Posted on 01/11/2007 4:32:27 PM PST by dogbyte12
Be sure to read #37...Cut and Run Paul's speech about surrendering the war on terror.
I did and that's why I posted to you.
He'd make an excellent president...of France.
LOL -- he's a Libertarian, right?
He hasn't always been a fruitcake. I always HAD lots of respect for him but somethin' bad has happened to him...today I agree...he's now a fruitcake. And he doesn't have a chance...but the moonbats love him...LOL... ;o)
Yep. He couldn't get elected so he became a Republican...now just your average surrender monkey.
Right --- for his benefit.
What the heck is he talking about?
"The more the better, but I thought he was a Libertarian just claiming GOP for convenience?"
Article says he was 1988 Libertarian candidate for President.
FYI 2000 Libertarian candidate Harry Browne said 9/11/2001 was America's fault. Then God took him away from us.
Paul is a whacko. Maybe the Libertarians won't take him?
Most here scold the libertarians for not working for what they want inside the Republican party. Well, Ron Paul did.
That speech explains why I had to hold my nose to vote for him over an unknown Democrat last November.
He may be my representative, but he doesn't represent my views.
Surrender?
Looks like you folks need to get busy next primary and find a conservative to run for Congress.
He wants the salary that he can draw from donations.
And he's going to be jealous when Bob Barr gets the LP nomination. Barr's, in reality, been campaigning for it for months now.
I know that but what does he mean that neoconservatives have unabashedly written about how chaos presents opportunities? When? Where?
That would be hard to figure out.
In Congress, it's my understanding he almost always votes with the GOP?
Am I wrong?
Yesterday, we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. In Iraq, however, war rages on with no end in sight.
The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same – much more – when it comes to Iraq.
President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory.
In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible.
In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars.
This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation – which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same.
The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has requested an additional $100 billion to keep the war going. This money will not be included in the annual budget or deficit numbers, but will be whitewashed as an “off-budget” expenditure.
If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran.
Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same.
In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it – or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government.
Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.
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.