Ron Paul helps conservatives come out of the closet (as liberals)
Dr. Clark Carlton, an assistant professor of philosophy at Tennessee Technological University and graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and the Catholic University of America, writes an open letter to Orthodox Christians about Ron Paul.
Now, by Orthodox, we mean the “Unto ages of ages and icons of icons” Orthodox, but the Orthodox and the Evangelical have been having lots of good conversations lately, and so I thought it might be a nice letter to read. Dr. Carlton goes into why, exactly, real conservative Christians should support Ron Paul. He says Dr. Paul understands that:
There is nothing conservative about an undeclared war against a country that has not threatened us.
There is nothing conservative about threatening other countries (Iran) with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
There is nothing conservative about “spreading Democracy” at gunpoint.
There is nothing conservative about suspending or ignoring habeas corpus.
There is nothing conservative about warrantless searches.
On the contrary, these are all the actions of leftist, totalitarian governments. The failures of the Bush administration are not the result of traditional Republican principles; they are the result of the abandonment of traditional Republican principles. Quite frankly, Ron Paul is the only traditional Republican in the race.
This is all mostly true, I think. But what the Ron Paul rhetoric does, rather than show conservatives why they should vote for him, is to show conservatives that they really aren’t conservatives at all. But the truth will set you free, or at least put you on the right road.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top100 Comments to “Ron Paul helps conservatives come out of the closet (as liberals)”
There’s nothing leftist about any of those points either.
Report comment to moderator
Well blows me down! A ODD Magazine article about Ron Paul! I figured that ODD folks were all about Bush’s statement that the constitution is just a dadgum piece of paper.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Please provide a link to the Bush statement. I’ve read other blogs that have used it, but I’ve never seen the actual, in-context, statement.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Pal voted for the last “earmarks”giveaway.
The Republican goals of smaller government, lower taxes and less Federal intervention will take a long time to convince the majority of Americans that they are the correct views. Heck, even Republicans forgot that before the last national election. Leftist liberalism takes a long time to suffocate a nation. We Republicans have a long hard job ahead of us. Keep on keeping on!
Report comment to moderator
Good article, HSK. It warms my heart. I hope and pray that the neo-con scales will continue to fall off Christian’s eyes.
I’ve heard that supposed Bush statement, too, and did extensive googling on it. It’s been a while, but here’s my recollection: It amounted to a rumor that looks unprovable one way or the other. If I recall, the comment was supposedly made in a closed door session and leaked by anonymous tip to a blogger. I do not believe Bush ever made the statement. Its violent blasphemy — “the Constitution is just a g–damn piece of paper” — just seems too far out of character. Given that, its very unreliable provenance, and the fact that his saying it too perfectly matches his political opponents’ fondest dreams, I’m inclined to call it a scam.
Report comment to moderator
While all 5 points are true, none are relevant in the current situation.
No one has endorsed Points 1, 2, or 3.
Habeas corpus 1)applies to citizens only and 2) may Constitutionally be suspended in wartime. Lincoln did it when he imprisoned some 200(IIRC) newspaper editors. No one is running on an anti-habeas platform.
What’s he talking about, “warrantless searches”? Is this about wiretaps? Is he suggesting there’s “nothing conservative” about national self-defense?
Report comment to moderator
Well, of course you would expect at least one Republican to be a little liberal. Look at John Edwards. He still pretends to be Democrat. He talks with that accent, he goes on and on about Bible stuff and mystical supernatural beings. I believe he’s against gay rights. He says his hate is Bible based but it’s his “wife” that pushes him for some gay rights.
Everyone knows Bush has trampled all over the constitution. He adds these “presidential notes” to everything. Example, he might sign a bill that says, “Torture is illegal”. So he signs it and next to it, writes a note that says, “Except when the president deems otherwise”. He did the same thing with “whistle blowers”. He is so dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing conservative about an undeclared war against a country that has not threatened us.
The legality of the war was assured by the October 2, 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
There is nothing conservative about threatening other countries (Iran) with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
While Bush hasn’t ruled out a preemptive strike, he has not threatened one. He has been severely criticized for working with the Europeans on diplomatic solution through talks with Iran along with economic sanctions should the talks fail.
There is nothing conservative about “spreading Democracy” at gunpoint.
Most of our efforts in spreading democracy are done through soft power. We went to war with Iraq based on intelligence [faulty] that Iraq was building stockpiles of WMD along with many other reasons. The Joint Resolution specified twenty-three reasons.
There is nothing conservative about suspending or ignoring habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court has upheld the administration’s view that the imprisoned terrorists may be legally regarded as enemy combatants without the right to habeas corpus.
There is nothing conservative about warrantless searches.
Monitoring phone calls of foreign Jihadists phone calls has, also, been upheld as a legally correct activity. Congress recently passed a law that backed this type of intelligence monitoring.
Ron Paul is in fact a radical isolationist who is clueless about the security interests of the U.S. and the responsibilities of a world power. He hasn’t a chance in the 2008, since most sensible Americans see him as a dangerous radical. His support comes mainly from an odd collection of disaffected Americans on the fringes of the American political scene.
Report comment to moderator
#8: While Bush hasn’t ruled out a preemptive strike, he has not threatened one. He has been severely criticized for working with the Europeans on diplomatic solution through talks with Iran along with economic sanctions should the talk’s fail.
You know this one statement is full of, well; it’s full of it.
The CIA came out publicly and said, “Iran stopped it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003″ because Bush wanted to go to war. They kept quiet the first time and it turned into a disaster. They weren’t about to let it happen again. Against the president’s wishes, they went public.
When Bush, giggling and smirking, brought up WWIII in connection with Iran and nuclear weapons, it was an attempt to gather support through fear. For Bush to use this tactic time and time again is just rotten and low. For anyone to still support this attempt at manipulating the American public through fear is pathetic. “Orange alert”
Report comment to moderator
#8: Most of our efforts
Most?
It should be all. Spreading “democray” at gunpoint is not spreading democray. Something is definitly being spread, but it is NOT democracy. Iraq wrote “Islam” into it’s constitution as the “national religion”. Do you think that sounds anything like “democracy”?
Report comment to moderator
Not so.
All Republican candidates except Paul support the war in Iraq, which is an undeclared war against a country that did not threaten us.
Similarly, many candidates have spoken favorably of the neo-con policy called “regime change,” which is a euphemism for “spreading democracy at gunpoint.” It is a policy of militarily replacing unfriendly regimes with friendly ones, with the explicitly stated purpose that democracy will flourish in areas where we accomplish this.
As for point 2, Guiliani made “a promise, not a threat” that if Iran appeared close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, he would “set them back 8 or 10 years.” That is a promise of a pre-emptive strike. Likewise, all the candidates (again, except Paul) declared that as President they would bomb Iran if it seemed in the country’s best interest, without waiting for any authorization from Congress. Again, they promised a unilateral pre-emptive strike if they felt it necessary.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
There were two competing philosophies of human rights in Enlightment Europe — rights were either granted by one’s government or were “Natural” (granted by God). America was founded on the latter premise. The American founders would not have said that Americans have a right to habeas corpus, but Spaniards have no such right.
Also, the Constitution does not grant habeas — it assumes it (again, as a natural inalienable right) and explicitly forbids government from taking it away. It does provide an exception, but not, as you claim, any broad exception for “wartime.” It gives a very narrow exception for “rebellion or invasion.” To construe the “War on Terror” as neither is a stretch far beyond the founders’ original intention (which conservatives are supposed to be all about, remember?).
What’s he talking about, “warrantless searches”? Is this about wiretaps? Is he suggesting there’s “nothing conservative” about national self-defense?
You’re implying an equivalence between warrantless wiretaps and national self-defense. But there are many different ways to go about national self-defense, and claiming national self-defense as a motive does not justify a policy or behavior. Many monstrous and inhuman things have been done in the name of national self-defense. Compare: “What’s he talking about, ‘concentration camps’? Is he suggesting there’s ‘nothing conservative’ about national self-defense?”
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing honest about any of those points either.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “All Republican candidates except Paul support the war in Iraq, which is an undeclared war against a country that did not threaten us.”
This level of intellectual dishonesty is staggering. We are not fighting “against” Iraq (or the “country” of Iraq) at all. We are fighting in Iraq against Al Qaeda and other jihadists trying to destroy that country.
Report comment to moderator
Amen to Joel Mark’s posts.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s rhetoric is demagogic in the extreme. It only appeals to the ignorant.
Report comment to moderator
I should clarify that the rhetoric above is by a Ron Paul supporter, but his is mimicking the rhetoric of Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
How is it dishonest to say we are fighting a war in Iraq?
Even if you see that war as only one front in a larger war, we are still fighting a war in Iraq. It is still a military conflict without a formal declaration of war that was begun against a country that did not threaten us (and had neither WMDs nor ties to terrorism).
Thus it is still correct to call the war “an undeclared war against a country that has not threatened us.”
Peter Leavitt’s argument (that an “authorization to use force” is the same as a declaration of war) I can understand, although I disagree. Your argument I don’t even understand. It’s not a war against Iraq because it’s really a war against all bad guys everywhere?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a war against Iraq because the government of Iraq is fighting the War on Terror along with us.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark’s rhetoric is demagogic in the extreme. It only appeals to the ignorant.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I know a very intelligent woman who is supporting Ron Paul. “Appeals only to the ignorant” is over-broad. I don’t know who I’m supporting–right now, nobody!
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles (4): Ron Pal voted for the last “earmarks”giveaway.
Frank: Puh-leeze. If that’s the best you got, you ain’t got much.
Rep. Paul explained the principles behind his vote very clearly:
I.e., if certain Federal tax dollars are going to be spent anyway, it is certainly better for the local federal representative — i.e., the congressman — to decide how to spend his constituents’ tax dollars than for some bureaurat in the District of Criminals to do it.
Try again, Bob.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, for better of worse, our government has not issued a formal Declaration of war since 1941.
Clinton with the war against the Serbs over Kosovo didn’t even bother with a Congressional resolution. My understanding that the federal court system has upheld the war powers of the president to not necessarily require a declaration or resolution. The Congress, of course, does have the power to block funding of a war, as it did with Ford in 1973.
For a brief discussion of this complex topic got to Wikipedia’s War Powers Resolution .
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, what changed your mind about Ol’ Freddie?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (13): This level of intellectual dishonesty is staggering. We are not fighting “against” Iraq (or the “country” of Iraq) at all.
Frank: Not anymore we aren’t, so you’re technically correct. We are now cleaning up the mess we created when we invaded a country that did not threaten us. (A.k.a. “nation building,” which George Bush campaigned against.)
But the neo-cons have this great little political theory called “creative destruction,” you see …
Joel Mark (13): We are fighting in Iraq against Al Qaeda and other jihadists trying to destroy that country …
Frank: Go on, finish the sentence!
“… who weren’t there trying to destroy the country until after we arrived.”
Talk about “staggering intellectual dishonesty.”
Report comment to moderator
The problem with invading Iraq is actually very similar to the support the US gave in toppling the democratic government in Iran and helping replace it with a more friendly monarchy, the Shah in the fifties.
The difference is that we removed a tyrant rather then help destroy a democratic government. However, we did not replace the tyrant in Iraq with a democratic government, but rather a bunch of petty tyrants, each running his own little few square miles. Once these petty tyrants, some secular, some religious, squash any dissent in their areas, they will begin to look around to increase the size of their little domains. It’s so obvious. You can see it coming from a mile away.
Report comment to moderator
Nice rewrite of history, Donato. So you only live a mile away from Baghdad?
Report comment to moderator
Point of order: Who is “Donato”? He hasn’t posted in this thread. Is that RDean’s old name, maybe? Or did yousimply mis-speak, outkast?
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is being claimed by conservatives as a true conservative, and by liberals as a true liberal. Now isn’t that odd. The landscape is changing. People are beginning to see politicians not as conservative or liberal, but as limited-government constitutionalists or over-bearing tyrants. Both the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party and the progressive socialists of the Democratic Party are in the tyrant category. Principled Christian men like Ron Paul are upholding a constitutionally-limited government, and the people are loving it. The message of freedom is powerful. Just watch in two days, on December 16th, when Ron Paul will reap his reward from the largest political fundraising day in history. Celebrate the Boston Tea Party 2007!
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is an interesting character. He’s really not a Republican – he’s Libertarian. Realizing that no 3rd party is going to win, he’s taken up the Republican mantle to try and have a viable chance.
I do admire his campaign and the passion of his supporters. However, I do believe that a large part of his support is coming from people who have historically not turned out to vote in significant numbers (young people). We’ll see if they will stay home and watch “TRL Live” or go out and vote. If I had to guess, I’d say there will be a slight uptick in young people voting this time around, but not a large enough turn-out to put Ron into the driver’s seat. I reserve the right to change my analysis as things unfold.
The libertarians that are supporting Ron Paul are an odd combination of liberals and conservatives. Both groups actually have some profound differences, but seem united on the “no government” thing. To be honest, the true libertarians that I know personally are kind of obnoxious. But if you’re libertarian and nice, don’t take it personally. That’s just my experience with them.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Frank. It’s his new moniker on this new improved blog.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Not anymore we aren’t, so you’re technically correct. We are now cleaning up the mess we created when we invaded a country that did not threaten us. (A.k.a. “nation building,” which George Bush campaigned against.)
Not really, Frank. Pres. Bush made a courageous decision to take down Saddam Hussein, a brutal Iraqi tyrant who was the major factor in the destabilization of the Middle East, which, given the Islamic Jihadi threat, truth to be told, was a major concern for American and international interests. Bush, following Rumsfeld, Abizaid, and Casey’s mistakes of not facing the Insurgency, took awhile to solve the problem by finally appointing Gates and Petraeus, though, like Lincoln, he did find the right men.
Your argument that we are merely cleaning up the mess [nation building] that Bush campaigned against neglects the reality of 11 September and the continuing serious threat to American security from the Islamic Jihadists. You and Ron Paul have your heads in the sand; most Americans are well aware of reality.
Now that the war in Iraq is most probably being won, you would do well to give Pres. Bush and his stalwart military advisers due credit.
Report comment to moderator
#1, Stephen,
no one said they were. Why are you defensive?
HSK,
Does this mean you’re a Ron Paul supporter now?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Do you mean that I’d said I was leaning toward him? I haven’t heard anything to indicate he’s really a viable candidate (that he’s really doing anything). I haven’t watched any debates or anything yet, though, and won’t really “follow” the election closely till ‘08 rolls around. It’s too early for me to care very much; but I get very passionate as the election rolls closer, and yes, I stay up till the wee hours of the morning to hear the results. (I think in 2000 I was up till 4 a.m. or something like that–not until the talking head wearily said we might not know the results for weeks did I give up and go to bed.)
Report comment to moderator
Stephen,
I explained why the rhetoric about the war is demogogic and deceptive. It misrepresents our side totally to say that we are fighting against Iraq.
Now. would you mind explaining with rational argument how my pointing that out is “demogogic in the extreme?”
Report comment to moderator
Chreyl D,
I stand by my statement that the rhetoric coming out of the Ron Paul campaign appeals to the ignorant. It severely misrepresents our mission and distort the facts to make our side look evil on false pretenses.
Anyone who has the slightest grip on the facts related to our mission, sees right through Dr. Paul.
Most wars in our history went undeclared offically.
Most of our opponents in history did not necessarily attack us first.
We must get past simplistic anti-Americdan falseisms.
And we are NOT fighting against a country that has not threatened us. We are fighting against Al Qaeda and other juhadists and I stand by our mission and our troops.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s popularity is deeply rooted in an incdredible lack of understanding of this war against jihadist terrorism and of our mission.
Report comment to moderator
I will be glad to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary. The Republican/Democrat elite would be so miffed if he won the Nomination that it would make for a very interesting Presidential campaign.
I actually support him for his no-nonsense policies that would protect life and freedom, but maybe some of you could support him just for the fun factor of watching him debate Hillary/Barack.
Report comment to moderator
Chryl,
I value your point of view, so let me add that I fully respect honest opposition to the war in Iraq (I respectfully disagree with it). But my problem with the rhetoric above on the orginal post and with what Ron Paul has said in some of the debates is that it starkly re-writes the most basic facts of the war, like who we are fighting and why.
Principled opposition? Fine.
Active misrepresentation? Not fine.
We need to be clear on who we are fighting and why before deciding on our position.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
. . . The Congress passes all manner of legislation not authorized by the Constitution, limiting the freedom of the public through an ever-increasing network of laws and taxes. . .
Yours in Christ,
Clark Carlton
Notice, the assertion of this epistle is an article of faith, not an inference from fact. Libertarians can think the Constitution ought to “limit the size of government,” but the Constitution has no more relation to the size of government than Roberts’ Rules of Order has to the size of the meetings that are convened pursuant thereto. Further, any nit-wit can think of examples where laws and taxes increase freedom and prosperity.
I’ve got to think that someone whose religion wishes to put the Romanov’s back on the throne of Russia has some ambitions. Religious entrepreneurs aren’t content with alms boxes. They fawn on the pocketbooks of fabulously wealthy doners, and see themselves as the conduit between earthly wealth and the work of God. Brother Carlton is more afraid of the death tax than the devil, or perhaps thinks that the death tax is the devil.
Report comment to moderator
Post 30
Peter, your argument would make sense if it had a shred of reality to it. Once again, 9/11 was not connected to Iraq. The argument the Administration made linked the fear of Iraqi WMD to Islamic Jihadists. What WMD? Sadaam as a fount of instability in the Middle East, he was contained. I would point out though that without him Iran has become aggressive. On the tyrant piece, Paul has a point about democracy at the point of a gun. It only worked in Germany and Japan where we fought a brutal and total war reducing cities to rubble and production capacities to nil and wholly humbling the governing elite. Please note being hones that WW II was brutal is not an indictment. We did what we had to do.
The rationale that we are fighting jihadists in Iraq, well we are now, having moved in, failing to secure the borders and failing to retain the old Iraqi military which simply melted into the population. Bush did not fail to face the insurgency by following the advice of Rummy and others, he helped it grow by not using the smart policies Petreaus had outlined years ago in his piece on counterinsurgency. I am grateful that the Administration came to its senses and kicked out Rummy and finally instilled some competent civilian leadership at DoD and sent Petraeus to clean up the mess. But then after the last election, was there really any other choice?
On the effort itself it is far too arrogant and presumptuous to talk about the war being won. There is a modicum of stability. It is fragile.
On habeas, I would agree with you if the GWOT were limited in duration, like an actual war. But it isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
TRR, the article said they were “leftist” at the beginning of the last bit Harrison quoted. If that was not the case, I agree that my comment would have been very much misplaced.
Joel Mark, did America attack the state of Iraq or did it not? It did. Hence, it was an attack on Iraq, though you’re quite correct that it no longer continues. The original point, that Ron Paul, as a “true” conservative, did not support the invasion of Iraq stands, but I do not dispute your correction of JJF’s terminology. I agree with Frank here.
As for the quoted Ron Paul-ian points being “demagogic in the extreme” and only appealing “to the ignorant”, however, your reasoning was in response to JJF’s mischaracterization with no analysis of the original Ron Paul-ian points.
Report comment to moderator
JJF asked, “How is it dishonest to say we are fighting a war in Iraq?”
It’s not. No one said it was. But it is dishonest to say that we (the USA) are now fighting “against” Iraq, which is the word used in the comments in question
Report comment to moderator
STEPHEN asked, “did America attack the state of Iraq or did it not?
In 2003, but that is not the war currentloy in question. Afte President Bush gave Saddam Hussein over 11 months of time and multiple chances to comply with UN resolutions and many warnings that we would use force to depose him if he didn’t, we kept our word and deposed him. Mission accomplished!
But that is not the war we are fighting now in Iraq at all. The current war in iraq has a totally different enemy and it is not Iraq. This is a crucial and simple point of distinction.
Dr. Carlson was referring to the current war, was he nit? If not, then his comments are irrelevant to this current campaign issue. Ron Paul opposes THIS current war against jihadists and Al Qaeda right now!
It this war, we are allies with Iraq and the main reason for our current success is that their US-trained forces are becoming far more competent and cooperative. In addition to our alliance (not opposition) with Iraqi forces, we are getting far more cooperation from Iraqi civilians too.
So the war in question… the war that Ron Paul opposes… is NOT “against” Iraq or the country of Iraq. Not by any stretch or any means. Quite the contrary.
Report comment to moderator
We are fighting in Iraq against Al Qaeda and other jihadists trying to destroy that country.
The demonic and murderous evil of this statement is dangerous — not to mention dishonest! We are fighting to stop Iraqi insurgent groups from filling the vacuum of power in the land we destroyed. 97% of those we kill are Iraqis.
Now that the war in Iraq is most probably being won, you would do well to give Pres. Bush and his stalwart military advisers due credit.
There’s still no military victory, despite the temp. surge. Brits are abandoning Basra as unsustainable.
The legality of the war was assured by the October 2, 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Bush said in Oct. 2002: “I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” AUMF made the attack legitimate in the US but not legal under international law. US and Britain based their arguments for the legality of the war on UN resolutions #660, 678, and 1441. Bush has never allowed the Security Council to debate whether UN resolutions legally permitted the attack against Iraq. Best you can say for Bush, his arguments are tendentious and dubious.
The attack was never necessary. It was a choice among “calculations” of risk. Bush said: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Of course, proof can come in the form of photographs, too, such as Kennedy had. If Bush truly had had such evidence, he would not have invaded but have launched missiles to take out the sites.
Report comment to moderator
We are fighting against the interests of the Iraqis we kill.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Your crucial and important distinction that the war we are fighting in Iraq us true, but the not so minor detail you leave out is that al Qaida was not in Iraq before we were. Paul, rightly I think, opposed attacking a nation state that had not attacked us. It is a simple point, to be true, but all the delicate dancing in the universe cannot avoid it. We attacked a nation that did not attack us. Did its leader posture. Well, of course he did, but then so do many.
Are we fighting a current threat in AQI, well yes. But how and why are they there? Al Qaida was not in Iraq before we moved in. That is simply a fact. From previous debates on the topic I am aware that you dislike this fact. But all the spinning in the world will not make it be not fact.
Our foreign policy must be grounded in reality if the US is to maintain support around the world. We are strong, but in this world we cannot be strong alone. The damage done to us internationally has still not been wholly paid. To see that all you have to do is pick up foreign papers, even the ones that want to support us have a hard time doing so. In our closed world you can say we gave him a chance, he failed to rise to it, we invaded, mission accomplished and what we are doing now is different. Most of the rest of the world does not see it that we and we can only discount that for a limited period of time. This is why I dislike Paul, with his simplistic, isolationist answers, Huckabee who seems clueless and Guilani who has the same characters that got us into this in the first place on his team. I am also suspicious of Clinton, McCain and Romney as establishment candidates in this respect.
Now, no one in the race on either side opposes dealing with al Qaida in a forceful and clear way. The question is preventing its and organization like it growth. That is a war fought on philosophical grounds, a war in which we must use ideas to persuade, a war for minds, hearts and souls. The question for voters on this score should be who can do that.
Report comment to moderator
addendum, there is Kucinich in the race, ok he does oppose anything that does not exude hippie star child love, but really, he’s a well intended lunatic, kinda like the sweet eccentric auntie in the attic.
Report comment to moderator
I like RPs philosophy of limiting the size of the federal govt. I think there are many, many federal positions that would be better handled by the private sector.
But wanting to eliminate the CIA, and cut the military at a time like this, is dangerously foolish.
His position on Iraq is ridiculous.
Forget about WMBs..forget about terrorist connections. Saddam was firing anti-aircraft munitions at our planes in the no-fly zone, less than a month after Bush took office.
He could have bombed them back to the stone-age right then and there, and be justified, as far as I’m concerned.
It just shows how little attention Americans payed to the things going on in the world pre-9/11
In fact, Iraq was among the biggest concerns for Europeans, at that time.
It was the subject of the first meeting between Blair and Bush in Feb. of ‘01.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/02/23/iraq.2.t_7.php
The security of this nation depends on our ability to trade with other nations safely to provide the resources that we’ve come to expect.
(largely a result of our inability, or refusal to use the ample supply of domestic resources)
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he threatened the stability of a large part of the world. He was driven back to Iraq, but he never quit fighting us. And whether we find any WMDs or not, they were there. The whole world knew they were there. And they’re still somewhere.
We know that there were meetings between terrorist organizations and Saddam’s regime.
Put all of that together, and then add 9/11… it’s go time. I just wish we’d had the pre-Clinton military. And I wish we’d used the Clinton method of going to war without so much as saying “boo” to the UN. We could have overwhelmed them, and it could have been over quick.
And now, some would have us believe that Saddam suddenly transformed into a happy-go-lucky dictator that was content keeping to himself, and murdering his own people.
Just imagine if Ron Paul had been president from 88-92. Saddam would be a very wealthy and powerful man right now. and would probably be in the process of taking over all of the oil-producing countries in the ME
Going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do.
If we hadn’t, who would?
You think gas is high now? What if (worst case)Saddam had control of all the ME oil? You think he’d cut us infidels a break?
Or, (best case)the entire ME is at war, trying to hold off Saddam,( with the Russians helping him, of course)oil fields being attacked on a huge scale,$300 a barrel oil prices for consumer nations…sound like fun?
If not for our effort in Iraq, maintaining the no-fly zones since the Gulf War, one of those two things would, without a doubt, be happening.
No, the world is way too dangerous for Ron Paul to be leading it’s superpower.
Even without 9/11
Report comment to moderator
So according to you:
Our 2003 invasion was the second Iraq War, and it was a success. President Bush was right all along to stand in front of that “Mission Accomplished” banner, because our mission was merely to enforce UN resolutions by deposing Saddam.
After successfully wrapping up Iraq II, we phased into a different war — the War on Terror / War Against Jihadism.
Do I understand you correctly?
If so, Joel, then I think you’re spinning so much that you’re about to spawn your own galaxy.
1) The UN did not set military invasion as the penalty for breaking its edicts, nor did it authorize the US to act on its behalf. In fact, the US invaded over UN resistance. So to claim that our invasion was sanctioned by the UN and/or its resolutions is a monstrous falsehood. At best, we were unilaterally deciding how UN resolutions ought to be enforced. At worst, we were using the resolutions as a paper thin pretext for invasion.
2) You make it sound as though we move from one successful war into another, but in reality the current conflict is a continuation of our colossally failed invasion. Sure we toppled Saddam’s anaemic military, but we did not bring enough troops to secure Iraq, nor did we count on the fractiousness of Sunni and Shiite. Bush was warned about both, but ignored those warnings in favor of the projections of optimistic hawks he’d surrounded himself with.
3) If we truly wanted to prosecute a War Against Jihadism (which I contend would be a terrible idea anyway), then why Iraq? It had no jihadi terrorists before we invaded. The insurgents we are currently fighting in Iraq were not there before we invaded and toppled Saddam. And only a small percentage of those we are currently fighting in Iraq are even “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (a group affiliated with Al Qaeda in name and spirit only). For the great majority of our conflict there, we’re caught policing a civil war.
Report comment to moderator
If we had done equally for the Arabs/Palestinians etc all that we did for the Israelis, who believes the Arabs/muslims would today NOT hate the West?
I think doctrinaire constitutional scholars would say that both the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Authorization to Use Force which Congress handed two separate presidents were not in any way full “Declarations of War” which the constitution mandates.
The USA should never use U.N. resolutions as some sort of higher justification for spilling our blood and treasure abroad
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Your anti-US spin on this at #43 is both dizzy and dead wrong. Al Qaeda is indeed one of the main enemies we have fought in Iraq as well as insurgent jihadist terrorists AND many invaders from Syria and Iran and other countries.
It was not and is not our mission to destroy Iraq and we are not the ones doing that. Deposing Saddam gave Iraq some hope for a future. Can you not give us credit for staying (after deposing Saddam) at great cost to ourselves to rebuild Iraq? Nah, you seem more willing to blame us for doing what, in fact, the jihadist terrorists have tried to do–namely destroy Iraq.
Your 97 percent figure is nonsense. We happen to know for certain that many of our enemy in Iraq were members of Al Qaeda and/or from Syria, Iran and other Isalmic countries. Zarqawi (Al Qaeda operative) was from Jordan.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “We are fighting against the interests of the Iraqis we kill.”
Ooops, you have us confused with the vicious terrorist jihadists, Scroop.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Easy pickings on poor scroop. Got any fresh bait for me?
Report comment to moderator
“The USA should never use U.N. resolutions as some sort of higher justification for spilling our blood and treasure abroad”
That so true Sawgunner. But what about when we use the UN to get the mandate we want?
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue,
I don’t think you understood me.
No one knows for sure when Al Qaeda came to Iraq. Zarqawi was there before we deposed Saddam. He received aid from Saddam. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq when Saddam was still inpower. But that is not my point here, nor is it what Ron Paul supporters are concerned with. Either way, Ron Paul would not be for this war.
Whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before us or not, is not germaine to the points to which I am objecting here. When we first went into Iraq, we never said it was to fight Al Qaeda (which you seem to be pretending we did), but to depose Saddam Hussein for a host of good reasons.
And we did it.
Then we stayed to help them rebuild. The growing presence of Al Qaeda with a murderous mission to destabilize Iraq mandated a war against them if we did not want Iraq to go from the frying pan into the fire. And we have successfully allied with Iraq to fight that war.
I am not for any candidate that fancies the notion that we can fight the likes of Al Qaeda on “philosophical grounds” with ideas to persudae them.
Report comment to moderator
CB,
The UN Resolutions Saddam violated and ignored was a very serious problem, and his treatment of them undermines any future meaningful role for the UN and its resolutions.
However, that was not the only reason. One of the biggest reason was that the entire international community as well as George Tenet, Bill Clinton, M. Albright, John Kerry and many others were fully convinced that Saddam was hiding WMD and that this constituted a huge threat to the region. The genuine belief that he had them was impossible for decent leaders to ignore and so over 30 countries joined us in our original liberation of Iraq.
And Mr Meaner pointed out other factors as well.
Report comment to moderator
Surely you can do better than that Joel. I understand you, but you I am pretty sure don’t understand what I am saying.
Zarqawi perceived that we might attack and was an opportunist. He was not part of al Q until he started to show some moxy against the “Great Satan” that much we do know. Received aid from Hussein, you have the proof for that? You don’t because such proof does not exist. We have been over the ground about the terrorist training camps in the north and south, a problem for you as Hussein did not control those areas. Our air campaign was just that good.
Whether AQI was there is germane to whether the war had a justification. Paul says no, and he is right. Pre-war al Qaida was mostly in Pakistan. And wow, it is still there. Please do name your other host of good reasons for ridding the world of Hussein. Do include his tyranny so I can ask again why him and not Kim Jong Il? The rumors about the Israeli attack on Syria are nuclear tech from North Korea. Moreover, why we attacked is important to the rest of the world. Do you honestly believe the USA on its own, owing debt in droves to China can act alone?
The Administration argued that WMD from Hussein whom they said was on the verge of a nuclear mushroom cloud meant we had to prevent Al Q from getting weapons. Do you really want me to pull the video cites, so people can see for themselves what they already know was said? I will if you insist.
Al Qaida came to Iraq because we were there. And I do recall you and others saying good let’s fight them there. And if you were not trying to be pristine here, I’d probably agree better there than here. Very utilitarian though about Iraqi lives.
We have not successfully allied with Iraq to fight them. We have successfully allied with armed sectarian groups to fight them. That is an important detail.
You should given your predilection to speak about Islamofacism understand that Islamofacism is an idea. You can’t beat an idea with bullets. Every American knows that somewhere in their soul. That is what Petraues instituted in Iraq. If you can’t see that you are blinded.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
On the UN security council resolutions, do you think the US did not bring every possible pressure it could to bear the minimal result we got?
Just asking because that was the heart of my comment to Sawgunner. I already know what the previous Admin thought vis-a-vis WMD as it relied on the same known now to be bad intel. But Clinton did not invade on the basis of intel. We’ve had that discussion on these boards too. Given the Iran NIE do you really want to argue that invasion on the basis of US intel is good idea?
Report comment to moderator
Al Qaeda is indeed one of the main enemies we have fought in Iraq as well as insurgent jihadist terrorists AND many invaders from Syria and Iran and other countries.
The blossoming turds that emerge from the mouth of Joel Mark derive entirely from what George Bush’s gut is so full of.
The “enemy” combattants during 2006 were:
Post-Baathist Sunni Insurgents – 70,000
Mahdi Army – 60,000
al Qaeda/others – 1,300
During 2007, al Qaeda was defeated.
Military reporters have repeated many times that Iraqis themselves are 97% or more of the “bad guys” who are fighting each other and the US in a dispute over the power vacuum the US created. The US constitutes 99% of the invader-occupiers in Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
Deposing Saddam gave Iraq some hope for a future.
Except for the 1.2 million who died and 4 million orphans and displaced and malnurished survivors who live in the rubble we reduced them to.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, the Constitution doesn’t mandate a formal Declaration of War. It gives the Congress the power to declare war. In our post Constitution history of fifteen wars, five were Declared by Congress at the request of a president; ten were not declared. In each of the ten undeclared wars, the president had reasons not to ask for a congressional declaratiion.
At present, the War Powers act of 1973 requires a congressional authorization, which Pes. Bush secured in October 2002. Pres. Clinton didn’t even secure an authorization for the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.
For a brief discussion of Declaration of war by the United States you might read this Wikipedia article.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, a formal declaration of war is not required by the Constitution. Of fifteen major American wars only five were formally declared, the last of which was at the beginning of WW II.
At present, the War Powers act of 1973 requires an authorization but not a declaration by Congress, which Bush secured for the Iraq War in October 2002. Pres. Clinton didn’t secure even an authorization for his NATO approved 78 day air war against Serbia on the issue of Kosovo.
For a brief Wikipidea discussion of this go Here.
Report comment to moderator
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Report comment to moderator
CB, wrote. “Surely you can do better than that Joel.”
I doubt that I can do well enough to please you, CB. But I am simply correcting the blatantly false pretenses that the anti-US ‘Paul’istinian rhetoric about this war above is based on.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop’s numbers are out of the blue. We cannot even find many of the enemies in Iraq that are hiding behind women and children, let alone count them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel (#63):
I don’t know where Scroop got his numbers, but I know I’ve heard similar percentages on NPR. Al Qaida in Iraq (which, again, is not Al Qaida, but a new group that named themselves after Al Qaida and adopted its anti-US mission) makes up only a very small percentage of our conflicts in Iraq. And, according to the NPR report, they aren’t even well-liked by the other insurgent groups in Iraq.
Maybe you doubt NPR’s figures, too. But if you doubt everybody’s figures, you have assume a burden to come up with some compelling evidence of your own. Anything else amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad guys like Peter Leavitt are patting Bush and Petraeus on the back; however, shouldn’t most credit go to the Iraqis themselves?
Only Iraqis can win and hold their freedom.
So far, they’ve done an admiral job in helping rid their country of foreign Al-Qaeda fighters.
The tricky part remains: keeping the Shias and Sunnis from killing each other while dismantling the Baathist insurgency.
Frankly, when parrots like Peter start talking about the war being won, I know they are full of it. When the war was going bad, Peter told us this would be a long hard slog.
So which is it, Peter? A long hard slog or a war that is about won?
Nation-building is a messy business. Be prepared to have soldiers in Iraq for eternity. There was a reason Bush was against nation-building before he was for it.
Report comment to moderator
One can debate the question of whether Pres. Bush and the Congress were wise to authorise the fight in Iraq in 2003. The fact is that the issue was debated back in the Fall of 2002, and the Congress decisively in its Joint Resolution authorized the war. While Pres. Bush and Congress hoped for a U.N. Security Council authorization of the war, this was not a strict requirement of the resolution.
Also, the sections above that JJF provided of the October Resolution do relate to alQuaida in Iraq at the time. To be fair, critics of Bush need to read all twenty-three sections of the resolution.
Right now it is clear that alQuaida has made the Iraq War the central front in the War on Terror; should we defeat alQuaida in Iraq, it will have suffered a major defeat. In recent months Gen. Petraeus’ counter insurgency has been devastating for al Quaida forces, though much more fighting needs to be done.
CoyoteBlue, Scroop Moth, et al are quibbling about the original decision to go to war, while our forces at present bid fair to hand alQuaida a major defeat and possibly allow Iraq to develop an Arab form of democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Should the situation in Iraq turn out well, which is quite possible, then Pres. Bush through a combination over time of effective fighting troops and skillful diplomacy will be be seen as the liberator of Iraq and effective supporter of nascent democracy in the Middle East.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, it has been and will continue to be a long, hard slog for both the American and Iraqi forces. Fortunately, despite the naysayers and doom sayers like you, we are in sight of winning this war, though much more needs to be done.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt –
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been declared to be substantially defeated in recent months by the US military. AQI was a greatly exaggerated threat whose evaporation deprives White House propagandists of a wonderful asset, so consequently we don’t hear Bush describing the real nature and magnitude of this rich target of words.
The Washington Post reported that in the bloody phases of 2006, there were something more than 1,300 Al Qaeda and “others” fighting in Iraq. That it has taken us longer to defeat this band of brothers than it took to win WWI is proof that the problem in Iraq never was Al Qaeda in Iraq, it was Iraqis in Iraq.
The surge is the pot lid we hope will keep the soup from boiling dry before Iraqis can figure out how to turn down the fire. The Brits understand that a lid can slow the vaporization and prolong the reduction, but won’t stop the soup from burning. It’s already burned, and stirring will complete the ruin. It’s up to Iraqis to salvage what they can or keep burning and set fire to the house.
The illogically insufficient surge.
This morning in MacDonalds I saw a 7-year-old blond kid with a crew cut and military fatigues, waving a stick with a small American flag. He was with his mother, and I wondered if his dad was in the service. The boy struck a 4-year-old Mexican girl who was there with both her parents, looking at the toys in the display case. She howled in pain, and her mother bared the child’s skin and complained to the Anglo mother, “Look, see what he did to her. What is wrong with him?” The girl’s father stood apart, mild, smiling, and unperturbed.
I of course threw fuel on the fire: “With an American flag he hit a little girl!” Kind of like what is dad may be doing in Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Al Qaeda’ threat has been real and deadly. Their tactics have been as nefarious as they are evil. I am grateful to those who have been facing it down, at great risk to themselves for the good of others.
One main reason we are gaining ground against Al Qaeda is that Iraqis are coming to our aid.
Scroop Moth, this war cannot be wisely assessed with made-up statistics or with silly analogies to WW2 or to four-year-olds.
Report comment to moderator
“understand that Islamofacism is an idea. You can’t beat an idea with bullets”
I have to disagree. Martyrdom without any progress will only go on for so long.
If they send out 10-20K martyrs, that achieve nothing but getting themselves and innocents killed, what are they gaining for “the cause”.
Eventually they will figure out that “the cause” just means their own deaths.
They aren’t making any gains, and haven’t made any gains. Everywhere they flee, we find them and kill them.
They can go back and forth from the Afghani-Pakistani border to Iraq, and back again, from here to eternity. And they will still be killed.
Without any perception of progress, these potential martyrs are going to start defecting.
As some of the smarter ones already have.
I don’t care if we kill a million jihadists.
The faster we kill them and their leaders, the harder it is going to be for them to attract recruits. They will be down to looking for genuinely suicidal people to carry out their missions. And we can gladly accomodate their desire to die.
The second we quit fighting they will rebuild, re-arm and come after us again.
One only has to look at the results of the cease-fire agreements between Israel and the so-called “Palestinians”, to see that islamists have no intention of letting anyone live in peace.
The only option I see, is kill enough of them that they have no will to fight anymore
I don’t care if we kill the idea of islamofascism, I am content to kill all of the islamofascists as they reveal themselves..And I would prefer to do it quickly.
That requires a competent CIA, which RP seeks to disband.
“Nation-building is a messy business. Be prepared to have soldiers in Iraq for eternity.”
Maybe…I have no problem with that. In fact we are stupid if we don’t leave some military presence in Iraq.
It’s been a good thing where we’ve done it in the past. If we hadn’t,
1)The Chinese would be in possession of Japan.
2)Russia, who would most likely still be the USSR, would be in possession of the whole of Germany, and most likely all of Eastern Europe.
3) The entire Korean peninsula would be a nuclear-armed, communist force that would have the entire East in fear.
And it doesn’t matter how many AQs there are in Iraq. They advance, retreat, and relocate constantly. We should continue to track, follow, and kill them
How would the Iraq war haters propose to keep this world from spinning into chaos, without the presence of the US military abroad?
Report comment to moderator
On the WSJ editorial page their is a Weekend Journal interview with John McCain. Here are some excerpts related to the subject here
In Iraq, meantime, Mr. McCain sees events at long last moving in the right direction. “I think this is a seminal moment in American history. I really do. Because we’ve got a long way to go. Al Qaeda is on the run but they’re not defeated, OK?
“And we’ve got really a long way to go. But I’m telling you, if we could keep going like this for another nine months to a year or so, and get the Maliki government to start functioning effectively–and a lot of things are happening by the way that are not at the highest level–I think you’re going to see things happen in the rest of the Middle East.
…He’s [McCain] asked what surprised him the most about the behavior House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with regard to Iraq. His answer–”their lack of patriotism”–is of the characteristically impolitic kind that often defines his personality.
When asked whether he would tag Hillary Clinton as well with a “lack of patriotism,” Mr. McCain does dial it down a notch. “Maybe ‘lack of patriotism’ is too harsh,” he allows. “‘Putting political ambitions ahead of the national interest’ may be a more subtle way” of putting it. He then adds, with a chuckle, “And we all know how subtle I am.”
Having spent six-years as a brave and defiant prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain has the authority to make such remarks.
Report comment to moderator
In the first sentence above “their” should be “there.” My apologies.
Report comment to moderator
. . . this war cannot be wisely assessed with made-up statistics or with silly analogies to WW2 . . .
Which is why George Bush has no credibility left with anybody but his dead-end defenders. These are in the faith-based community but not in our intelligence services which finally had to humiliate him upon the grounds he had taken to talk about World War III.
Report comment to moderator
I think Scroop, Lester and JJF are just too pessimistic!
Look, we all know victory is just around the *corner in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons keep telling us that every day. You guys are just too stubborn to listen.
*corner being defined as decades, if not centuries, plus hundreds of billions of dollars (it’s only money – good grief!), thousands of American lives, a nation destroyed, a few hundred thousand innocent civilian lives taken (give or take a few), and an incompetent, divided government in Iraq. No big whoop.
So come on Scroop, Lester and JJF – turn that frown
into a smile
Everything is going just wonderfully. It will all work out as it always does. Besides, what could possibly go wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Lester, it has been and will continue to be a long, hard slog for both the American and Iraqi forces. Fortunately, despite the naysayers and doom sayers like you, we are in sight of winning this war, though much more needs to be done.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth – aka lying. I’ve never been a naysayer. I’ve just questioned the feasibility and wisdom of nation-building.
I know that the military can and will win – I just question the cost and how long it will take. I also wonder about the overall efficacy, especially considering the Iraqi government has not affirmed Israel’s right to exist.
This is on top of the perilous (you’d say “serious”) Shia/Sunni problem in Iraq, as well as across the Middle East.
I doubt you would think the Middle East was a “safer” place if a Shia-dominated Iraq joined with Iran to threaten not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia (which has a large Shia population in its oil regions and chaffes under the rule of the Sunni House of Saud) and the rest of the Gulf States.
Also, now that Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated, I’m waiting for all the terrorist threats from Al-Qaeda to end. Oh yeah, that won’t happen. Al-Qaeda is enjoying a resurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Peter, it would do you well to watch how you characterize other bloggers. You tread very close to blatant lying, if not intentional obfuscation.
Report comment to moderator
Having spent six-years as a brave and defiant prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain has the authority to make such remarks.
We all have the authority to make such remarks. (1st Amendment) But that doesn’t make our remarks right. McCain’s ordeal in war doesn’t immunize him from bad judgment, nor make him correct in his evaluation of the patriotism of his political opponents. In fact, his history could be what makes him a little looney. His patriotism qualifies him no better than Huckabee’s weight loss. Less, if it means we’ll have a president who passes skeptical opinion about his antagonists’ “patriotism.”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe…I have no problem with that. In fact we are stupid if we don’t leave some military presence in Iraq.
Our troops in Iraq would be there to keep the peace among Iraqis, not protect Iraq from its neighbors.
Of course, what’s another 40-50,000 troops stationed abroad? We have bases and troops in 130 countries and balancing the budget seems not to matter to conservatives anymore. I just warn you that overextending the military is not very prudent.
Also, it’s odd that we don’t have one soldier stationed in Taiwan, a former Chinese province, yet China has never invaded. But it’s our troops that keep China from invading that country. Interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Lester Peter, it would do you well to watch how you characterize other bloggers. You tread very close to blatant lying, if not intentional obfuscation.
You who once remarked that I had my… head up Bush’s ass are hardly in a position to speak of blatant lying and intentional obfuscation.
Also, you, according to many posts on this blog, have been a blatantly nay saying opponent of the War in Iraq. Now that the war bids fair to be won, you are hiding by the risible cover that our military can and will win, as if they are magically there without the boldness and courage of the Bush administration.
Report comment to moderator
“Our troops in Iraq would be there to keep the peace among Iraqis, not protect Iraq from its neighbors.”
Not once the Iraqi govt. establishes itself.
You assume that they are incapable of forming a functioning govt. that can run their own internal affairs. How they choose to get along amongst themselves isn’t really our concern.
It would be very beneficial to have military posts in a couple of areas of Iraq, just for the benefit of having a base of operations for, if nothing else, intelligence gathering that is deperately needed in that region.
Plus, it would act as a deterrent to such friendly folks as the Iranians, who would love a shot at taking out a new (somewhat) democratic govt.,made up of people they already hate.
“Of course, what’s another 40-50,000 troops stationed abroad? We have bases and troops in 130 countries and balancing the budget seems not to matter to conservatives anymore. I just warn you that overextending the military is not very prudent.”
Well, if Clinton hadn’t reduced the size of the military by a few hundred thousand slodiers, that wouldn’t really be an issue.
If it’s the money, you’re worried about, let’s stop wasting it here. Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to what we needlessly spend here at home.
It took from the beginning of the war to mid-’07 to spend the same amount of money that we spent starting up a stupid Rx welfare program, that nobody even likes.
That’s just one thing.
“Also, it’s odd that we don’t have one soldier stationed in Taiwan, a former Chinese province, yet China has never invaded. But it’s our troops that keep China from invading that country. Interesting.”
We’ve never tried to militarily depose a dictator in Taiwan, either. If we had, I’d be in favor of having a base their,too.
Actually, that would be kind of nice…hmmm.
Now see!
You’re making me have mean thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
Also, you, according to many posts on this blog, have been a blatantly nay saying opponent of the War in Iraq. Now that the war bids fair to be won, you are hiding by the risible cover that our military can and will win, as if they are magically there without the boldness and courage of the Bush administration.
Saying I was an opponent to a foolish war of nation-building is one thing. Saying I was a naysayer was another. I never said the U.S. would lose, nor have I ever rooted for their failure.
You are a liar pure and simple.
I have said time and again that only the Iraqis can win the war. They are the bold ones, as are the U.S. soldiers on the ground. Not you or Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner,
When the birthrate is high and the culture encourages its youth to martyr itself, you are just kind of wrong. Radical islamist could send a million kids and not run out of fodder for their cause. This is precisely why a bullets campaign will not work. It will just produce more “martyrs”.
The big picture, Meaner, not just in Iraq.
China/Taiwan, I am pretty sure was not anything I added to this mix, but as it was in the post that quoted me at it’s top I will now opine. Look, China knows that we have trip-wire committed to Taiwan. They invade we go to war. They don’t want that, we don’t either. But they do know we are crazy enough to honor that trip wire. So they don’t invade, being smart about their own economic interests.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Scroop et al are quibbling about why to go to war? Well damn them for asking that impertinent question in a democracy.
Should the situation turn out well you say, so the ends do justify the means?
Is that moral?
Or is it moral if you win? Just asking.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner
Reading over your stuff again, Clinton and his reduced military (allow me to cover my mouth while I call BS). Rummy wanted to reduce the military even further. It was his brilliance that won the day with respect to Iraq in its first phases. Going back to Clinton regard reduction is completely attenuated nonsense.
Come on Joel, Peter, Meaner et al, can you not debate the merits in a reality based kind of way?
Report comment to moderator
CB – Meaner’s arguments are garbage. You pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were shrinking the size of the military, just as Clinton did. Meaner also forgot that Republicans also backed the military reductions under Clinton – the ones that didn’t were playing pork politics; they didn’t want their bases closing.
Meaner is just playing the tired “Blame Clinton” game. Never mind that Bush and Rumsfeld tut-tutted their military brass and invaded Iraq with a light force. That turned out well.
The US military is overextended across the globe and is the single biggest US government expenditure. Yet, Meaner thinks we should just cut spending at home to pay for more troops abroad. Easier said than done – it was Meaner and his favorite president, Bush, that enacted the Rx program that he now complains about.
Never mind that the many wise statemen have warned about getting too involved in the affairs of other nations. Guys like Eisenhower and Washington don’t know as much as Meaner.
Report comment to moderator
What’s garbage is the revision history being reported here.
It doesn’t matter what Rumsfeld wanted to do. The FACT is Clinton hated the military. The fact is Clinton cut troop levels by hundreds of thousands. (Like I said.)
What would Rumsfeld’s strategy have been with those extra 286,000 troops?
That’s over 100,000 troops more than we’ve had in Iraq at one time, is it not?
You want the facts? You’re not going to like them.
The fact is, any fool can have a surplus when you eliminate huge portions of your military. And that is exactly what Clinton did.
Lets get something straight. The only things you know about me, are the things I tell you. The fact that you say “his favorite president, Bush”,
tells me you don’t know jack about what I think.
Our being in Iraq and Afghanistan is about the only thing that Bush has done that pleased me.
For someone who can’t see what difference 286,000 troops would make right now, I’d say you should be careful on that high horse you’re riding.
“Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644
Report comment to moderator
In fact, you can blame Clinton for allowing Saddams WMD program to essentially be off-radar to the rest of the world.
“Then there was the case of Iraq, which Defense Secretary William Cohen estimated to have “produced as much as 200 tons of VX [nerve gas], theoretically enough to kill every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.” Notwithstanding Cohen’s sobering estimate, Clinton assented to a U.N.-brokered deal in the mid-1990s that greatly restricted inspectors’ access to Saddam Hussein’s “sensitive presidential locations” that were suspected of housing nuclear and biological weapons production plants. Afraid of being cornered into a potentially embarrassing public showdown with Saddam, Clinton elected to pacify the Iraqi dictator by intervening to dissuade U.N. inspectors from making surprise visits to the suspected weapons sites.”
from the same link as before.
You should read this page. You might discover the reason China is sitting so pretty, right now.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting thread. I just wonder if ’some’ of you have re-read your posts, I would suggest you do, and then give a summary of what you REALLY BELIEVE, instead of slipping around and then making exuses –
Joel, Outkast, Peter, Mr_Meaner have put forth a good effort, THANKS!
Report comment to moderator
In fact, you can blame Clinton for allowing Saddams WMD program to essentially be off-radar to the rest of the world.
Uh oh. We have a WMD truther. News flash: Saddam didn’t have any of that VX that Cohen thought he did. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, chief. It was bad intel.
Get with the program.
China sleeps well at night not because of nukes, VX or other WMD.
China sleeps well at night knowing the US is addicted to their cheap products and Beijing holds a big chunk of our government debt.
PS – while Clinton was “loathing” the defense department, where was the Republican Congress? Oh yeah, they did nothing. They were for it before they were against it. Congress decides the budget and they did nothing.
Sorry, but you can take your “facts” and shove them. Many people, Republican and Democrat, believed back then that we could reduce the military. Communism was gone.
No one saw 9/11. Except maybe you.
Talk about revisionist history.
Report comment to moderator
“Uh oh. We have a WMD truther. News flash: Saddam didn’t have any of that VX that Cohen thought he did. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, chief. It was bad intel.”
Yeah, right.
Saddam had the entire world fooled did he?
He just woke up one morning and said to himself, “Saddam (I figure he refers to himself in third person) You had a good run. You killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds, You threw your political enemys in wood-chippers in front of their families, after your goons raped their women and children. You gassed your own people…but now, Saddam, you need to be a kinder, gentler dictator. The West isn’t so bad. I’ll just take a few more shots at US aircrafts, and then…I believe I’ll call it quits. And maybe take up quilting.”
Yeah
I bet that’s just how it happened, huh?
“China sleeps well at night not because of nukes, VX or other WMD.
China sleeps well at night knowing the US is addicted to their cheap products and Beijing holds a big chunk of our government debt.”
Well, you obviously either didn’t read the link, or simply can’t understand the concept of cause and effect.
I’ll let you decide which.
Here’s a little history for ya.
At the height of Reagans presidency, our military budget was $436.4 billion in 1985. By 1986, the Democrat-led congress declared President Reagan’s defense budget proposal dead on arrival. After that, the defense budget dropped more each year until 1999.
President Bush Sr. inherited a defense program that was already down by 10 percent. Mainly because the Cold War had ended. The plan was to gradually cut force structure and personnel strength by 25 percent below Cold War levels. Democrat leaders in Congress wanted even more reductions. The final Bush defense budget was $318.4 billion in 1993.
Two months after taking office, the Clinton Administration planned an additional cut of $214 billion, spread out over six years. He did this with no consideration of the potential ramifications. The Pentagon actually had to attempt to devise a way to maintain a defense program that would fit the budget that Clinton provided.
Here’s another fact for ya. President Clinton proposed seven defense budget cuts in a row. And each year, Congress saw the need to appropriate more than he requested..
“PS – while Clinton was “loathing” the defense department, where was the Republican Congress?”
Umm, when these cuts were made part of the budget in “93, the Democrats were in control of both houses.
Awww! You were so close to having a point.
That has to be frustrating.
“Sorry, but you can take your “facts” and shove them.”
Gee…do you kiss your sister with that mouth?
Believe me when I say…You do not want to get in an insult contest with me.
You can’t win
Report comment to moderator
should read
“made part of the budget proposal in ‘93″
Report comment to moderator
Whatever. Clinton cut the Defense budget not just in 1993. Every truther knows that. You simply cannot fathom that at the time, many Republicans and Democrats saw no need to have a Cold War-sized military after the Cold War was over.
But if you insist on your revisionist history, you can have it.
I’m sorry if you really think Saddam had all that WMD. Too bad you can’t find it. Too bad no one can find it. But the good truther that you are, I’m sure you can explain it all away as some big cabal or conspiracy.
Maybe Saddam hid it behind the grassy knoll…
You truthers sure are fun.
PS – I read your silly link. Truther bunk aside, my claim, which is based in reality, still stands. Dollars over paranoid fears, my friend.
And I’m shaking in my boots about an insult contest, especially from someone called “Mr. Meaner.” Wow, I’d better not contest your wild, rabid paranoid Clinton-hating factoids anymore.
Seriously, you must have some sort of crush on him. Or are jealous that he can get any woman he wants. Get over it. He hasn’t been in power for over six years.
Report comment to moderator
Not at all. Feel free to contest my “wild, rabid, paranoid, Clinton-hating factoids.”
Just provide some evidence when refuting mine.
As long as you can refrain from telling me to “shove it”, you won’t have to worry about an insult contest. And I would refrain, if I were you, because you, or anyone else here, have no idea how much I love slapping smart-ass people around. You would be amazed at the restraint I have forced on myself while at this blog. If you don’t believe me, look at some of my old posts at rightwingnews(dot)com. I’d love to keep it civil, but I will go there, if led.
“Seriously, you must have some sort of crush on him. Or are jealous that he can get any woman he wants. Get over it. He hasn’t been in power for over six years”
Oh..
You had to go there.
Let me let you in on a secret. I have more problems hiding from women, than I do “getting” them. And I’m not even president.
In fact, every girlfriend I’ve ever had looks better than any of the hogs that Clinton slopped around with
Report comment to moderator
In fact, every girlfriend I’ve ever had looks better than any of the hogs that Clinton slopped around with
I have more problems hiding from women
Riiiight. I’m sure you are quite the playboy. However, I’m guessing you have no problems hiding from any woman as you sit and comment in your den.
Your handle should be “Walter Mitty,” not Mr. Meaner.
I have facts on my side for every argument. Iraqi WMDs? The government couldn’t find them, neither could the weapons inspectors. Everyone has admitted it was faulty intel. Heck, even Saddam himself admitted it was a sham.
But the truthers – they know the real truth. I’m sure it must grate you that the rest of America doesn’t admit the huge UN-sponsored coverup. Blame it on the flouridated water.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m guessing you have no problems hiding from any woman as you sit and comment in your den”
I refer to it as my fortress of solitude.
“Walter Mitty”
Walter Mitty? Lol.
I had to google that. I don’t know which is more embarassing; being called Walter Mitty, or knowing who Walter Mitty is, in the first place.. but I’ll give you a half-point on that one.
Actually, it is my inability to commit, that leads to my various short-term relationships. But that joke’s on me.
“they know the real truth. I’m sure it must grate you that the rest of America doesn’t admit the huge UN-sponsored coverup”
Now I have to take back the half-point. Did you forget your meds or something?
I haven’t the foggiest idea what that is supposed to mean.
Have I implied a UN cover-up? Dou I think they are corrupt and incompetent? Yes..That’s another issue.I thought I was posting about Iraq, the things that led to our currently being there, and how our military was slashed while all of these things were happening.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, where did you get that “thruthers” thing?
That’s not a very creative insult.
There’s no mention of black helicopters, tin-foil hats, brain implants, or anything funny.
C’mon, you cn do better than that.
“Truthers” sounds like a compliment.
Report comment to moderator
Mitty reference: I guess my public school education came in somewhat handy.
Truthers? If the shoe fits… There is nothing different between the 9/11 Truthers and the Iraq WMD Truthers – other than subject matter. Both rely on falsehoods, speculation and hearsay as evidence.
The black helicopters and UN coverup? I’ve heard plenty of Iraqi WMD truthers “blame” the lack of WMDs on the UN and various other cabals, etc.
You have to give me a half-point for the flouridated water – that’s an oldie but goodie.
Report comment to moderator
half-point granted.
Shall we call it a draw?
Report comment to moderator
Agreed.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!