"as your argument that Militarily and Financially supporting the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq somehow helps their minority political rivals!"
That is not my argument at all, it's yours. I thought the coalition was supporting an environment in which the principles of Democratic Freedom could take hold. This means supporting Iraq (not just the government, I never said that) so the political debate can take place.
Supporting an environment that will foster a political debate towards Democratic Freedom is not the same thing as "supporting the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq". You must look at it this way to advocate removing all military and financial support from Iraq. It is your choice to view it that way but that is a simplistic and wrong way to look at it in my opinion. Our financial and military support covers a whole lot more more than just the Iraqi government, I think it is dishonest to imply it doesn't.
You're entitled to your view. (I appreciate the fact that your tone seems more civil today; at least that is my impression and thought I'd say so).
However, my view is that the Majority Government of Iraq is violating the anti-terrorist Foreign Policy principles laid out in the State of the Union address, 2002: the Majority Government of Iraq IS harboring self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists -- in their own Ruling Coalition!
You may think that such a Terrorist-harboring Government is worthy of our continued Military and Financial support, for whatever extraneous reasons. I do not. We disagree; but at the end of the day, I think that Ron Paul can hardly be called "treasonous" for making the argument that the Federal Government should NOT provide Military and Financial support to an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition. You may disagree with that argument, but it's hardly "treason".