No, no they need to stay on that wagon.
That way when it goes over the cliff they'll go with it.
Yeeaaarrg!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 11/29/2007 9:26:18 AM PST by nsmart
Arizona Senator John McCain tried to resuscitate his ailing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul's anti-war stance during Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate.
But, as in previous Republican debates where leading contenders have stumbled in their attempts to attack the renegade congressman, it was Paul who ended up drawing the cheers of the crowd.
Playing his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq for political points, McCain tore into Paul for arguing -- as part of a discussion about spending -- that bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."
Just as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried in an earlier debate to buff his national-security credentials by attacking Paul's suggestion that misguided U.S. foreign policies increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, McCain attempted to burnish his image as a champion of the troops by attacking Paul -- and, by extension, all critics of the war.
Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."
That rhetorical flourish drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida
But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenation.com ...
The Death Of The Bush Doctrine
jewishpress.com ^ | November 28, 2007 | Caroline Glick
Posted on 11/29/2007 4:15:19 PM EST by ventanax5
At Annapolis this week, President George W. Bush buried his doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was based upon a simple statement the president made in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 jihadist attacks on America.
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,” Bush announced to the roaring applause of both houses of Congress.
The message emanating from Annapolis was exactly the opposite. What the administration effectively said was, “The more you support terrorists, the harder the U.S. will work to appease you.”
Care to comment on this thread?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1932432/posts?page=11
“Bush preferred to turn it into a WWII type War and lost bin Laden.”
Bush lost bin laden?
FYI, it’s was those POS democrats like patrick leahey who leaked information to the media. Information such as how we’re able to track the terrorists through their cell phone use.
The very day that story ran in the NY Times, all the cell phones that bin laden & co used went silent.
Well, I guess my questions were too difficult for you.
“Yes. I watched that event with horror.”
Somehow I doubt that.
“Immediately following 9/11, Ron Paul wrote a bill authorizing a tactical strike force to immediately go in and get bin laden.”
The SF’s were sent in, but SF’s are a very limited resource and can’t be everywhere all at the same time.
“Waiting for a WWII type of invasion of Afghanistan was a tactical mistake.”
A tactical mistake you say?
Whatever Napoleon.
“We lost bin laden by the delay.”
So says the armchair general.
“But in an Indian newspaper, prior to 9/11, (which the 9/11 commission blames on our foreign policy of interventionism, by the way) an article appeared that India, Pakistan, Britian and the USA were planning to invade Afghanistan to rout out the Taliban. I think Bush saw an opportunity to justify the plans.”
Yeah and the Martians have a secret base on the far side of the moon.
“What I cannot understand is how a group of macho patriots accepts the growth of the government here in the US, the entangling of the feds down to our lowest level of police in the US when they were on board with me and lots of others during Clinton’s term that he was overreaching in those areas. Do you think the next president or the one after that will not MIS-USE these powers?”
Stick to lew rockwell.
Try and keep up.
The Mandate of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power_To declare War_” This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we, as a nation, go to war must be made by the elected body of the United States Congress. By definition, it specifically prohibits the President of the United States from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual. Under Article I, Section 8, U.S. presidents are denied the power held by monarchs of the past who, singlehandedly, could order their nation and their subjects to war.
In October 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution that unconstitutionally delegated the power to declare war to the President. The resolution, itself, does not declare war against any nation. Rather, it states that the President “has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States_” The resolution does not and cannot alter the express language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could effect such change.
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd grounded his opposition to that resolution in Article I, Section 8. In his October 3, 2002 remarks on the Senate floor, he spoke of the Framers of the Constitution who foresaw “the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.” He cited James Madison, who wrote in 1793:
“In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...” (See http://byrd.senate.gov)
Thus, the President cannot rely on an unconstitutional delegation of power to him in order to wage war on Iraq or on any other nation. He must seek a formal declaration of war from the U.S. Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8. If the President chooses to send the United States into war without such a congressional declaration, he and his subordinates in the Executive Branch will be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. A war with Iraq, without a congressional declaration of war, is illegal and unconstitutional.
Further, the legislative history demonstrates that Members of Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution were not voting to declare war. Statements on the floors of the House and the Senate by resolution proponents during the debate support this fact. In addition, on January 24, 2003, 123 Members of Congress sent a letter to the President stating that “the U.S. should make every attempt to achieve Iraq’s disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies.” The congressional signers included 22 who had voted for the resolution. See “Members of House petition for caution,” The Boston Globe, January 25, 2003, A1.
When a reporter stated to President Bush that it appeared inevitable that the nation was headed toward war with Iraq. The president responded: “That’s not for you to decide. That’s for me to decide.”
Actually, it is for neither of them to decide. Congress is the governmental body under the U.S. Constitution which retains the sole power to decide whether or not this nation goes to war.
George W. Bush is not a king. If he wants to go to war he must seek and receive a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution requires nothing less.
Your slandering is extremely ugly and low. I hope you’re proud of playing from the same handbook as the clintons and their ilk, in your attempts to smear decent people for your own political reasons.
“Do you mean like all the neocons who have never served?”
Did you “Serve”?
“Ron Paul was in the military”
ron paul may have been in the military, but his duties as a medical doctor (who never saw the outside of his office walls) do not qualify him for the job as Commander in Chief.
He was never in combat arms, and never held a leadership position.
“and gets the most donations from them of any GOP candidate.”
As it was said earlier, his donations from the military have been debunked.
A GS-5 cubicle rat civilian in the Pentagon could give paul a donation and it would be considered as being from the military.
“But we all will if we don’t quit poking that stick in the hornets’ nest. You think the idea of Blood Feud hasn’t been around for centuries in the ME?”
Yeah that’s right it’s all our fault (rolleyes)
“as would I by changing our interventionist foreign policy.”
See above.
“If you are reading bravado from this grandmother, clean your glasses.”
Start wearing yours.
No, no they need to stay on that wagon.
That way when it goes over the cliff they'll go with it.
Yeeaaarrg!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep, we're not into the big government, open borders, trampling of the constitution, big spending, socialist-lite globalists that the new 'Republicans' cheer for. I'm thankful to not be a part of that, and in fact I would say that the 'nut cases' are the ones who claim that is conservative or Republican, simply because there is an (R) by someone's name. Apparently it's true that there's a sucker born every minute.
“Even better. Imagine Blackwater going after the Bin Laden group.. it would have been their WORST nightmare.”
Uh huh, and you know this how?
But yeah let’s “imagine” shall we....Imagine what the blowback would be if the mercs we hired went rouge.
“Ron Paul had a nice hit on the Amero/NAFTA Highway stuff”
Yeah damn shame that he put in a request for 30 million dollars to fund it in FY08.
Did you happen to see COULTER on the one and only FOX news..she compared Paul to Neville Chamberlin of the 30s..How foolish and arrogant at the same time and to think that she is so edumicated..These same folks who keep making the same comparisons are going to continue to give our country a bad name, unfortunately...To all warmonger wannabies, please do your research/homework on the past 7 years alone...No disrespect, just take a look at all the actions leading to where we are now...Oh, btw, I voted for Bush twice...We need drastic changes in our own country before we start dictating to the rest of the world...Just common sense.
Thanks for clearing up the donation mess. LOL
I like your answer better. Even if it was given back, the nay sayers would find something else to cry about. The reason is simple, RP is making a difference and his detractors are worried about him.
NORAD did not "miss it".
First of all, NORAD looks for EXTERNAL threats coming from the sea or over the polar cap.
Second, the hijacked airliners on 9/11 turned their transponders off.
"It's important to remember that in normal operation, Air Traffic Control radar does not detect aircraft, but aircraft transponders. A transponder is a special type of radio in the aircraft that listens for a radar beam.. When it detects a radar beam, it immediately sends out a coded signal with an identifying number (assigned by the Air Traffic Controller on the ground) as well as the altitude of the aircraft. The Air Traffic Control radar will then use this extra data to display useful information to the Air Traffic Controller.
All air traffic operating inside the Terminal Control Area is required to have an operating radar transponder. Unless the Air Traffic Controller displays the skin paint return, any air traffic without a transponder will not be seen."
"Ron Paul sponsored a bill to let Blackwater go after him for a bounty."
Oh NOW it's a bill that sponsored Blackwater to go after them.
Funny but you claimed earlier that it was for the special forces to go after him.
"Ron Paul never ‘justified’ bin laden’s actions."
Yes he did.
"That is a neocon one trick pony and its getting old."
And the denial is a paultard one trick pony that's getting even older.
"Sending in our entire military and dropping bunker busters and shock and awe (a form of terrorism, in my opinion)"
Oh so our troops are terrorists now?
"gave bin laden exactly what he wanted. More angry muslims to join him."
Funny but his commanders in the field are whining that they're not getting new recruits.
“And the special forces didn’t show up in Afghanistan until December -— because?”
The special forces were in Afghanistan before December.
“In my opinion, the neocon candidates are being rejected, not just by the left, but by the right.”
Is that the reason why paul’s poll numbers are only in the single digits?
We do know how dangerous hillary can be, that’s why we’re trying to shun the ONE candidate who’s campaign has been infiltrated by the cloven-hooved heifer’s minions which happens to be the ONE candidate that CAN NOT not beat her in the general election. That ONE candidate is ron paul.
“Bringing our troops home, especially the ones on their 3rd or 4th tour in Iraq,”
Even those troops who have VOLUNTEERED for their 3rd or 4th tour?
And if you don’t already know, the contract the troops sign whe nthey enlist clearly states that the government reserves the right to extend their contracts for the duration of the war.
So it’s a good thing it hasn’t come to that.
“It seems like George Bush is to be followed unquestionably”
Just like you “unquestionably” follow ron paul.
Ron Paul has been very generous with the Vets.
Yeah I guess that’s why he wants to kick them to the curb, and has voted against increasing educational, medical, and retirement benefits for veterans.
“Ask anyone.”
Since I’m a veteran, I don’t need to ask “anyone” because I’ve seen his voting records with my own eyes and know what a two faced fraud paul is.
“Its one of his primary support groups. And the donations are showing it.”
And his other “primary support groups” are stormfront, alex jones show, code pink, and moveon.org
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.