Posted on 01/08/2012 1:16:02 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
If we can’t be honest about this, we deserve the D.C.- K-Street insider we get.
Perry is the only HONEST man running; the one who who knows the importance of standing up and speaking the truth to the American people.
I’m sick to death of liars.
how the hell is he right on about Iraq? explain that statement.
You sound like an Obama supporter.
That would be impressive. I understand that Iran occasionally jumps up and down and causes all kinds of damage. But to see it move at light speed, wow, I'll bet all the people in Iran will not be able to keep up with Iran and will be left to drown in a new and much larger Persian Gulf. Plus all the people in Iraq will be squished with Iran sitting on top of them.
"They're going to move back in, and all of the work that we've done, every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we've got a president that does not understand what's going on in that region," Perry said. None of the other contenders endorsed the idea.
The reticence by the other candidates in taking on Romney was most obvious in the case of Rick Santorum, who earlier in the day said that America needed a leader, not a manager like Romney, as its next president. He had to be coaxed by ABC's Diane Sawyer into acknowledging that he was referring to Romney. Only late in the debate - 1 1/2 hours in - did Santorum briefly take on Romney by criticizing his past support for an individual health care mandate, the Wall Street bailout and a cap-and-trade system to curb global warming.
Newt Gingrich, in response to a question about a scathing film attacking Romney by a Super PAC that supports his candidacy - half-heartedly said Romney's record at Bain Capital, the private equity company he founded, should be scrutinized."..... Romney finds hospitable atmosphere at debate as rivals snipe at each other
you sound like you don’t have an argument.
Iranian president to tour US foes in Latin America........."Ahmadinejad will meet fellow US foe and firebrand Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during a four-nation trip that coincides with rising international concern over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
The Iranian leader will arrive in Caracas late Sunday, kicking off a five-day trip that will on Tuesday see him attend the inauguration of the recently re-elected Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega.
Stops in Cuba and Ecuador will round off the tour. All four Latin American countries have frosty ties with the United States and their leaders have in the past four years made numerous visits to Tehran to build up diplomatic and business links while relations with Washington have worsened.
Ahmadinejad's international affairs director, Mohammad Reza Forqani, said the visit to "what used to be called the backyard of America shows the dynamism of the Islamic Republic of Iran's diplomacy in the world arena." ....
Hi, I don’t mind helping you bump this thread, I was trying to make fun of the people making fun of Perry for saying light speed. lol, how petty can you get.
Your comment in Post # 20 reads like a cut and paste from DU or Daily Kos.
There was nothing legitimate worth responding to.
Who did you like in the debate?
Why would we ever want to go back to Iraq? And at what cost? I never really understood why we went into Iraq in the first place. But OK maybe that's just me but if you are going to invade and conqueror a nation shouldn't you bring along enough troops to occupy and control the nation?
IIRC Bush's (then) top general warned that the invasion plan did not have enough troops to control Iraq after Sadams army collapsed. Romsfield fired the general and assured everyone that the Iraq's would welcome us with "rose pedals at our feet". So that was the plan to occupy and control Iraq? Rose pedals at our feet? Ok maybe it's just me, but this does not sound like a good plan.
But after open rebellion brought out in Fa-lu-ja and Americans were draged thru the street and hung burning from a bridge by a mob of 100's of Iraqs Maybe it's just me but I would think it was time to open up a serious can of wup ass.
Nope the first battle of Fa-lu-ja ended in a tie, if you can believe that. We got a tad more serious in the second battle of fa-lu-ja and won that one and maybe it's just me but to this day I still can't believe there is one building left standing in that hell hole city. I would have leveled the place with artillery as soon as I knew the facts on how the Americans died there. But that's just me.
And then there is the Shiite what's he name with his miltia in southren Iraq that thumps his nose at us all the time. Why is he and his men still walking around and talking?
After taking all of the above into consideration I have decided that Iraq is not worth one more dime of American money and not one more drop of American blood. But that's just me.
I thought Perry did well and I thought Huntsman did well the rest where so so. I am leaning heavily towards Paul, Newt is acceptable and Perry is acceptable.
I expect things would have gone down quite differently with Perry as Commander in Chief.
I don’t think we have the stomach to fight real wars any longer. And I know we don’t have the money to police the world any longer either. 16 trillion and counting.
It did my heart good to see Ron Paul [voice and body language dripping with contempt] tell Romney to stop interrupting.
Ten years! Perry would not have taken 10 years.
If we follow your "stomach" tea leaves, we will have to fight on our shores.
Um, wrong, when it comes to foreign policy, Obama is more in line with *your* view, and with the view of most of the GOP candidates. He didn't bring the troops home, he expanded the wars, and continued the same foreign policy of Bush.
Even Bill Kristol acknowledged that, when he praised Obama for his foreign policy, saying it was just like Bush's, and he called Obama a "born-again neocon." (Kristol's words, not mine.)
You can see the video of that here: Bill Kristol Praises Obama's Foreign Policy
Furthermore, I find it a bit silly and ignorant when people say or imply that being opposed to a war is a left-wing or liberal position...Or that being for a war is a right-wing or "conservative" position. If I oppose a war based on my view that it is either immoral or unconstitutional, that has nothing to do with right or left or even Republican/Democrat. So your statement to RC one is both ironic and baseless.
All I have to say is this “I would be proud to serve with Rick Perry as Commander In Chief”
I don’t think his destiny is to win the nomination this time....but his time may come. Perhaps he will be an important part of the new administration.
I like Newt, but Paul scored a direct hit with the chicken hawk thing, you could see Newt get seriously pissed.
Your use of the terms “for war” and “oppose war” is interesting.
I would say, the necessity of war for national security does not make you “for war.”
Don’t all good people “oppose war” unless they need to confront an enemy for their own and their allies’ national security?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.