Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 18, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous -- the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles -- after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse -- but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Pasture
I have thought for a year or more that it is far past the time for this old fool to be put out to pasture. Jeez Louise! What a dinosaur.

Sean Hannity was classic
Here was Sean after the Debate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KNz0pta4PVU

Here is Sean Hannity before the Debate:

"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999

"Congressman Moran, a couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one.

And then we go back to Henry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999

"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999

"My question to you is from all reports that I have been able to dig up, 2,000 killed in Kosovo in the last year. We keep hearing the president refer genocide, ethnic cleansing, comparisons to Adolf Hitler. Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?"
- Hannity, March 26, 1999

"HANNITY: All right, Lucian Truscott, aren't you being disingenuous? Every day now with the president and vice president this Hitler analogy. You know what? That's all propaganda. That's misinformation.

Now, I'm not minimizing the fact that 2,000 lives have been lost in the last year. But you can't make the comparison in terms of the raw numbers and the brutality of Hitler to Milosevic. Is that not correct, Lucian?"
- Hannity, April 5, 1999

"Colonel, I guess this is why it's so ill-conceived from the very beginning. You know, they didn't anticipate that his popularity would rise. They didn't anticipate that he would beef up his reign of terror, if you will, against the ethnic Albanians. They didn't anticipate the refugee problem, and they didn't anticipate that they would also run out of bombs.

So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
- Hannity, March 31, 1999

Rudy said...
After the debate Rudy said the terrorists attacked us over our "freedom" and "women's rights". Ignorance anyone? Then he calls the Fort Dix guys illegal immigrants. They would already be legal citizens if Rudy got his way.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5cGZgxkuuJU

Huzzah to you Sir!
I do not always agree with you sir. However by defending The Honorable Ron Paul (one of the few in congress deserving of that title) you have, in my opinion shown the true color of your character.

The GOP has been in the process of destroying itself these last 8 years. I find it sickening
that a number of GOP voters would prefer a man of questionable character such as "Mr" Giuliani
over Dr. Paul

If the GOP does not wake up and instead nominates
someone such as Giuliani I will never vote for another Republican ever again.

It takes courage and leadership to tell people an unpleasant truth, and the only candidate in this race with the grit to do that is Dr. Paul
I firmly believe Dr. Paul would win over a pro-war big government democrat.

Thank you again.

It's a yes and yes situation
There's really two issues involved in this debate, the first is that yes, our Mideast policies were a big reason for why we were attacked on 9/11, but that raises the next question; is our Mideast policy wrong or right in the first place? I would argue that for the most part our support of Israel and trying to maintain some kind of presence in the Mideast is the right thing to do. Both of things can be true, it's just a shame that in the current political environment that now dominates most of the media outlets, left or right, any nuance of thought that doesn't fit neatly into a nice ideological box is denounced as heretical by folks like Hannity.

As usual, Pat is one of the few who has the courage to discuss an issue like this without feeling the need to demagogue the issue for applause like Giuliani did in the debate. Ron Paul may or may not be correct in his analysis of 9/11, but at least he didn't resort to a cheap rhetorical stunt like Giuliani did.

Media Shills
Having plenty of experience with the media relating to politics I know they live in fear of change. With very few exceptions, they are lazy. They are bottom feeders.

They sit on their tails waiting for their fax machines to start purring with the daily fare of news releases along with background from their unnamed sources and miscellaneous leakers.

Any circumstance or candidate that threatens the regular spoon fed info they regurgitate as news, scares the hell out of them. Reporters are finatical about protecting, not challenging sources. How else could they have swallowed WMD, Niger' and all of the other lies leading up to the Iraq war?

Ron Paul is a threat; at this point an unknown one. His successful candidacy promises to turn their sources and their livelihoods upside down. That puts the fear of God in them.

So, I don't ever expect the MSM to support him. I am thrilled they keep using his name. "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right".

Absolutely fantastic article
Absolutely fantastic article. There's really nothing to add to it. The notion that a foreign policy that outrages foreign populations will increase the risk of those populations committing terrorism is indisputable.

As to the reasons why Al Qaeda committed terrorism against the United States, Bin Laden and others have made very clear public statements on the matter, so that's a good place for Giuliani to start looking. He could also read the 9/11 Commission Report, which also spells it out.

It may be true what Giuliani said regarding Ron Paul's statements: "I've never heard that before." Somebody please direct him to the above sources so that he can understand what Ron Paul was talking about.

I Agree 100%
This is one of the few times that I have ever agreed with Mr. Buchanan, but being a registered Republican of the Libertarian bent, I think he hit the nail on the head with this article.

Our foreign policy failed before 9/11 and has failed since. If Al Qaeda was wiped out and Osama bin Laden dead or in jail, this would be a different picture, but because neither of those events has taken place and the world is more dangerous than ever, the only sane conclusion is that our foreign policy is not working.

There is no excuse for the tragedy of 9/11 and the thousands of innocent lives taken at the hands of sick Arab/Muslim madmen, but their is a motive and that motive is worth examining if we want to prevent future atrocities.

I also ask everyone posting on this website to go to this website and see what has happened so far with the Michigan GOP trying to ban Ron Paul from future debates.

http://studentsforpaul.org/whats_happening_michigan_gop

Thank you and God bless.

More on the subject
Educating Rudy (the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=

Ron Paul interview by Wolf Blitzer (post-debate):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17225293.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070516/cm_thenation/45195576
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/16/its-all-about-ron-paul/
--------------

Press Release

Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?

May 16, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."

Not to mention who profited.
"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance"

It be nice if we found out who profited too. The Jersey Girls and other 9/11 widows estimated that the 9/11 Commission answered roughly 30% of their questions and they ain't claiming that missiles hit the Pentagon or controlled demo either. Neither does Peter Lance who has written extensively about the subject.


but were innocent i tell ya?
look we did nothing to them, they just like to kill citizens because they are like afraid to attack a real army. you see they are monsters, its what happens when you are muslim you know. they read that stuff and go wack job crazy. why should they complain about the good ole usa. you know, ok, so in our sifting alliances we have sent a lotta arms into the region, killed a lot of people too. but hey, all those iranian and al queada aircraft carriers off the new jersey coast cause a lot of damage too.

if you do not think jihadist terror is in response to western action in the middle east you ain't thinking.

do not interpert this to say their actions are justified. or that the usa deserves their attacks. neither is true. but it is flat out unintelligent to not try see the the progression of actions all parties took to end up in this position of us getting our bums handed to us.

not getting involved in democracy building used to be a conservative position.

I agree
I agree with the sentiments of Pat Buchanan on this issue.

I believe that there is some merit to the non-interventionist foreign policy ideas that Ron Paul espouses. Even a moderate amount of movement in the direction Ron Paul promotes would be a welcome change.

By the way, did anyone else get the sense from the debate exchange between Rudy and Ron that Rudy has some sort of narcisstic mental block; you know like this idea that America is always great, and can never do any wrong?

Clyde Hutchins

The agenda to silence Dr. Ron Paul
There is an apparent attempt by some very high in the Republican Party to bar Dr. Paul from participating in future debates.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

The following is an online petition, started by a supporter earlier today, to request the Republican National Committee include Dr. Paul in the future debates.

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition-sign.html

Thanks, Pat
I can't believe the neocon windbags are making up so much stuff to attack Ron Paul with. Now they're trying to say he's a "9/11 truther" just because he's been to a few events that also had "truthers" at them...I wonder if they're going to start having senate hearings and make "truthers" turn in suspected truthers...pathetic.

Just for the record, I don't believe the government's story, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories. Government is rotten enough we don't need to be looking for conspiracies. I believe this is also Ron's attitude.

Wonderful analysis
I am a social liberal atheist and I strongly disagree with you (Mr. Buchanan) on many issues but I'll be damned if this article does not hit the nail squarely on the head!

If only the current executive administration had 1/10th of the insight that Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have we would not be bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq. Instead we might have both finished the job in Afghanistan and alleviated some of the valid reasons that most Arabs hate us!

Thank you for speaking honestly and intelligently in defense of Ron Paul's lucid position rather than marching the wrong direction in lock step with the Bush administration!

I will be reading your future writings with a more open mind.

Thank You, Brother Pat
I disagree with you on so much Pat. I think you're wrong on trade, on immigration, and yes, even on the war. But you stood up for a man who was brave enough to stand on stage and take a withering beating from disingenous political flaks and a hostile audience in order to speak the truth as he sees it.


Since when has it been a Republican or conservative principle to stifle honest dissent, as Sean Hannity, Micheal Steele and the chairman of the Michigan GOP are right now trying to do?


Once again, thank you Mr. Buchanan... thank you for your integrity, thank you for your courage, and thank you for your commitment to intellectual honesty.

I'd like to hear more
Thank you for being the first member of a major media outlet to actually back Ron Paul for having read the 9/11 Commmission report.

I'm interested to hear what you think about the rest of his campaign, especially as someone who has been so passionate about smaller government. As the only Republican candidate who is not a "shade of Bush", do you think Dr. Paul can actually win this nomination? Post-nomination seems easier - he's the only Republican candidate with a chance at winning back all the voters who went blue at Iraq.

I Must Say..
...that when I lived in the States in the 90's Buchanan was perceived as a political bogeyman, I even voted for him to become the Republican Presidential candidate in a tactical vote. However reading his articles on these hallowed pages he does make a lot of sense particularly regarding US foreign policy.
This article, as many above has said, does seem to sum up the situation very well.
Ron Paul, who I hvae only recently heard of, sounds like an interesting fellow and does appear to have a set of principles to which he will stick whther one agrees with them or not. Something that cannot be said for a number of the other candidates on both sides.

Right on Pat.
Right on Pat. But don't worry soon the country will see Rudy for what he is. A philandering heel. Who will say any thing to get to the White House. Heck his own kids wont campaign for him.

Buchanan And Paul: The Irrelevant Past
I thought that Pat Buchanan would be writing that Ron Paul was the cone who was right in the Republican debate on FOX; and Buchanan did not disappoint in that respect. Buchanan and Paul both represent an older and different conservatism, one that harkens back to a pre-World War II isolationism. The mainstream of today's conservatism is not, however, isolationist. During the Vietnam War era, the Democrats became the isolationists, and Republicans and conservatives generally became firmly internationalist.

The trouble that Buchanan and Paul have is that their isolationism is a recipe for disaster in the face of radical jihad Islamism, just as the pre-World War II isolationism would have been disastrous in the face of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Buchanan and Paul do not deal with the nature of radical jihad Islamism and thus babble about understanding what the jihaists have to say, as if were we to "Come Home America" the threat would go away. But it won't. Anyone paying attention to what the radical jihadists are saying knows better.

I once took the time to criticize Buchanan's isolationist rants. He really does sound like he is a current day George McGovern in foreign policy matters. But it is not worth it to take the time anymore. Buchanan and Paul are simply irrelevant anachronisms making dumb statements. Those in the Republican Party who call upon the nation to face down the challenge of radical jihad Islamism are the Republican Party's and the nation's future.

And no, Paul was not and is not right about Iraq; and neither is Buchanan.

To Liberty
There is not a conspiracy to silence Paul. There is a concern that it is time to have a shake-out of the second-tier candidates. Some of the second-tier candidates should face up to the fact that they will not be the nominee of the Republican Party, and that includes Ron Paul. In the last Republican debate on FOX, Paul sounded like a Democrat on the subject of the war with radical jihad Islamists; and the Republican candidate for the White House in 2008 is not going to advocate and should not advocate the views that Paul has.

Everything is Relevant
Dr. Paul's statements are all backed up by fact. If anybody wishes to make a debate out of this, I would love to see Dr. Paul debate Giuliani. We have no business being in Iraq. 9/11 was not 19 guys who had a rough time in life and decided to sacrifice themselves for some anarchistic objective.

For Giuliani to deny the causes of 9/11 is for him to ignore the causes of what he has exploited the past few years, and from which he has earned millions of dollars. What does he talk about in those $200K speaches of his? Leadership? He didn't do a very great job of it, other than photo ops. Maybe he should speak about preventing these disasters by understanding the causes (yes, there are more than one cause). By the way, a lot of people 'lived through 9/11'

And for the media and certain people to react the way they have is abhorring. All of these people are trained monkeys who are ready to play a tune as soon as they are given key words: 'terrorist', '9/11', 'patriot'. If you deny what Dr. Paul says, at least you should realize that we have no business in Iraq. Dr. Paul knew this all along. He authorized us to go after Bin Laden, which is not entirely isolationist. The point is that our goverment should be able to prevent terror attacks without having troops in 100 other countries in the world, and if we are attacked, to react swiftly and efficiently.

What ever happened to Bin Laden? Oh yeah, Bush said he doesn't care anymore (in 2003).

What I'm hearing
Is now we need to understand the motives of our enemy? The motive is hate, period. The same motive that drives a person to strap a bomb to their belly and blow up a market of civilians. They hate Israel and let it be known every chance they get. They hate us and the rest of the West for the same reason. In fact, they don't mind killing lots of their fellow muslims as long as they can get their message out. So now, according to many here, we need to do something to appease these people? Exactly how do we make them happy or like us? Abandon Israel? Completely withdraw all U.S. presence in the Middle East? And then what? Take notice of what's going on in Europe. They don't just want to control the Middle East. If there is a problem with our foreign policy, its that we are too meek in dealing w/ these people and their supporters. We know Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq, why not punish them harshly for that? I say mine and monitor the border areas w/ Iran. Everytime we appear weak in their eyes, they are emboldened. We saw this when Hitler was in the early days of Germany's rise to power. Maybe if we had gone after them with full force after Khobar Towers bombing, or the Black Hawk incident, or embassy bombings in Africa, or even the U.S.S Cole bombing. But, our inaction and passiveness sent a message of our unwillingness to fight back.

afsarge
Knowing your enemy is a truth older than even Sun Tsu. How else do you know who and what you are fighting, and how to best fight it? Hate begs the question.

I agree with Buchanan and Ron Paul, part, and let us emphasize part, as Paul did to sunshine patriot Hannity, part of the reason Islamic fanatics hate is our presence in the ME. They hate us for what we do.

And, also, in part, they hate us for who we are. For our "freedom of speech or separation of church and state", for our liberal democracy and free market economies.

This is not blaming Americans, as the phoney politicizing sound bite goes, it is being realistic about an enemy we must fight.

Liberty
Another write up on the Republican Party attempting to censor Paul, with extensive commentary, over on FMNN: "Ron Paul Debate Ban"*:

" Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party says he wants to to bar Texas congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) from future GOP presidential debates....Anuzis was angered by remarks made two days ago, in the second Republican debate, when Paul (R-TX) claimed that U.S. provocations in Iraq contributed to the current 'war on terror'."

It also includes Anuzis email address.

And like the Fox poll, "many mainstream Internet polls showing that Paul is winning the debates by wide margins."



*http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41407&fb=1

lonestarblues
Oh I agree we need to know our enemy, inside and out. The better we know him, the better can defeat him. While we may disagree on why they hate us, there is no confusion over the fact that they do in fact hate us. Only a deep-seated hate can inspire a group of people to strap bombs to themselves to kill men, women and children for a cause. America needs to wake up and realize that 9/11 wasn't the first and probalby won't be the last if we don't the threat seriously. With that said, I believe we need secure all borders to prevent them coming in. That also means we need to be monitoring the ones living here and their support networks.
As for Ron Paul, I don't think barring him from the debates is the right thing to do. Every point of view needs to be out and open and let the people decide which direction they want to go. The democrats are very good a shutting down any voice that doesn't tow the far left agenda.

Phil Byler...
...How DARE you inject common sense on this Libertarian thread?! Have you no shame,Sir?!!

Of course, I agree with everything you said in your first post,only you said it better.For those who have not read Phil Byler's two posts above,I suggest you go back and read them.

I would only add that Ron Paul is not a Republican,he is a Libertarian,a different breed of cat.Like the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.Ron Paul was an embarrasment to the Republican party the other night,and the best thing the Pubs could do would be to bar him from future debates.I don't care how he is registered,he is not a Republican.

And as far as Paul winning the debate,it was just like the first debate:an organized effort by Libertarians to call in and vote for Paul(most people like me do not call in to cast ballots).After the the first debate,many Republicans thought it was a bunch of Democrats who called in to vote for Paul to embarras the Republican party.My opinion is it was Libertarians who did the calling,maybe over and over.Ron Paul will have a shot at the Republican nomination when Dennis Kucinich has a shot at the Democratic nomination: NEVER!

Educating Rudy on Iraq by Ron Paul

This is a great video everybody should see about Iraq!


CLICK HERE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/educating-rudy-on-iraq-by-ron-paul

Also watch this video!

Called FOX SPIN on Ron Paul

Click Here

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/educating-rudy-on-iraq-by-ron-paul

afsarge
Agreed. It was only the point of needing to understand the hate to fight it, here and abroad, including Iraq.

Phil Byler says what he FEELS
Phil do not let facts get in the way you FEEEEEEEEEEEL!

Nam65-66
"the best thing the Pubs could do would be to bar him from future debates.I don't care how he is registered,he is not a Republican"

You're probably right. The Republican Party has abandoned its conservative principles of individual liberty and limited government. It, like you, now cheers on censoring dissent. It now advocates liberal big spending big government pork, as evidenced by this exchange* between socialist con Ramesh Ponnuru and fiscal conservative Tom Coburn over pork.

But I don't buy your conspiracy theories.


*http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmYzYzJjMTgzOTU2OGVlZDY1MWJhMDQ3YmQ3NzljMWU=

Rudy vs. Ron Paul, and Reality
Another voice supporting Buchanan, Ron Paul, and real (not faux/ersatz neoCON) conservatism:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=195576

guiliani
No-one has gained more from 9/11 than Rudy Guiliani - politically, because it is the crutch upon which his entire presidential candidacy leans, and arguably financially too. He made $16m last year, almost all from speaking engagements for which 9/11 was presumably the centrepiece. So is it any wonder that he feels threatened by anyone who dares question the run up and the reaction to that day? Of course not. The "jersey girls" have had a gut full of abuse for their reaction but Guiliani is some sort of sacred cow whose word on 9/11 cannot be faulted? Ron Paul was spot on, and although I know vey little about him or his other views, he should be applauded for taking Guiliani on.

Ron Paul and Buchanan have a point, but
At this stage of the historical game, it hardly matters, as no one has yet figured out how to rewind time. Could the US have done things to avoid or delay World War II? Yes, but so what? Is the current GWOT rooted in past historical actions undertaken by the United States in the Mideast? Of course it si, but what about it? That milk has long been spilt, and ranting about who the "spiller" was, and how it should not have been "spilt," is completely unproductive outside the ivy-covered walls of Academe. If the United States had dithered over the root-causes of Japanese and German aggression in 1941, the Eurasian continent would have been named "Germania," and the far east would still be part of of the Japanese-dominated "Far East Co-Prosperity Sphere" for over the last half-century. Save all the rear-view mirror gawking for the time after this war!

-Trentamj

Buchanan, Rudy and Ronnie
Buchanan is right about Ron knowing his history. Nothing else. Rudy is right about Ron's statement being absurd. Ron is right about us bombing Iraq for 10 years...but Ron and Buchanan have forgotten why we had to keep bombing Iraq.

He had violated UN sanctions over and over. We had him in a box and Iran covered the flank.

We should have gone to Iraq...after we captured or killed OBL, his Lieutenants and the Taliban and secured Afghanistan. Huge mistake.

The United Nations, ALL European countries intelligence and the U.S.A. said, Saddam had WMD's. His intelligence knew he was about to be invaded so Saddam sent his WMD's to Syria and sent his Army underground to do just what is happening now.

ALL the cowards are still carping about WMD's. Who gives a rats a$$ whether they were there or not. We just went in too early.

Saddam thought he could hide in his hole until the coalition forces declared victory and leave.
Nobody could leave because Iraq because the CLANS would have done a helluva lot worse to the population and the country than now.

The CLANS are NOT loyal to Iraq ONLY to their CLANS, BUT they are beginning to fight the murdering muslims and foreigners who are killing their relatives and destroying their infrastructure. Sunni and Shia alike are joining the coalition forces to kill or capture all of them.

When Iraq changes horses in the government and gets someone in charge to write the laws that give equal share of Iraq's resources to the Kurds, Sunni and Shia we can continue handing the responsibilities of security to Iraqi forces.


Lonestarblues...
...the conspiracy theory is just a theory,so take it or leave it,I don't care.

I am a conservative first and a Republican second.The Republican party is the only one of the two major partys that will give a hearing to a conservative,hence my registration as a Republican since 1956 when I voted for Ike at the age of 21.This does NOT mean I vote the straight Pub ticket.I will not vote for a liberal Republican,and I will not vote for Rudy,even though he comes from my home state.When I was a resident of Pennsylvania,I never once voted for Arlen Spector,for example.

On Teusday,Ron Paul gave Rudy the opening he so sorely needed,when he said,in effect,that the U.S. was responsible for 9/11.Rudy jumped on that like a dog on a raw steak,and got an ovation from the audience.The only applause I heard for any candidate.I'm beginning to think Paul was a Rudy plant!Would you call keeping Democrats out of the Republican debate "censhorship"?Paul is a Libertarian and I don't care what he calls himself.If Libertarians want to live in 1789,they are welcome to it.But let the rest of us have a adult debate please.

re: Sure Ron Paul has a point
Name a US governmental agency that is run well. Name a US governmental agency that is not a bloated bureaucratically run,corrupt mess.

Hard to deny that this country is in trouble. We are quickly becoming a fascist state, neither economic or personally free. The greatest threat to this country hardly comes from the Middle East. The greatest threat comes from within.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

Force and coercion have never been effective tool for promoting liberty. What's good for us must be applied to foreign states.

The US has long had its hand in the quagmire of the Middle East. It is impossible to tell what it would look like without our intervention. However, if we assume that Washington is no better at managing foreign affairs than internal affairs, then it is a pretty safe bet that the Middle East, and the world, would have been better off without our meddling.

It's one thing when we, as the electing people, have to put up with our corrupt politicians inflict on us. It's quite another to inflict this insanity on a foreign people.

You can't have it both ways. Freedom and liberty for us, force and coercion for them.

What's your choice?

Can a Republican Win in 2008?
Something for Republicans to think about.

Look at Bush's approval rating.
Look at the results of the last congressional elections.
Look at the polls regarding public opinion of the "war" in Iraq. (It's not a war. The war lasted a few days. It is, and has been an occupation.)

Now look at what we get if a Republican doesn't win the election. Hillary Clinton with a Dem controlled Congress!

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that has a chance against Clinton. Make your bed, because you will be asked to lie in it soon.

Silicondoc has the right of it.
Of the over 8,000 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks in the world since 9-11 how many have been on American soil?
Coincidence?
Could this conceivably be because we fought back?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

To John Konop
No, John Konop, I don't write what I "feel." That is a phony attempt on your part to disparage what I write. I have been around this site long enough for you and others to know the often lengthy discussions I post. Here, as to Buchanan's latest, I kept it relatively short. In response, deal with the facts and arguments I make. Don't pretend that what I write is just emotional. I am a Harvard Law educated lawyer with 30 years experience as a litigator.

Do you dispute my statements conceninng the historical evolution of contemporary conservatism? If so, in what way? Do you deny that during the Vietnam War, that the Democrat base went isolationist while the Republicans took on the mantle of internationalist leadership? I saw it happen. Were you born yet?

We're doomed . . .
The real issue is not whether Ron Paul's analysis is right (its dead on) or Rudy's total BS pandering is wrong ("All these terrorists hate our way of life and want to kill us." What drivel.). The real issue is why Rudy gets vociferous applause while Ron Paul almost gets lynched.

So long as the American people continue to be saps for the bromides offered up by the likes of Rudy and Bush, and so long as they refuse to take the time and effort to think through why things are happening the way they are, we're doomed. Sad to say, the last five years have taught us nothing.


Holy Moly

The day after I become a born-again neocon and I have to read this? Back to the prozac for me.

Enough of Buchanan
C'mon Pat. The reason "they" hate us is oil - who controls it and who gets wealthy off of it. Or who "they" think controls it and gets wealthy from it. "They" spilled our blood - 3000 dead - for oil. "They" continue to slaughter innocents in Darfur and Northern Africa. Osama wants the control and wealth but doesn't have the testicluar fortitude to beat the Saudis. What doesn't Pat understand?

Ron Paul is a lying idiot...
Here's a test for all the Ron Paul followers who believe his claim that he listens to what the terrorists claim motivated them...

Just before plowing jets into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and a field in PA, the terrorists were heard to shout...?

a) "This is for America's foreign policy!"
b) "America is a Jew lover!"
c) "Capitalism is evil!"
d) "Allahu Ackbar!"

The correct answer is D. They shouted "god is greatest" due to their religious beliefs that motivated them to murder over 3,000 Americans. Islam is not peace. Islam divides the world into two halves... the area of war (on the infidels) and the area of peace (which occurs after a land is subjigated and infidels convert, pay the tax, or are killed).

But apparently, Ron Paul HASN'T heard any of that no matter how loud the terrorists shout it.

In a Perfect World

.....Ron Paul might be the perfect President ...but alas! reality gets in the way and messes everything up ...

.....Homo Sapiens are agressive and war like ...wars have been waged continuously since recorded history began and before ...World Peace is an elusive goal ...like Shangrila or El Dorado ...to be imagined in dreams but unattainable...

.....my point is that we cannot avoid war by withdrawing from the World and acting nice ...this just makes us vulnerable to be attacked and subjugated ...

.....This reality makes Paul a bad choice for President ...the President is the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces and their leader in war ...and since wars are inevitable ...we need a war time President which Paul is not ...

.....Paul thinks a lot like Pat and we know how successful Pat was in his try for the Presidency ...Paul is a bona fide Libertarian who will get enough votes to divide and destroy the Republican Party for good and hand power over to the Democrats who are a greater danger to our Republic than Al Qaeda and Islma-Fascism .....COLOSSUS

To Phil Byler
Guiliani is pro-amnesty, pro big government, pro gun control, and pro abortion rights.

Paul wants to reduce federal government, overturn RvW, enforce our borders, rebuild our defense.

But he breaks ranks with the GOP on one issue, and you're ready to boot him?

It's far too soon to be eliminating *any* candidates from the Primary field.


Phil Byler Goes Back to School!
As professional horse trader (businessman) you learn when someone throws out their credentials before any real facts they got caught.

BTW Phil I do not have to tell you my background because I fell comfortable I do know what I am talking about.

If you had read any basic history book the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS became Republicans. In law school you are taught to argue and spin facts as a deal maker I most deal with facts not spin! In fact the NEOCONS like you are old Scoop Jackson/Irvin Krystal Democrats! So your question is irrational for anyone who knows the FACTS!

Nice lawyer trick but remember deal makers hire you guys!


Now let us deal with facts Mr. Harvard!

Why do you think our foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism when the CIA and the 9/11 report says other wise?

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/to-republican-national-committee

This country needs President Ron Paul.
For too long our country has been drifting left. We are more socialist now than free. At some point we will not be able to change directions without spilling blood on our own soil. For all I know it may be too late now. But we have to try. The only way to correct a 70 year drift to the left is to put in a President that is far right. He won't implement all the things he would like but he will cause a change in direction that would certainly improve the future of this country.

Nam65-66
You are basing your opinion off of emotion, rather than the facts. Paul has a more conservative voting record than of all of the rest of the candidates combined. You just don't like what he said about our foreign policy. I only see 2 possible explanations for that. You don't understand what he really was talking about and are buying all the spinning going on in the MSM, or you believe our military should be used to police the world and be used to enforce UN sanctions. I'm not sure which it is honestly.

The flat out truth is that Ron Paul, the real conservative, spotlights how very far the rest of the candidates and in fact the entire Republican Party has moved from classic conservatism.

What did we allow to happen to our party; more importantly, what have we allowed to happen to the conservative movement itself? Wasn't this movement all about?....

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

Where is the conservative movement now? Have we sold our souls and now believe it's quite fine to disregard the Constitution, have the government spy on any of us anytime they want, track where we travel or what we buy, a government that tells us we have to spend money securing another country's borders, but says we don't have enough to secure our own, keeps passing more managed trade agreements telling us they are good for our economy, while we notice our own manufacturing base shutting down in our country and trade imbalances spiral out of control, borrows money like there is no tomorrow and indebts our children and grandchildren.

Do we support this now? When did that happen? If we as conservatives have lost such track of our conservative principles, there isn't a dime's bit of difference between us and the liberals. We're both supporting BIG government socialism and the destruction of our country. Have we allowed ourselves to get so focused on Iraq and Iran that we do not notice what is going on within our OWN country? Our Republic is dying and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Nam65-66
Agree on Rudy and the momentary bounce it might give him.

Since you were voting in the 50's you know then about the fusion of fiscal or libertarian conservatives and traditional conservatives as a strong Republican Party, standing for individual liberty and limited government, beginning with Goldwater and, imo, ending with Reagan. Are you so sure you want to dismiss the libertarian vote? Hand the party over completely to liberal social and neo- cons? The hardly conservative array of current candidates, other than Paul? Won't win elections that way.

baseballdoc & lynne
baseballdoc, agree with most of your points, in fact I disagree with Ron Paul about exiting Iraq at this point, and I doubt he stands a snowball's chance of winning even the nomination. But he is a conservative voice that needs to be heard at this point in the election cycle.

lynne, "We need a war time president, NOT an isolationist president!!!!"

Nice spin, but wrong, Paul is not an isolationist, he is very strong on defense and even attacking those who threaten us.

"'Paul is a bona fide Libertarian...' who would be just as damaging as Democratic president."

Damaging, yes, to liberal agenda of social cons.

Lynne
Dr. Paul is not an isolationist; he is a non-interventionist. He believes in the words of our Founders...

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson

Dr. Paul is a strong proponent of free trade; unfortunately our current trade agreements are in reality, managed trade agreements, bearing no resemblance to real free trade.

Who Killed Free Trade?
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=189&sortorder=articledate

What is Free Trade?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr050200.htm

"As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.

One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty." -- Dr. Ron Paul

As if...
Osama bin Laden was the origin of the problem. The basis of Paul's assertion is bin Laden's fatwa. OBL said it, therefore it is true. A couple hundred years of history ignored.

There is a mentality in our country that I find hard to understand: If your president says it, it must be a lie, but if some thug nut job comes out of a cave with a proclamation, it must be true.

SEPT12Repub: Excellent post.

AFSarge: good one. Understanding our enemy's motives is one thing...using that to say it's our fault is another. Did the nuances of Hitler's motives matter to the bottom line?? If we understood why, would we just let him keep going?

As for purging Paul from the debates, I say no...he's a candidate after all (and he does provide some very good amusement).

Lynne is for fewer voices!


What you want is cult like agreement in the GOP to make you fell better. Because you think as long as all of us go away the problem will be solved. God help us that this is the brain trust of the GOP!

Sun look toward facts for solutions
No one denies we do not have a problem. But the current strategy is causing more problems according to the CIA and military intelligence.

That is why any rational person understands we need a political solution. You can keep firing the Generals but the bottom line will not change.

I do think a pull out with no plan is no better than a surge without diplomacy!

The question you have to ask yourself is how will the magic sprinkle dust of democracy solve sectarian violence since 700AD?

And if Bin laden is using our military presents as a recruiting poster are we not helping him?

Motive is Important in Terrorism
There are some comments on here that Islamic Jihadists hate us and that's all there is to it. It's true, they despise us and want to kill us all. But as any prosecutor and police officer will tell you, MOTIVE IS IMPORTANT! Motive is not a justification for commiting a crime, it does not absolve the person responsible, but it does make it easier for the victims and the authorities to be able to:

1. Find the people responsible and punish them.
2. Perhaps use that information to stop future violence.

A policy of removing our armies from around the world will save us money, remove us as targets, and give terrorists less of a motive to kill us. Ron Paul has stated that he is all in favor of sending in small special forces teams to find al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and to kill/capture him using covert methods. Paul understands that in today's world you cannot use infantry divisions to tracks down small groups of armed individuals that blend into the local populations. This is not like WWII, you cannot target cities or population and be successful. Ron Paul understands this, for our country's sake, I wish more "conservatives" did too.

Was it Offensive? Let me try again.

I posted the following mock letter from Dr. Ron Paul at 9:14 this morning. Now it's removed.

Was it offensive, or just too close to the truth for our cadre of libertarian posters? You decide:



Dear Mr. bin Laden:

Let me first state clearly that your decision to attack American citizens on 9-11 was very naughty.

But let me also assure you that I entirely understand your concerns. Since as far back as 1804, when President Jefferson so rudely interrupted the mostly domestic activities of the Barbary pirates, we Americans have been shamefully interventionist in the affairs of other nations. Who are we, after all, to say that our culture is more worthy than yours?

I want you to know that if I am elected, America will behave itself in a much more humble manner. We will remove ourselves from Iraq. We will promise to never again intervene in the internal affairs of the Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia or any other region that is blessed by the presence of Allah. We will shrink like turtles back into our shell, and not make a peep when you finally liberate Palestine from the occupation of the Jews and subjugate the remaining Christians. They are, after all, but pigs and apes in the eyes of your Prophet (may peace and prosperity be upon him). Who are we, as uninvolved Americans, to say otherwise?

Under my administration, we will revoke the visa of your fallen daughter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and return her to your care in full confidence that you will be gentle with her. Nor will the Paul administration have any concern for the Europeans, who have so freely and willingly opened up their society to your religion of peace.

Unfortunately, there are still many warmongering Americans who continue to support our imperialistic ways. It is my challenge and goal to persuade these ignorant sheep otherwise. However, with the help of a few very wise writers such as Mr. Pat Buchanan, I believe that America will eventually overcome its arrogant, interventionist ways and allow your culture to live freely in the manner that you (and Allah) determine most appropriate.

Until that blessed time, I hope that you will have patience with us, and most sincerely ask that you try your best to minimize the number of our civilians that you feel you must target in order to vindicate the many wrongs we have done to you.

Very truly,

Rep. (Dr.) Ron Paul

Support for Ron Paul
Ron Paul spoke facts that were stated in the 9-11 Commission Report regarding the terrorists' political motives behind 9-11. Rudy Guiliani clearly has not read this report, and this is concerning to me. Guiliani said he had never heard about what Ron Paul was talking about, yet it is clearly laid out in the 9-11 Commission Report. Ironically Guiliani's only real 'strong' point that his campaign touts is his stance on terrorism, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Guiliani does not understand the problems that America faces in this day and age.

Guiliani is receiving massive amounts of 'blowback' for his ignorant comments, and Ron Paul has become something of a legend on the internet. His story is spreading like wild fire over the blogs and Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc. There is a revolution in the winds, and soon the mainstream media will have to start covering the massive support that is now following Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul is right!
I'm glad to know that many traditional conservatives are beginning to wake up and realize that we have been deceived as the Republican Party has been transformed before our eyes.

A wise person always considers how his own behavior has impact world events. I was shocked to see a History Channel program on the history of Iran and learn that the reason Iranians hate us is partly because of our meddling interference in their country by deposing their elected leadership and using the CIA to install the dictator Shah of Iran.

We have become the world's bully. We need to return to the humble but powerful military and foreign policy of the Founders.
John Quincy Adams:
"America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”
He goes on to say—prophetically-- in the same speech, what would happen if America violates this principle:
“She would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
“She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....”

debates
I find it helpful to have extremists in the debates. They attempt to keep the rest of them honest. Otherwise only tripe will be foisted off on us.
I realize the GOP is trying to limit the number of candidates and is looking for reasons to do so.
My favorites are Romney, Hunter, Tancredo, Guiliani, I don't mind leaving McCain in there even though I don't think he has a ghost of a chance of winning. Paul adds something to the debates. That leaves Gilmore, Huckabee,
Thompson, Brownback, and the two not running, the other Thompson and the Grinch.

I thought Pearl Harbor was the result of the US blocking Japan's use of some stretch of water, similar to Egypt blocking Israel before the 7 Days War.


Ron & Rudy
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are as dumb as any this retired military guy has seen in over eight decades.

Pat, you warned us
As always, you are absolutely right, Mr. Buchanan. You warned us about our current illegal immigration mess fifteen years ago, but no one listened. I thought we never should have invaded Iraq. Once we were in and dethroned Saddam, we should have left right then. Bush’s entire rationale for staying there for five plus years was to bring democracy to the region, nation-building by any other name. Like Bill Clinton, he is after a lasting legacy in the region. Clinton failed. So will Bush. He will have to build his legacy after he leaves office, just like Clinton. In the meantime, he has single-handedly destroyed the GOP. Between the war and amnesty for illegal aliens, the GOP has blown any chance of ever regaining power.

Even our friends hate us
We should consider our own behavior and how it has changed the world's perception of us.

We have become so much of a global policeman that even our allies now perceive US as the aggressor. Even our friends hate us because they see US as the oppressor, pompous and meddling, using force to impose our will and government style upon others.

We have abandoned our principles, our Constitution, and have imposed an Imperial Presidency that has all but eliminated habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights. I remind you that in Congressional testimony in Feb, the AG (Gonzales) of this administration said that the Constitution doesn't REALLY grant habeas corpus to America citizens.

TexAzz
Can you be a little more specific as to why you think Paul and Buchanan are "dumb"?

Libertarians in the Republican Party
The actions of the Republican party in the last few days have convince me that libertarian ideals are not welcome in the GOP.

GWB

You are not alone in accusing me of having a lame sense of humor. My wife, for one, agrees 100% with that assessment.

But yours is a very responsible reply. Thank you (and thanks also to all the other libertarians who refrain from labelling me offensive). -- :-)

Ron Paul was right
If you talk to Arab, Muslims you will find that they highly resent our interference in the Middle East. Multiple analysis have indicated views that are exactly the same as Ron Paul. The RG attacked him in this manner is absurd. His concept of the reason for the attack is the one that should be laughed at, not the other way around. I feel that this moment took Rudy off the stage as a contender. He certainly lost my vote. What is Ruby's qualification for an opinion anyway? That he was mayor when a major tragedy occurred. Think what exteem we should hold Blanco and the leaders in Louisiana with their leadership after the hurricane. She could certainly be president if we take Rudy seriously.

September12Republican
"Was it [your fake Ron Paul letter] offensive, or just too close to the truth for our cadre of libertarian posters?"

I found the satire hilarious, about as well-constructed a straw man as I've ever seen.

Puleeze!
Another stupid article from a another presidential wannabe stuck in the 19th century. Birds of a feather I guess.

Are Paul & Buchanan Our Real Problem?
I send money to Ron Paul when I can. I have the misfortune to live in Denny Hastert's district and he is so busy pandering to invading criminals, smooching on corporate posteriors, and buying land in the path of expressways we do not need, that he has no time left to represent a conservative patriot like my humble self. Though I am not from Texas, I have long believed that Dr. Paul is really my representative in Congress. I was very pleased that Dr. Paul has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. He is correct in his assertions on the War on Terror, and it shows his extensive courage that he withstood the challenge by a neocon windbag and the other left-liberals who expressed shock at what their own governmental inquiry stated. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the Illinois primary election, even if that requires writing his name on the ballot. I will be doing the same in the general election.

Right now, thanks to the worst president in American History and his special friend Teddy Kennedy, we are going to be saddled with granting amnesty to at least 20 million criminals and then importing all of their relatives who will also be let in to feast on the taxes paid by real citizens. The only saving grace about this utter disaster is that they will all vote Democratic for generations. The welfare state will collapse from their burden and the Republican Party will be tossed onto the scrap heap like their proto-fascist predecessors, the Whigs. So, the greedy and incompetent Republicans will wind up committing political suicide, and will never win another national election. With this facing them, what do they do? Do they try to rein in their president from his folly? Of course not. They attack Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for speaking truth, not only to power but to hubris and ignorance.

the funniest thing I've read all day....
"Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that has a chance against Clinton. Make your bed, because you will be asked to lie in it soon."\

HA - FREAKIN'- HA.
Very astute political analysis.
He's a blip on the radar, but only barely.
Every single poll has him barely registering in the single digits.
But hey, let's all jump on board and pretend!
Listen, I have nothing against Ron Paul.
I think his statement was absurd.
I found it offensive and shallow.
He is missing the point and placing the blame of a terrorist attack on the American people, which is utter nonsense.
Legitimizing the enemy isn't a strong move when the enemy isn't legitimate.
Perhaps Mr. Paul would like to explain how he plans to placate the enemy?
This is silly.
Paul isn't a Republican.
He's a libertarian.
He ran as a libertarian in 1988 and didn't even get half of a percentage point in the popular vote.
I have no major issue with Paul, but to declare him the front runner and the only hope of the right is not only far from reality, but seemingly insane.
He has a shady history, including charges of racism and anti-semitism, looming in the background.
The only positive he has over the other candidates (right now) is that his stance on the war in Iraq and the war against islamo-facism is in line with the left in this country.
But that's no reason to support him unless you are a single issue voter (I am not).
So please.
I'm getting a little tired of the free Ron Paul commercials from a select few townhall.com posters.
We really only have three viable candidates for President:
(in order)
1) Fred Thompson (please declare, we need you!)
2) Rudy Giuliani
3) Mitt Romney

Everyone else needs to go home or start positioning themselves as a viable vice president candidate.

RNC reflections
Every time the RNC calls my house and ask why I haven't donated I simply respond that they promised to build a fence, and lied.

Likewise, Ron Paul spoke half-truths to solidify an anti-war base, in my opinion. While his premise may be true, he conveniently forgot why we did what we did. His exposure to the Congressional briefs would have explained that at any time.

Either way, he used poor form in his analysis and conjecture, considering the audience.

Byler, Nam-65-66 et al
Good job making good points. One thing I would point out is that "internationalist" as a descriptor of one wing of conservative Republicans comes with a lot of freight -- and means different things to different hearers.

I think Mr. Byler would call internationalist one who recognizes that the world is not a vacuum, and that there is no "steady state" at all without the activity and influence of the powerful nations. We are either leading or following; there is no other option. That does NOT mean that an internationalist of this definition approves of supranational organizations, or the cession of sovereignty (to things like the ICJ, LOST, Kyoto, etc).

Ron Paul is just making the wrong point. Hitler declared war on the US because he knew what we could do in support of Western Europe, which he was systematically attacking and invading, and he wanted to dispense with the last shreds of diplomatic restraint and sink ALL our ships before they got to the eastern hemisphere. He had a motive, and it certainly makes sense from his perspective. Does this mean it was our fault that Hitler declared war on us?

And if so, how is that actionable? The enemy will always point out his virtuous objection to whatever you're doing. If you let that make your decisions for you, your won't last very long as a sovereign nation.

One other comment: Transnational Sunni jihadism has been on the rise for much longer than most of the soundbite journalists in the news media recognize. The real impetus for it came with European confrontation of the Ottoman Empire, which routinely invaded eastern and southern Europe until the colonial powers of the steam age began to outflank it with colonial and trade ties in Asia.

The Ottoman Empire had long functioned as the "Caliphate," and the vehicle for jihad. With its demise and supersession by European order, transnational Sunni wahhabism, which took its tradition from Arab (probably Saudi) thinker Mohammed ibn abd al-Wahhab, of the 18th century, gradually arose as the vehicle of jihad in its place. Islamic jihad long predated the existence of the US, and has tallied grievances against the West -- while simultaneously invading and attacking it -- since the inception of the first Caliphate.

It's unrealism at its worst to think that, oil aside, America doesn't need the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca to be open to unhindered navigation -- that we don't need Europe to be secure against intimidation by the assorted would-be caliphs in the Middle East -- that we don't need India and Australia to be secure against the same threat -- and that we don't need to counter the theocratic absolutism of wahhabi Islam with Western ideas of freedom of thought, religion, and speech.

We assuredly don't do everything right when we take action abroad. But we can't wish the world away. It's out there, and a big portion of it is trying to immanentize the eschaton, calpihate-wise. OF COURSE they hate whoever is interfering with that.

As Clausewitz observed, the guy who attacks you always only wants to make peace, and will assert with a straight face that your failure to oblige means you're the one at fault.

Why are they lying about Ron Paul?

"In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night’s debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say."

Read the rest here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff151.htm

Selective Memories
My fellow conservatives are showing their true hypocritical stripes. At least Buchanan and Paul opposed the war from the start; I would wager most of you now agreeing with them were calling Buchanan a traitor in 2003 and 2004.

The fact is neither Paul nor Buchanan's explanations hold water. Buchanan is always selective in his history and he fails to point out that the U.S. inherited old Europe's crumbling empire. We didn't ask for it and we didn't want it, but there it was.

Isolationism may have been a prudent and possible foreign policy in 1900. It no longer is. Buchanan doesn't think we should have been involved in WWII! IF Hitler and the Nazi's had had to fight a single-front war, the world we live in would be very different.

The idea that the Islamists would, after they turned Israel into a pile of rubble and glass, happily trade with us and leave us be is a facile one.

I hate this war and even believe it was injudiciously launched, but let us cease pretending that Islamist hatred originated by the U.S. (and U.N.) intervention in Kuwait. We stopped a murdering madman from invading a neighboring country and dominating a region that contains 70% of the world's ready petroleum reserves.

Oil itself is a weapon. What do you think makes our economy and tanks and jets go?

If conservatives decided to buy into the myopic and quixotic notion that we can just ignore global affairs, both the world and we as a nation will be doomed.

I know it has been tougher than anyone thought. Suck it up guys. We still have a war to win.

Republican with morals
I never thought I would agree with anything Pat Buchanan has to say but I am 100% with him on Ron Paul. I'm a Dem but if Ron Paul continues with the honest straight talk and is for taking responsibility for our actions, I would probably vote for him. Better than hillary, she scares me.

Join the military!
Maybe everyone who thinks we should stay in Iraq, should head down to the local Army/Marine recruiting office with any children/grandchildren over the age of 18 and sign up. It's real easy to support liberating Iraq from behind a computer monitor. Put your money where your mouth is and head on over big boy. And regarding Israel.... they have enough of our money, planes, bombs, and nukes to take care of themselves. If they want protection, let them hire BlackWater USA like we do!!

Bart's an idiot
Bart, You're an idiot. I've already spent 8 years in the military. Your argument make no sense. Just because I vote for a president doesn't mean I have to run for President.

Ron Paul is wrong
Anyone remember the part of the marine corps hymn.... "from the halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli"? Tripoli... who is up with their history? You know how the new America's shipping was getting attacked by Muslims. America had to pay ransom to the Muslims. In 1800 20% of the American government revenues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
.
.
And what was our great sin then????

Another Negative for Paul

.....Don't get me wrong ...I think Paul would make a great Conservative President ...but in today's plastic banana world image is everything and Paul suffers in that Department ...what do you think got JFK ...Reagan and Clinton elected? ...they were good looking and fit the image of what vapid voters think a President should look like ...that is the reality of the world we live in...

.....Paul would carry Texas but I doubt that he could pick up one Blue State and it is crucial to winning in 2008 that a few Blue States get picked off .....COLOSSUS

Bartley's "logic"
Hey Bartley,

If you're against the war, you should take everyone that's against the war to Iraq and be a human shield. It will raise the IQ here in the states... and improve the gene pool.

Douglass Bartley
I agree. I've just about had it with such slanderous comments.

In fact, I am sick and tired of all the slander of Dr. Paul by the media. FOX news has been by far the worst. The latest thing I saw, they were trying to link his statements in the debate to 9-11 conspiracy theories! This is pure craziness.

These people badly need to be sued to the hilt.

I was just listening to Hannity on the radio and a caller told him that that what Dr. Paul said came straight out of the 911 Commission Report and CIA Intelligence reports. Hannity actually told her that if she wanted to believe in conspiracy theories, that was her business. Can you believe that???? Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? She just stated facts that anyone can go look at themselves. Is he saying that those who put together the 911 Commission Report and the CIA are conspiracy theorists???

He also said he was going to have someone on his show Sunday night (didn't catch who it was, but it wasn't Dr. Paul) to discuss what Dr. Paul said in the debate. No, he's not inviting Dr. Paul himself. It's so much more fun to smear him behind his back. It would just make too much sense to invite him on the show and let him answer their questions. But, he won't do that, because he knows that Dr. Paul can back up everything he said and he doesn't want the American people to hear him out.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Agreed.
I can't believe I'm saying this either but I agree with Pat Buchanan. ugh.

Further, our troubles with Iran can be traced directly to the 1950's and our failures in supporting the Shah. Iran also hates us in no small part because we supported Saddam in his war against Iran were he used chemical weapons on the Iranians. The Iranians really hold a grudge about the use of chemical weapons on them.

We need to go to the next level though.

Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it."

Ron Paul aptly pointed out that the Republican party still has to this day in its platform a plank of no nation building.

Bush campaigned in 1999 on no nation building and not being the world's police.

When confronted about the apparent inconsistency with regards to no nation building beliefs and our nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush claimed 9/11 changed everything for him in this regard.

Fine.

But he's done a terrible job at nation building.

Not too surprising as he is attempting something he probably doesn't really believe in.

Moving forward then Republicans need to regroup and answer the following question.

What is the right policy after a government is overthrown? The GWOT has already resulted in overthrowing two governments. What should the U.S. do if we overthrow Iran's government? Jordan? Syria? Egypt? Lebanon?

Using military force to overthrow a government and having a party plank that doesn't believe in nation building is like being half pregnant.

I've said many times that we need to enact the draft and put 300,000 plus troops on the ground in Iraq. We should confiscate all weapons and dump them into the sea like we did with Japan.

The current situation right now is we are sorta nation building and not 100% committed like we were with Germany and Japan after WWII.

Amnesty Alert!

.....Romney and Hunter have just issued statements condemning the current Amnesty Bill ...

.....If you believe as I do that passage of this Bill will destroy the Republican Party then contact your congressman and tell him that this new compromize Bill is the same ole wh*re in a new red dress ....

.....The canary in the coal mine is that Ted Kennedy supports the current Bill ...

.....A Romney/Hunter ticket is beginning to look more attractive ....instead of chasing wisps in the willows (Ron Paul) a Romney/Hunter ticket could pick off those crucially needed Blue States .....COLOSSUS

Bart is an idiot
Doug Bart that is... Why is it that if you support the war, you have to join the military? If you oppose the war, then using his 'logic', you should go be a human shield... and sorry of I got Bart and bartley confused.

RON PAUL vs NEO CONS
Alright I hope to help shoot down the notion that all the negative blogs I see, I am of course referring to the Debacle known as the One Party system masquerading as a two party system, and sadly so many don't have enough courage or capacity to understand that You all who Claim to be CONSERVATIVE, and than criticize the most conservative republican since Teddy Roosevelt, Shame on you, and quick quiz how many of you so called Republicans even no how many Presidents of Which served as Republicans since the Party's inception, brought about by the 1st Republican Presidents MR LINCOLN HIMSELF, and not only the # but their names and what they actually stood for! OKAY! THOUGHT SO!! Now onto the current Administration's so call Conservative VIEW, THE SELF Preservationist's or should I say the PRIMARY INDIVIDUALS WHOM BROUGHT ABOUT THIS FAILED FORIEGN POLICY, I call them the WAR MONGERING DRAFT DODGERS, whom have their pockets flowing over with so much CARLYLE/ Military industrial complex/ and SAUDI FAMILY OIL MONEY that it is quite sad that the majority of you are so arrogant, and even worse none of you realize that THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU! AND YET MANY OF YOU BLINDLY TRY TO DEBATE SO MANY ISSUES IN WHICH NONE OF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT! Sorry but you say Buchanan and Paul are Dinosaurs, well funny, but at least Dr. Paul served his country, and its soldiers as a field surgeon, probably seeing the coldest side of the Vietnam War, and still came back to further serve as a congressman so he could again work towards assuring liberty for all Americans, through the means of UPHOLDING HIS OATH TO THE US CONSTITUTION! SOMETHING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION has yet to do, and yes it was Eisenhower who warned the American people, (PROBABLY MANY OF YOUR Mother's, Father's, and GRANDPARENTS!) "To beware of the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" in his final address to the Nation!
So before any of you start ranting off what it is you think you believe, you all better stop and think about what it is that makes the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, TRULY! And for anyone who doesn't understand that this NATION and the Republican and Democratic parties and the entire PROCESS have been HIJACKED by a small faction of very wealthy international bankers who CARE NOTHING ABOUT NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR ILK.
Aggh! What's it matter so many of you have been fooled by the illusion of materialism and moral superiority that most of what I just said didn't even break through the earwax built up in your ears!

I am an idiot!
Yes guys I am an idiot. Apparently that's the name to call anyone who's opinion is not like your opinion these days. I did my tour in the military as well. It was the best decision I ever made. It helped enhance my character greatly. I met a lot of great people and made some friends. Thanks Pepsiholic! Your reference to Muslim pirates in the 1800s is complete genius!

More foolishness from Ron Paul
Ron Paul also said, during the debate, that radical Islam's is anger at the US was caused us "...bombing Iraq for the last ten years."

Our "bombing of Iraq" from 1991 to 2001 was limited to the Persian Gulf War, taking out SAM sites that fired on US and UK planes that were patrolling the "No-Fly" zones, and Bill Clinton's Saturday night bombardment of Baghdad with some 400 Cruise missiles in (futile) reaction to Saddam kicking out the Un inspectors in 1998.

The notion that we have been "...bombing Iraq for the last 10 years is as ridiculous as the notion that we can get them to stop attacking them if we just sit down and have a nice friendly talk with them.

It also reveals a total ignorance of what radical Islam is. For some 1300 years radical Islam has made a practice of invading the land of the "infidels and using violence to force them to convert or subjugate them. The subjugated "dhimmi" class then becomes servant to the muslim ruling class. The point here being that we did NOTHING to provoke radical Islamists. They were doing what they have been doing for 1300 years.

Any pol who can't understand this cannot be trusted with national security.

The Republican grass roots voters understand it, and Ron Paul is therefore toast.

But who was right?
Since we haven't been bombing Iraq for 10 years nor do I blame America for what the criminals did on 9/11, Rudy was right.

Like I said before:
Ron "cut and run" Paul cut his own throat, Rudy just held the mirror. That OBL, like other anti-Americans wants to *blame America* for their crimes, doesn't make alqueda less responsible. OBL also said prior "cutting and running" is why he believed he'd get away with it.


http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

"Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said.

Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack.""

Ron "cut and run" Paul is a whackjob, just like his supporters.

Question for RP supporters
Questions for Ron Paul supporters. When the inevitable happens and Ron Paul is knocked out of the running who will you support? Are you willing to put Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse?
Are you going to sit this one out to teach the Republicans a lesson, like most of you no doubt did in the last election? I do not agree with Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul mostly on their isolationist policies. Listening to Pat and quite frankly most of the folks on this thread, some of whom I agree with on other issues try to tell me what Ron "meant to say" is a bit much. Ron Paul blew it the other night,period. I have heard the talk of "revolution in the wind" before. When Pat made his run and and when Perot supporters were going to teach Bush 1 a lesson and gave us eight years of Bill Clinton. I don't know where any of you are from, but being from NJ [yes, there are conservatives here] and spending alot of time in NYC, I can tell you that before Rudy took over the place was a S#$&*hole. Crackheads ruled and the murder rate and crime were out of control. Porno parlors and hookers everywhere! The place made Beirut look like Disney. When he left the place was clean and the safest large city in America! Not spin, not talking point, just fact seen with my own eyes. As was his handling on and after Sept 11. I know, I was there that day. Anyone who was there would have had the same reaction that RG had at the "debate". The fact that Paul made such an idiotic statement proves he is not ready for prime time. Does that mean that I will vote for Rudy for President, NO...I just don't think Ron Paul is electable. The fact that his supporters have to resort to spamming talk radio and sending in little texts to Fox saying our boy won the "debate" is a sign of desperation!
Oh I know Liberty, they are all lies, I should have checked with you for the truth first! Like Paul being attacked by the other candidates on the stage. RG asked for thirty additional seconds and was denied! So WHO attacked him! You guys sound alot like Liberals, if someone doesn't support Ron Paul they are liars, members of CFR, or worse an Israeli! The question still stands, what will you do if Paul is knocked out? Yeah go ahead guys teach America a lesson! Write in Paul and give us Hillary!

Bart is an idiot
Anyone who thinks that you can support the war only if you join the military is an idiot.

Ron "cut and run" Paul beatdown by Rudy
Again...enjoy.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162007/news/nationalnews/rudy_in_rage_at_9_11_diss_nationalnews_carl_campanile.htm

"May 16, 2007 -- COLUMBIA, S.C. - An irate Rudy Giuliani blasted a fellow Republican candidate at last night's GOP debate for trying to blame the United States for 9/11.

Giuliani unloaded both barrels at Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a fringe Republican White House hopeful with little support, who said, "Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there."

"We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul went on. "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us."

Giuliani suddenly turned the polite debate on its head when he jumped out of turn to respond to Paul's shocking comments.

The former mayor tore into him for blaming Americans for 9/11.

"That was an extraordinary statement, as someone who has lived through the attacks of Sept. 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq," an indignant Giuliani responded.

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11th.

"I'd ask the congressman to withdraw the statement and say he wasn't serious," Giuliani added to rousing applause - the loudest of the night - at the debate sponsored by Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party."


The "surrender" crowd are delusional, Ron "cut and run" Paul is a loser and he has zero chance of winning the primary, something Pat Buchanan knows something about.

tanabear
Why do you refer to the Gulf of Tonkin lie as "the Gulf of Tonkin incident"? If this lie had been perpetrated by a Republican would it still be an "incident"? Or would it be a "scandal"?

To make it clear to readers not familiar with it, LBJ had his Defense Department put together a false after-action report that claimed that the North Vietnamese Navy had fired on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, just off the coast of Vietnam. He used this phony after-action report to convince Congress to pass the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution", which gave LBJ the authorization he wanted to send 1.1 million US servicemen to Vietnam over the next few years.

LBJ's mendacity was discovered by reporter Daniel Ellsberg and the ensuing scandal became known as the "Pentagon Papers".

In other words, LBJ lied, people died. Millions of them. But to this day the left happily allows the stain of the "Pentagon Papers" to remain attached to Nixon because it was during Nixon's Presidency that it was discovered.

Regarding the "Global Caliphate" I suggest you read "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. In it Steyn points out that due to birth rates the influence of Islam will peak in the next 30 years or so but will peter out after that.

The title "America Alone" comes from Steyn's research, which shows that of all the western democracies, only the US has a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman, which is the minimum necessary to sustain a country's population with massive immigration. Steyn points out that the average birth rate in muslim populations are all over 2 children per wman and some are as high as 3.5. This explains why so many European socialist democracies are being flooded with immigrant muslims.

access13
Ron Paul was a Air Force FLIGHT SURGEON, not a field surgeon. Real big difference! You are right he probably did see the COLD side of the war in the air conditioned office at Tan Son Nut
He did serve honorably but lets not get carried away...Next time clear it with Liberty first. Maybe you are confused with Duncan Hunter who served in Vietnam in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 75th Ranger Regiment. You know a Grunt! And just for the record his son is on his second tour in Iraq....CMS OUT

wiseone
Dr. Paul quoted statements directly from the 9-11 Commission Report and CIA Intelligence reports. Are you saying you they are incorrect?

Patriot
You keep saying that Dr. Paul blamed Americans for 9-11, when he said nothing of the sort. Your continued mischaracterization is more than slanderous and deceitful.

Perhaps you should inform yourself by reading the 911 Commission Report.

Educating Rudy (the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=

Ron Paul interview by Wolf Blitzer (post-debate):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17225293.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070516/cm_thenation/45195576
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/16/its-all-about-ron-paul/

Article

Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

Ron "cut and run" Paul is a joke...
He's out, he wont be included and many more, if any, debates. He deserves to be forgotten and ridiculed for his retarded cut and run blame America delusions.

He never had a chance.


Pepsiholic
You should be a DJ because you certainly know how to spin it. I didn't say you could only support the war if you joined the military. My point was we have a lot of people touting war, war, war, yet it's easy if you aren't walking down the streets of Baghdad. Your thoughts back to Muslim pirates lead me to believe you were typing from the nursing home watching Popeye Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves so I let you slide on the idiot comment. I supported the war initially as well, until I realized it was just GW trying to finish what he Daddy should have finished. There were no WMDs and Bin Laden isn't in Iraq. YOUR Daddy is the idiot.. he should have pulled out!

Thanks for nothing, Pat
You're not a Republican, but thanks for telling what Taft might think of the GOP debate, were he alife today and anybody cared what he thought.

Good luck with your next Reform Party run. You, Ron Paul and Ross Perot would be perfect if they ever decide to remake the Three Stooges.

Seriously, why does anybody waste their time taking Pat Buchanan seriously about anything?

Rudy needs to go back to school
Rudy you need to go back to school, before you run for president, Buster.

You really had nothing intelligent to even say after the debate, when he clarified even more what he meant when he had more than a thirty second time limit to answer.

You in my opinion Rudy owe Ron Paul an apology for trying to put words in his mouth, and you really should read the 9/11 Commission Report before you mess with someone who has about a brain to the 10th power, wiser than you.

Ron in essence spanked you little boy Rudy with knowledge you can only hope to aquire within the rest of your lifetime.

Ron schooled you, Big Time!

Ron Paul is so far and above the best
Rudy Guiliani did not come off as an intelligent and presidential to me.

I know the media likes him, but what else is new?

Liberty
I wouldn't give you two cents for the 9/11 Commission or its report. The presence of Jamie Gorelick on that Commission disqualified it from any serious credibility before it even got started. Gorelick should have been testifying in front of the Commission, not sitting on it.

And don't even get me started on Sandy berger helping Clinton with his 'testimony' by stealing documents from the national archives.

Why do you put so much stock in a report that comes from the very two political parties you despise?

And I would be very curious to know what "bombing" we were doing in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War that are in CIA reports that weren't made public. I suspect the answer is "none", except for Slick Willie's wag-the-dog attack on Baghdad in 1998 when he was trying to get the press to talk about something besides Monica.

I am discussing this with a fan of yours, Bravado, on another thread. As I told him, bin Laden declared war on us in 1986, while we were helping the muslims in Afghanistan resist the infidel occupiers from Russia. It does not make sense that a man motivated by our troops' presence in the ME would declare war while we had no troops in the ME, were restraining ourselves from direct involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, and were providing weapons and training to a bunch of muslims who were trying to kick an infidel occupier out of their country.

Carter made no moves against radical Islam and they not only hated him, they despised him.

There is no doubt that bin Laden's minions were going to attack us sooner or later. And if it wasn't bin Laden it would have been some other Islamic nutcase. In fact, jihadists had already attacked Americans in Beirut in 1983 and murdered Jewish American Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985.

Paul self-destructed when he tried to peddle this nonsense in the debate and his candidacy is toast. I will not be like Hawkins and suggest you are wasting your vote. I happen to believe that no vote cast in good faith is wasted. But don't expect Paul's candidacy to miraculousy rise from the ashes of these comments like some political Phoenix. He is done.

Not just the media...
I don't know how well this will copy and paste...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051707_release_web.pdf

"12. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would
you vote if the candidates were: (RANDOMIZE)
------------ Rep (±6%) ------------
15-16 17-18 27-28 27-28 30-31
May 07 Apr 07 Mar 07 Feb 07 Jan 07
Rudy Giuliani 24% 35% 36% 39% 34%
John McCain 17 16 20 19 22
Mitt Romney 9 10 6 6 3
Fred Thompson 8 8 9 na na
Newt Gingrich 6 9 6 7 15
Sam Brownback 2 2 1 2 1
Tommy Thompson 2 4 2 - -
Jim Gilmore 1 - 1 - -
Mike Huckabee 1 1 3 4 -
Duncan Hunter 1 2 1 2 2
Ron Paul 1 - na na na
Tom Tancredo 1 na na na na
Chuck Hagel - - - 1 -
(Other) 1 - 3 4 4
(Don’t know) 24 11 10 16 17
(Would not vote in
Republican primary) 2 - 2 1 1"


"Would not vote in a Republican Primary" has twice the support as Ron "cut and run" Paul. Fred Thompson hasn't even announced yet and has has 8 times the support that Ron "cut and run" Paul has.

He's a joke, just like his supporters. :D


sickening
I used to be a 'Rush Republican' in my early 20's, then finally grew up and figured out that being a 'conservative' was vastly different from being a Republican. It is so sad to see republicans continue to bash and lie about Dr. Paul, mischaracterizing his statements (he did NOT 'blame' Americans, or America - he simply stating the motives that the 9-11 attackers had for doing their evil deed), and basically trying to push Paul out of the race. Whether or not Paul has a chance of winning the election, or even the Republican primary, is of little concern to me - he is the right choice. I would bet that Ron will foster a rather large split in the Republican party, hopefully ousting the current ruling neo-cons would have debased and defrauded the country and a few of my favorite terms: "liberty", "freedom", and "Patriot". They have destroyed the meaning of the Conservative movement and it is due to their influence that Socialism will continue its hold on America for much longer than necessary. Ron Paul is our only chance against the Obama/Hillary juggernaut - a juggernaut coming straight at your wallet, freedoms, and property rights. Shame on you!

Ron Winning Vote.com poll SC Debate
http://vote.com/


This guy is a phenomenom!

How will the media spin him away. LOL.

They don't know how to handle Ron Paul, they can't shake him.

Could it be that America is finally tired of the Barbara Strissand going on in this great land of ours.( Using my 19 yr degree from America's Advanced Conservative Study Institute. I'm going to surpass Rush one day.)


A new paradigm in foreign policy
A new approach to foreign policy...not of hatred but of understanding? Dr. Paul is simply saying do unto others as we would have done to us.

Shouldn't we consider this?
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:44–45.)

Re: Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to
...be debated.

Liberty,

It looks to me like the article you linked is Roland Martin's explanation, not Ron Paul's.

If Paul wanted us to believe that bin Laden attacked us because we deposed the Iranian PM in 1953 he should have said so and left the talk about bombing Iraq for ten years and asking them why they're angry out of it.

Like I said, he self-destructed.

He also had ample opportunity to present this, or any other explanation on Sean Hannity's show and didn't.

Finally, the article you linked claims that Paul is "more Libertarian" than conservative Republican. So why is he running as a Republican and why should we dues-paying, card-carrying Republicans allow him to take up precious time in our debates, space on our ballots, and give a bunch of whacko lib bloggers an excuse to foul our polls with their crossover votes?

davy c rocket
"Ron Winning Vote.com poll SC Debate"

vote.com? C'mon, even alqueda can vote on vote.com you're not serious, are you?


wiseone

You've re-confirmed your own moniker with your post of 7:21. I commend it to the other readers on this thread.

In the meantime, below is a re-post of a mock letter that I offered this morning. It ticked off the libertarian posters so much that they flagged it as "offensive" and had it removed (sort of like the organized voting we're seeing in these unofficial polls).

However, I'm just so tickled by my own cleverness that I thought I'd offer it again:



Dear Mr. bin Laden:

Let me first state clearly that your decision to attack American citizens on 9-11 was very naughty.

But let me also assure you that I entirely understand your concerns. Since as far back as 1804, when President Jefferson so rudely interrupted the mostly domestic activities of the Barbary pirates, we Americans have been shamefully interventionist in the affairs of other nations. Who are we, after all, to say that our culture is more worthy than yours?

I want you to know that if I am elected, America will behave itself in a much more humble manner. We will remove ourselves from Iraq. We will promise to never again intervene in the internal affairs of the Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia or any other region that is blessed by the presence of Allah. We will shrink like turtles back into our shell, and not make a peep when you finally liberate Palestine from the occupation of the Jews and subjugate the remaining Christians. They are, after all, but pigs and apes in the eyes of your Prophet (may peace and prosperity be upon him). Who are we, as uninvolved Americans, to say otherwise?

Under my administration, we will revoke the visa of your fallen daughter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and return her to your care in full confidence that you will be gentle with her. Nor will the Paul administration have any concern for the Europeans, who have so freely and willingly opened up their society to your religion of peace.

Unfortunately, there are still many warmongering Americans who continue to support our imperialistic ways. It is my challenge and goal to persuade these ignorant sheep otherwise. However, with the help of a few very wise writers such as Mr. Pat Buchanan, I believe that America will eventually overcome its arrogant, interventionist ways and allow your culture to live freely in the manner that you (and Allah) determine most appropriate.

Until that blessed time, I hope that you will have patience with us, and most sincerely ask that you try your best to minimize the number of our civilians that you feel you must target in order to vindicate the many wrongs we have done to you.

Very truly,

Rep. (Dr.) Ron Paul


ChosinMarineSon
"Questions for Ron Paul supporters. When the inevitable happens and Ron Paul is knocked out of the running who will you support? Are you willing to put Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse?"

No I won't vote for Hillary I am voting for Ron Paul regardless, the ignorance of the FOXNEWS crowd and the Big GOVERNMENT Republicans showed me that there is no place in the Republican Party for a limited government conservative. Now that you know who I and many Ron Paul supporters are voting for you have been warned. Now if you don't vote for Ron Paul, you will be electing Hillary, but of course you have less to lose because she is miles closer to your candidates on spending, guns, IMMIGRATION, etc. You guys have been calling the libertarians "losertarians", we have been called irrational on spending, and for a war position that wishes to narrow the target to Al Qaeda instead of everyone else, that we don't police the world, and we are told that we hate America because we look at history to judge policy. Libertarians and Real Conservative aren't afraid to look at facts.

I mean seriously what reason do we have to stay, with friends like that, the political wilderness looks enticing. Your guys are going to give us amnesty, keep making excuses for them and see what else they will shove down your throat. Some day you guys will wake up.

September12Republican
I didn't see anything there that would violate TH rules, sure it wasn't something else? ;)

davy c rockett
You are absolutely incorrect, Rudy was dead on when he said that they attacked us because of "Freedom of Religion and Women's Rights". We all know that the Twin Towers were symbols of Women's Rights and the Pentagon was a symbol of Freedom of Religion. To think otherwise is irrational.

George the fakeBush
"You guys have been calling the libertarians "losertarians", we have been called irrational on spending, and for a war position that wishes to narrow the target to Al Qaeda instead of everyone else..."

"Losertarians"...I never heard that one before. I like it. :D

Why would narrow-minded, ignorant on the war on terror, "losertarians" want to limit the WOT against just alqueda? Do you think it's *just alqueda* that wants American's dead? Do you really think that OBL is the extent of the problem?



"Some day you guys will wake up."

When we wake up, Ron "cut and run" Paul will still be a joke but maybe, someday, "you guys" will pull your heads out. :D

Patriot
Please list your imminent threats that we must attack.

Ron Paul and Lies

More talk that makes less sense
Buchanan writes:

"Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan."

Then Liberty links us to an article at CNN's website (Are we cons supposed to be influenced by CNN now? Does Liberty endorse CNN's political opinions all the time, or just when it's convenient? What does it say about Paul's position on the war and his credentials as a conservative when he needs to be bailed out by the goofy libs at CNN?) that claims what Paul meant was bin Laden was angry that we deposed the Iranian PM in 1953 (this guy holds some kind of grudge).

So we're supposed to believe that shortly before 1993 bin Laden became angry about something that we did in 1953, even though he was allegedly getting military assistance from us from 1980 until 1988. And he declared war on us in 1986 because he knew we would start bombing Iraq in 1991 and the bombing would last ten years. Are you confused? I hope so. Because if you're not that means I got it all wrong.

Georgewishes he wereBush
"Please list your imminent threats that we must attack."

President Bush never said we had to wait until threats were imminent. Another false premise. ;)

Now, if you're asking me who I think may be the next front, in the WOT, I'd say Iran has a very good chance of being next. I'm not alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/16/wbolton16.xml

"We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

A nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936 and should be prevented by Western military strikes if necessary, according to a leading hawk who recently left the Bush administration.

John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.

Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.

The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb."


Hope that helps...but I doubt it. :D

davyfullofcrocket
"I thought FOX News was "fair and balanced"."

I linked a fox poll listing voter support, you linked more opinion.

Good luck...

9/12 American
I understand why the Paul supporters are angry. They made it clear in one of their posts to Patriot. Bin Laden is the ONLY threat. If you had addressed your letter to anyone else, like say Mahmoud Ahmadinijad of Iran, or Moammar Ghadafi, or Hamas, or Bashar al Assad of Syria, it would have been OK.

I understand the Paul anti-terror program a lot better now. We let the rest of these nutcases do anything they want because they didn't blow up the WTC. But if we find bin Laden we whack him, declare victory, and go home.

Educating NEOCONS on Ron Paul

Since NEOCONS cannot read anything more than talking points, I will put up videos for you guys to watch!

Iraq!

CLICK HERE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eronpaul2008%2Ecom%2F

Also watch this video!

FOX SPIN on Ron Paul

Click Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eronpaul2008%2Ecom%2F

wiseone
"I understand why the Paul supporters are angry. They made it clear in one of their posts to Patriot. Bin Laden is the ONLY threat. If you had addressed your letter to anyone else, like say Mahmoud Ahmadinijad of Iran, or Moammar Ghadafi, or Hamas, or Bashar al Assad of Syria, it would have been OK.

I understand the Paul anti-terror program a lot better now. We let the rest of these nutcases do anything they want because they didn't blow up the WTC. But if we find bin Laden we whack him, declare victory, and go home."


"Iraq "terrorist Disneyland" if U.S. goes"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070515/ts_nm/iraq_alqaeda_dc

"LONDON (Reuters) - A U.S. troop pullout from
Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq.""


The only good terrorist is a dead one...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178020746583&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Top Hamas official: Kill all Americans

Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One". Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI.

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."



They'll never "get it," reality is too big of a concept for them.

Patriot
Well what do you plan to do if Iran ignores us and goes for the bomb? Are our troops still in Iraq? Another couple hundred billion dollars we don't have? Where are you going to get the troops, we are already overstretched in Iraq and it is unAmerican to suggest that the able boded war hawks back home enlist, and they show no intent to enlist, just where are we going to get troops for that war? We have to beat our chest right?

Oh you know who invests in Iran? China, the guys that are loaning us to help pay for our current war. They are not going to like that, did you ever consider they would wait until we invade and then flood the market with our bonds or maybe just not accept any more bonds. You could forget about war over there because we open up a second front against Shiite fundamentalists, Iran was cooperating with our efforts in Afghanistan but when Bush called them the Axis of Evil, they stopped, confrontation was completely avoidable. Now since we went into Iran we now have Shiite terrorists to deal with coming in our open borders. Our economy is trash regardless of whether the China incident happens or not because oil goes high enough to completely ruin our economy, then comes winter. We already have subprimes going bust and it won't get better if oil skyrockets.

How do you open up further conflict in a new front, in a larger creditor's sphere of influence under those economic conditions. That is how you go from Empire to third world country really fast. The traditional globalists are even up in arms, Brzezinski, the guy who originally started funding the mujahadeen against the Soviets, scolded Bush in his new book, the others are very worried and for a good reason. If you haven't noticed Russia and China have elevated their positions, testing new weapons, making public statements that could be considered threats. What is the net gain here? What do you expect Iran to do if it gets the bomb? I hear alot of "whats" but I am not hearing too many "hows".

Georgewishes he wereBush
"Well what do you plan to do if Iran ignores us and goes for the bomb? Are our troops still in Iraq? Another couple hundred billion dollars we don't have? Where are you going to get the troops, we are already overstretched in Iraq and it is unAmerican to suggest that the able boded war hawks back home enlist, and they show no intent to enlist, just where are we going to get troops for that war? We have to beat our chest right?"

Did you not read what I posted? We don't need "troops" to take out Iran's nuke program. An air/sea campaign is all it would take. Like Saddam's army, Iran's air and navy are no match for us, we don't need boots on the ground to set them back for years.


"Oh you know who invests in Iran? China, the guys that are loaning us to help pay for our current war."

China isn't going to do crap and the cost of doing the right thing is often high.



"What do you expect Iran to do if it gets the bomb? I hear alot of "whats" but I am not hearing too many "hows"."

Use it or pass it off to terrorists. How? How do they arm hezbollah and hamas? Smuggling. You cant be serious. Did you not read what the hamas spokesman said about Americans Israel? Why do you want to allow it?



NEOCONS & critical thinking
GWB, NEOCONS have a hard time with critical thinking skills!

They need talking points!

John Konop
"They need talking points!"

You're the mental midget that constantly posts controlcongress crap. pot/kettle/black.

Sheesh...

Patriot
"China isn't going to do crap and the cost of doing the right thing is often high."

What the hell are you smoking, we are dumping on their investment and intruding on their sphere of influence. The right thing? What the hell do they care, they won't be killing them and since China invests they are already funding them. Sounds like a shortcut to Tawain to me. Just because the media doesn't hammer the point home repeatedly doesn't mean it is not a possibility.

"Did you not read what I posted? We don't need "troops" to take out Iran's nuke program. An air/sea campaign is all it would take. Like Saddam's army, Iran's air and navy are no match for us, we don't need boots on the ground to set them back for years."

Yeah BUT we will face terrorism from the Shiites, they are not like Al Qaeda, they won't take their time, they will just raise hell here. And then what are we going to do to Iran? We would still be fighting in Iraq with have the troops we need indefinitely, so how do we retaliate, and what does the rest of the Middle East do? What happens to Israel? You think we can just fight unlimited wars with unlimited enemies while industry has gone to China? The housing market would be destroyed and we would face dire economic consequences. Foreign policy is not in a vacuum. Iran isn't going to take airstrikes and just say thanks, if there is any time that makes sense for Iran to retaliate, it is while we are overstretched, they would be stupid not to, and with many fed up developed nations ready to pounce. Euros become reserve currencies for more nations and the Saudis might as well leave us out to dry. We can't fight the world alone, and Great Britain ain't what it used to be eventhough they probably would stand down on Iran. This isn't a video game, every action has potential consequences, from the basis of this thread and from your lofty goals you don't understand that. Rome, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, have all fallen from the same vice.

Another nail in the coffin for Rudy
Christian Conservative leader Dr. Dobson has said he will not vote for Rudy.

What are the Neocons gonna do now? LOL.

I think the ball is in the Neocons court now, will you come back to conservatism, or will you let Hillary win.
Bye-Bye Rudy it was nice knowing you.

Georgewishes he wereBush
"What the hell are you smoking, we are dumping on their investment and intruding on their sphere of influence."

They're not going to strike us over Iran.



"The right thing?"

Yes, fighting the WOT and keeping Iran from getting nukes is costly and the right thing.



"Yeah BUT..."

No buts.



"...we will face terrorism from the Shiites"

Will? We already do. Didn't you read the link? Hamas is Shiite.



"Iran isn't going to take airstrikes and just say thanks, if there is any time that makes sense for Iran to retaliate, it is while we are overstretched, they would be stupid not to, and with many fed up developed nations ready to pounce."

They *better* say "thank you, we're sorry, our bad, we'll be good" because if they further interfere with Iraq, over stopping their illicit nuke program, then we'll nuke Tehran and they wont be so freakin' uppity because they'll have other concerns. They're willing to pay that price for nuking Israel, I'm not sure they'd be willing to pay that price without a nuke of their own.




davy c rocket:
"Christian Conservative leader Dr. Dobson has said he will not vote for Rudy."

He doesn't tell ME who to vote for.

Nice try. :D


davy crockett
No the real nail in the coffin is when they hammer him on Bernie Kerik and lying to the rescue workers at ground zero about air quality. They're dying and get treated like garbage from the same government that lied to them and significantly reduced their lifespan while they were cleaning up the rubble. The phrase "Rudy the 9/11 hero" is going to be a complete joke by the end of this campaign. There are pictures of Rudy feverishly breathing through a mask and they will see commercials.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2409716&page=2

The firefighters don't like him either:

In a letter to its members Friday, the International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani for his November 2001 decision to cut back the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades.

The 280,000-member union accused him of carelessly expediting the cleanup process with a "scoop-and-dump" operation after the recovery of millions of dollars in gold, silver and other assets from the Bank of Nova Scotia that had been buried.

Another piece on Rudy the 9/11 hero:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033000190_pf.html

They are going to sit on this, they will get all of his abortion and guns stuff before they destroy him. They will give him outs. It will be a slow drip.

Georgewishes he wereBush
"The firefighters don't like him either:

In a letter to its members Friday, the International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani..."

No, the firefighter UNION doesn't like him. BIG difference. Unions support liberals anyway.

Nice try... :D

afraid yet?
Isn't it funny how when one man is willing to stand up and admit the ugly truth about our government, everybody freaks out?

Ron Paul is the ONLY real candidate running. He is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they created this great country. The neo cons and democrats are afraid of Ron Paul because he actually tells the truth, something our government has failed to do for years!

They are afraid if the truth gets out to the American publice it will cause them to start thinking for themselves. They might actually start to use their brains and stop being told what to do and who to vote for by the main stream media. Oh what a concept!

Right now, Bush should be in the middle of impeachment for all of the lies and deception he has committed against the American people. He should be in jail! He took an oath to uphold the constitution and he has done everything short of getting a hold of the original and burning it to show us what he really thinks of our rights. Believe it or not, I voted for Bush but now, I want nothing but to see him impeached. The Bush administration should also be tried for war crimes against our own American troops for the way that they have been treated.

If the media is going to continue to ignore Ron Paul, they are doing an amazing injustice to the American people. We are able to think for ourselves, thank you, and we don't need the main stream media telling us what to do. Like it or not we are not robots and we are waking up as a nation to the things that are going wrong in our country and we want a change. NOW!

Thank you Pat for your article. You hit the nail on the head!

GW
"Ron Paul is the ONLY real candidate running."

He's not a candidate, he's just running. Ron "cut and run" Paul is a joke, just like his supporters. :D

Why would Demos spike polls
Why would Demos spike polls for Paul, would they not spike them for Rudy knowing that the half the conservatives in the party won't support him, which would benefit them.

Seems to me they wouldn't want to face a Paul, who would draw everyone from green to conservative who prefers to not be in over 150 countries worldwide or is anti-Iraq policing, seeing how most Demos voted to let President police and nation build in Iraq.

Maybe he draws to many people that haven't voted who are now registering to vote, cause they see Paul as a statesman rather than a poltician.

Just my thoughts and opinion expressed while I still can!






"George W Bush"
The reference to Hitler was a means of making an analogy. In neither WWII nor in the current war on terror did the US "bring it all on ourselves." The fact that an attacker deems himself to have a motive doesn't prove that the attacked party is at fault.

Regarding wahhabism and Al Qaeda, my point there was that Islam has been waging jihad against the West for 13 centuries. Jihad by non-state actors is the current mode, but jihad didn't start with Sayyad Qutb in the 1950s. Nor did it start with Al Qaeda in the 1990s, or "in response to" anything the US has ever done. In various forms, jihad has been waged since long before 1776.

On another topic, I haven't yet seen a poster here who knows why there were no-fly zones in Iraq, and why we enforced them. The zones were indeed imposed by the UN (whoever said they weren't is wrong), and the purpose was to prevent Saddam from using his air assets to attack his own people after Desert Storm: the Kurds in the north, and the Shi'as in the south. They were NOT imposed by the US so that Iraq "could not defend itself."

The no-fly zones were enforced by a coalition that included the US, UK, and France. In the mid-1990s, the US and UK did make a united declaration, not specifically backed by the UN, that they would enforce the southern NFZ further north than the UN had originally established it. France did not join the US and UK in doing that. The UN kept both NFZs in effect, and did not make an issue of the US/UK decision to enforce the southern one further north.

The UN also had to approve international flights in and out of Baghdad during the period of economic sanctions on Iraq.

The US conducted relatively little bombing related to enforcement of the NFZs. The majority of the bombing between 1991 and Feb 2003 took place in brief (3-7 day) deliberate campaigns that were mounted in response to actions by Saddam unrelated to the NFZs.

Examples include the 1993 bombing of his intelligence HQ after the revelation that he had plotted to assassinate Bush I. Another instance was in 1996, when Saddam was assembling forces in the north to menace the Kurds. (His similar action in the south, in 1994, had prompted the US/UK decision to enforce the southern NFZ closer to Baghdad.)

Did Saddam's local enemies take advantage of his being hamstrung by the NFZs? Yes. Iran occasionally mounted attacks into southeastern Iraq, against the Iranian insurgent group Mujaheddin e-Khalq, whom Saddam allowed to operate against Iran from his territory. The Kurdish factions in the north were able to resist Saddam, and enjoy the patronage of Iran and the PKK in Turkey, because of the northern NFZ.

Without the NFZs, there is no doubt that Saddam would have continued attacking Iraqi Shi'as and Iraqi Kurds with the chemical weapons he had used on both groups in 1991, and on the Iraqi Shi'as and Iranians in the 1980s.

If you're going to retail Al Qaeda's line about how the US created their enmity