Posted on 02/15/2007 10:49:14 AM PST by freedomdefender
In a striking display of dissension, a group of Republican lawmakers broke ranks with the White House on Wednesday and embraced a resolution opposing more U.S. troops in Iraq — airing their criticism even as President Bush publicly defended his plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Rep. Howard Coble, North Carolina, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland, Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware, Rep. Jim Ramstad, Minnesota, Rep. Ric Keller, Florida, Rep. Philip S. English, Pennsylvania, Rep. Ron E. Paul, Texas, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio, Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan and Rep. Walter Jones, North Carolina.
Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia Democrat, OPPOSES the resolution on the grounds it may harm the troops.
Source: WA Times
It is imperative for our side to demoralize the defeatists and traitors not only to stand up to their defeatism and treason but also to constantly remind them that they are too weak and too impotent that they can barely pass a "non binding" defeatist resolution in the House and they cannot even pass it in the Senate. Remember that the left wing loons and their meida live in a delusional world where they see themselves all powerful and in total control and nothing will demoralize more than to remind them with the bitter reality that they are too weak and to impotent to stop President Bush from doing what he wants to win the war.
Yup, he generally believes we should bring all our troops home, and not just with Iraq. Guess he sort of follows the Monroe Doctrine. On the economic homefront though I agree with him 100%.
That's the list of representatives that will not be re-elected next election cycle. We will know by November whether or not the new strategy works. Regardless, I absolutely abhor people who don't stick to their guns and vote by polls. There are just too many Americans that don't know the facts on the ground and don't take the time to find out the truth because they are just too lazy.
Ron Paul is a hero who correctly predicted that this would be a mess back in 2003 when many starry-eyed Wilsonians confidently promised that the Iraqis would great us with flowers, that the Shi'ite lamb would lay down next to to Sunni lion, that the other Islamo-fascist dominoes would soon fall, and that the war would "pay for itself" via Iraqi oil.
"Ron Paul?
Isn't he regarded as some kind of a maverick hero by many here on FR?"
He is a new age isolationist. He is right on many issues constitutionally but never saw a war he'd support.
Folks here said the same thing about Ron Paul last year. He was reelected in a landslide both in the primary and general election. He will again should he choose to run.
Care to back up your assertion, sweetie?
Paul is a little too isolationist in general for me.
But I agree that he appears to have been right about Iraq.
Ron Paul is a hero... I'm backing him for President and am going to put some effort behind him here in New Hampshire.
GIRLEY MAN LOSERS!!
"vote whores"?
Walter Jones was the first guy in Congress to demand a pardon from Bush for the 2 border patrol officers who are in prison.
He's also the guy who led the effort to try to get the soldiers who were falsely accused of "war crimes" in Iraq released from prison.
He was also the guy who came up with the idea of changing the name "french fries" to "freedom fries."
He's a conservative who thinks that going into Baghdad with 20,000 more troops to be a fool's errand -- as a lot of conservatives think.
Why in heavens name do you think Ron Paul could lead this country?Where or when has he shown any leadership. Saying No to everything is not being a leader by the way.
It's the Left Angeles Times! What did you expect? The truth? hahahaha
reps
Add John Duncan Jr, R-TN to the defeatocrat caucus.
Right, how? I'm not familiar with his stance.
He believed then, as well as now, that you can't force democracy on others. He believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building and we'd only get stuck there in Iraq.
"He believed then, as well as now, that you can't force democracy on others. He believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building and we'd only get stuck there in Iraq."
Pardon me, but who are you refering to?
As to your report on what "he" believes. Liberals/Democrats love to use this line of reasoning. They have done it repeatedly when it suits their needs. First, we didn't force democracy on anyone. The Iraqis chose it. Remember the elections. Second, "he believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building". If that were so then "he" would condem our continued involvement in Kosovo/Serbia and Bosnia, which were begun under President Clinton. The policy in Iraq is to stabilization a nation depleted by a henious dictator. Stabilization means many things, but among them are schools, water, electricity, etc. Would your champion not be in favor of doing those things for the formerly oppressed? Third, "stuck in Iraq". We are not "stuck" anywhere, nor have we ever been. Again, this is Leftist propoganda that clearly shows disrespect for our military. War and stabilization are not "fast food" nor "microwaveable". It happens in it's own time. One of the first points that you learn as a military member is that the battlefield is fluid. I served in Germany in the '70s and '80s. Once the war was over, we moved into the stabilization phase, and then into the strategic phase. The last one doesn't always accompany our in involvement.
Find out if "he" has a position on Darfur, please. He probably will, which is to stop the genocide. Ask what his plan is to succeed at that goal. My bet is that he doesn't have one. Then realize that were we to "cut and run" from Iraq, there would be two genocides, not one.
Huh? I was answering your question about what I've heard Paul say that he believes. Wasn't that your question, or were you just looking to find somebody to argue with?
If you knew anything about Paul, first you would know that he's a Republican who not only opposed the Iraq War but also opposed going into Bosnia.
Paul's a libertarian Republican, who is, for me, too isolationist, and I wouldn't vote for him if he were to run for President.
I was all for ousting Hussein, but Paul wasn't. But on one thing I agree with Paul, that it should not be the job of the military to become peacekeepers or to "stabilize."
By the way, an election being held with a large voter turnout proves nothing. The question should be whom or what are they voting for?
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.