all those others want him, but where are the numbers? He’s at 1-3% in all polls. Hillary is at 40% RP will not bring out the republican base or the evangelicals. Fred Thompson will, but I feel he will not get the nod from the party, I think Rudy will. And I think the 08 election will be close.