In an incredible twist of bizarre events, a Republican has enunciated my exact position on the so-called war. (Shaking head in disbelief)

Defeatist, surrender-monger Ron Paul got it exactly right in the recent debates.

He showed more nerve and courage up there in front of a hostile audience than ANY Democrat, and this is coming from a liberal progressive. He admitted that our government caused this war, called it "blowback" for America military action. He dared to ask WHY the bad guys hit us, and not that they "hate our way of life" but that they hate what we have done.

The real shocker is that Paul hasn't been strung up by his toenails by Bush loyalists (maybe I speak too soon?)

Wow. A Republican patriot. The dream still lives.

Any thoughts on MSNBC's poll showing him trumping all the other master debaters up there on stage? And what about a guy who us liberals could get behind? He's WAY smarter on the war than Hillary has been. What about it?

Congressive, I think there was one question posed to Ron Paul that was more telling than any other when he was asked if he wasn't running for the nomination of the wrong party.

A Republican candidate with more guts than any of the Democratic runners. Fantastic! It gives me hope for the 'corrupt' political machine. A teller of truth among all the liars. Go Ron Paul!!

HaHaaaaa!

Thank you, Mr. Guiliani for putting Mr. Ron Paul in his rightful place!!

Jeremiah

Wow. A Republican patriot. The dream still lives.

So if someone agrees with your view on the war, that makes him a patriot?

Let's be fair about this. If it's OK to oppose the war and still be considered a patrior, it's also OK to support the war and likewise be considered a patriot.

He admitted that our government caused this war

DUH!!!! Yes, this war began with our invasion. Thank you, Mr. Paul for reminding us of something we've known for 4 years.

But then, we could have avoided war - and, until God knows when, continued to:

Patrol Iraq's no fly zones, wondering if Saddam would ever try to re-activate his air defenses.

Occupy part of Saudi Arabia ostensibly to protect them from Saddam's army. Other than the U.S not being a muslim theocracy, this presence, although protective, was AQ's main beef against us. That, congressive, is "blowback".

Hope that sometime during the millenium, the sanctions would force Saddam to comply with US and UN demands to "account" for his WMD, even after waiting for 12 years under 3 presidents to no avail.

Stand by idly as Saddam continued to use "oil-for-food" money to build palaces and obtain military equipment, instead of actually feeding his people as was the intention of the program.

Stand by idly as Saddam continued to offer money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Allow Saddam to continue harboring terrorists such as Abdul Raman Yassin (from the 1993 WTC bombing), Abu Abbas (who led the Achille Lauro hijacking), and Al Zarqawi (who, before our invasion, went to Iraq for medical treatment after being injured in Afghanistan). I leave Abu Nidal off this list because after being harbored off-and-on by Iraq, he was found dead in 2002 with several bullet holes in his head.

Allow Saddam to continue his horrid treatment of the Iraqi people, such as rape rooms, death by insertion into a wood chipper, children's prisons, draining of swamps used by the Marsh Arabs, etc.

Allow Saddam to keep his WMD programs and (so we thought) stockpiles (which we learned were largely non-existent only AFTER we invaded).

Yep, we could have just left well enough alone.

HaHaaaaa!

Thank you, Mr. Guiliani for putting Mr. Ron Paul in his rightful place!!

Jeremiah

Posted by: Jeremiah at May 16, 2007 08:33 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guiliani reminded me of Lloyd Benson "you are no Jack Kennedy".

Guiliani was not a great leader after 9/11, but it was the citizens of the country. Because you put on a hard hat and survey the area doesn't make you a leader. Paul was speaking of whys the Americans should have been acting. Working with other countries prior to invading another country.

Excellent post Bigfoot. Im so sick of hearing Libs scream about WMDs WMDs WMDs. Saddamn was a pshycho people. He could have ended this whole thing if he let the inspectors in and gave them access. Its HIS fault we invaded, not ours. Dont forget who started this whole thing after all. Clinton. Thats right Clinton! In 1998...

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Oh here he is in 2003...

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Hmm Bush lied. Looks to me like he was just following the opinion of the CIA, the Democrats, and 14 other Intel Agencies.

Other poeple say he coerced the Dems into authorizing the war. He must be the greatest genius of our time, because he started lying and coercing 3 years before he took office! Amazing!

Guiliani and his current wife have had a total of SIX marriages.
The evangelicals are going to have something to say about that !

Hmm Bush lied. Looks to me like he was just following the opinion of the CIA, the Democrats, and 14 other Intel Agencies.

Now that's an interesting claim. The Democrats pressured Bush into believing in WMD.
The CIA conclusions were completely manipulated according to Tenet. Can you cite one intellligence agency that had sufficient proof of an imminent threat to the US to start a preemptive war?

"The CIA conclusions were completely manipulated according to Tenet."

Did Tenet also manipulate the information provided to Clinton and Gore so they would believe there were WMDs in Iraq? OR was it just for Bush?

Great question, Joel. Don't expect an answer to it.

rockville,

There is no justification in somebody succeeding to try and thwart the good fortune of their Neighboring countrymen. Paul was trying to turn the situation into making it sound something like a "good thing" by what happened to America on 9/11, and that we "deserved" such a plight of events.

It was clearly uncalled for, for him to demean former Mr. Mayor Guiliani's character and stance in that critical point in time, after clearly seeing that Mr. Guilian's intent was for the safety and wellness of his city, and fellow American's, as any normal American would!

Without a doubt, even though Republican, Mr. Paul is without question more on the lines of your kook lib base, through his words and actions in last night's debate on the issues of the Homeland.

Oversight of such a disaster, is just plain kooky!

Jeremiah

Mark, when the democrats say that they support the troops in Iraq, I thought they meant our troops. I didn't know they meant al queda.

Joel and RS: Clinton and Gore believed claims that Saddam had WMDs. But they weren't sitting in the Oval Office then, and if they were, before launching a pre-emptive war, they probably would have taken the trouble to find out if the claims were true, rather than promoting the manufacture of bogus evidence to support a flimsy case.

Anyway that's all speculative -- but the fact remains, you start a war, you're responsible for it. You conduct the fighting of a war for four-plus years, you're responsible for it.

The buck stops where? With Bush, it stops anywhere but with him.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200501/ai_n9477112

they are also offering a huge signing bonus. Hmm could that have anything to do with it.. No No. Must be the clear and obvious overwhelming support for
Bush and his handling of the war... ermm wait

Joel and RS: Clinton and Gore believed claims that Saddam had WMDs. But they weren't sitting in the Oval Office then,

How old are you, Yeno, 13? Read this, this and this, noting the details and dates of each event as well as who was in the Oval Office on those dates. Then tell me what's wrong with the picture. I'll wait.

Sorry, something went wrong with the 3rd link in the time sequence. It should have been this.

kblack

The bonuses go up and down depending on several factors. The least of which is the military growing or down sizing. In the 80s they were high, in the 90s to help down size the military they were reduced. Now we a growing the size of the military again so they are going up. Standard practice peace time or war. What you are seeing is only in the way it is reported, or the spin factor.

Yeno

Clinton and Gore both stated while in office, Sadam had WMD. Clinton as recently as 2003 stated there was no doubt he had WMD.

they are also offering a huge signing bonus. Hmm could that have anything to do with it..kblack

So you're saying that a signing bonus around $10,000 is the only incentive attracting these new recruits? $10,000 isn't squat, I would double that for those willing to serve. Many people make much more than that in the private sector, aside from the drive-thru where I imagine you work.

Also, considering that our average military personel are far more educated than the regular populace, I am sure they other signing bonus's to choose from.

But this is the way that Liberals "support" the military. By denigrating them at every turn. You're pathetic.

Yeno got pwned!

RS: I'm talking about 2003. You and many other conservatives are still talking about the 1990s. Do you understand the difference?

The 90s: Clinton and Gore did not launch a WAR against Iraq. Clinton launched MISSILES and and enforced a BLOCKADE. Are you saying Clinton is a coward for NOT invading Iraq? Imagine how Republicans in Congress would've reacted if he did! Think for a moment and answer honestly.

2003: Clinton still believes Iraq has WMDs but he is NOT THE PRESIDENT! Bush is the President. Bush invades Iraq without doing his homework, then bungles the war for four years.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? Is my tone half as patronizing and insulting as your own?

Wow. A Republican patriot. The dream still lives.

David Broder would be proud, congested. Hell, even Bill Moyers, another one of your heroes, would be proud.

Congested, you're a hoot, a Dr. Rerun in drag...

A Republican candidate with more guts than any of the Democratic runners. Fantastic! It gives me hope for the 'corrupt' political machine. A teller of truth among all the liars. Go Ron Paul!!

I have a great idea, CO--maybe Ron Paul and Russ Rheingold can start a third party, and run against Bloomberg/Hagel. Wouldn't this be a contest?

RS: I'm talking about 2003. You and many other conservatives are still talking about the 1990s. Do you understand the difference?

Well, I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure. Let's see; Clinton fired off a bunch of cruise missiles at Sadaam (unilaterally) in 1996 because Sadaam was threatening the Kurds. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in Oct., 1998, followed by extensive cruise missile attacks (but not war) in Dec., 1998, to eliminate those pesky WMDs, WMDs BTW, that Clinton apparently still believed existed in 2003, but Bush didn't do his homework. Now have I got that right, or am I still missing something?

Is my tone half as patronizing and insulting as your own?

No, you're a lot nicer than I am.

Oooooooh!!!, Now I get it, Yeno. In 2003 Clinton lied when he said Sadaam had WMDs. That makes perfect sense, and explains a lot. And, yes, you're right; Bush should have realized that Clinton was lying -- after all, his mouth was moving.

I have a great idea, CO--maybe Ron Paul and Russ Rheingold can start a third party, and run against Bloomberg/Hagel. Wouldn't this be a contest?

Posted by: keefer at May 16, 2007 05:40 PM

You might be on to something there, keefer. I was thinking along those lines myself.

You might be on to something there, keefer. I was thinking along those lines myself.

I'm inside the mind of a kook--what a scary place...