Posted on 05/15/2007 4:25:06 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 – Columbia, South Carolina 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread
Watch live coverage of the First-in-the-South Republican Party Presidential Candidate debate on FOX News Channel and FOXNews.com on Tuesday, May 15, at 9 p.m. EDT (6 p.m. PDT).
“I was paraphrasing RiverRafter’s own question to me with that line. This was how RiverRafter characterized Paul’s position. It happens to be fairly accurate, even if Paul won’t say so is so many words. His comments on 9-11 clearly implied that we should adjust our policies to better suit our enemies. He has stated that we should have attacked only those individuals directly responsible for 9-11, which he estimated at 200 individuals, as if no one outside of al-Qaeda and the specific plotters of 9-11 were responsible for a continuing threat of further attack.”
His comments on 9/12 are here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr091201.htm
“Opposing Bush’s latest strategy doesn’t equal taking Paul’s position. Paul opposed Bush’s war plans before “Mission Accomplished”, as you put it. He opposed invading Iraq in the first place, and made the laughable assertion that we’ve accomplished nothing there.”
Please, given our goals in Iraq as laid out by President Bush on February 26, 2003, expound on our accomplishments to those ends?
“I may have had problems of my own with the President’s handling of the war, and preferred to focus on Iran first rather than Iraq at the time. However, I liken my issue with the President’s decisions to the dispute between the Europe Firsters and the Pacific Firsters in World War II. I would have done things differently, I’m not the one who makes those decisions. The President did what he thought was best for this country, and I won’t argue for his failure just because I disagree with him.”
Here’s my spin on this: We’re not fighting WWII. That war started with an attack on American soil, and the war against Iraq was entirely different. Bush got Americans into this war by claiming we would be preemptively preventing weapons of mass destruction from being used against America. The simplest way to prevent that from ever happening would have been to secure those WMDs from the start, and that does not seem to have been a priority during our invasion. I believe there WERE WMDs, and I believe they are now in Syria. And I believe that Bush did not care then to secure those weapons then, as he thought of Iraq as domino one in the region. He gambled then, and now holds a lousy busted flush hand nobody buys bluffing from any more. Now, every day we leave our troops there with a half-directive to ‘defend Iraqi democracy’ is another day they are targets, and what we accomplish is merely substitution. That isn’t a bad aim in itself—substituting soldiers for innocent civilians isn’t an altogether bad idea—but it isn’t what the American people were told our soldiers’ aims would be and it isn’t in keeping with Americans’ concept of a winnable war.
“Dr. Paul, on the other hand, would rather the President concede defeat, withdraw, and lick our wounds while we wait for the consequences. He advocates a return to the policies of the ‘20s and ‘30s, which worked so well... for the Germans and Japanese.”
Did it? I recall how the Japanese were herded into a humiliating naval ‘parity’ treaty almost from the end of WWI, doubletalked throughout their Chinese intervention, and the Roosevelt administration actively worked against Germany before actually declaring war. If that is what Dr. Paul espouses, maybe I misunderstand him. And don’t start that asinine ‘blaming America’ crap, because the Japs started the war and deserved worse than we gave them. Hirohito should have been dancing on a rope, and so should Von Braun, and that we let them walk showed that we were even then prioritizing poorly.
“As far as I’ve heard, the only action he supports against our enemies is to target specific individuals, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as if we haven’t already laid bounties on the heads of senior al-Qaeda members, and to “be friends with nations and trade with them” (his words), as if we haven’t done just that in much of the Middle East.”
Trade with them EQUALLY. Hunt down those individuals PRIMARILY. This is a far different approach from worrying about the territorial integrity of the nations you send mercenaries through and concerning yourself with whether democracy is rooted there as a result.
“By the way, the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner was referring to USS Abraham Lincoln’s mission, not the mission of the entire campaign. If you have an issue with her crew hanging that banner in celebration of their return home, I suggest you take it up with them. Of course, I don’t suppose that will stop anyone from taking it out of context to make the President look foolish, even years later. Pointing out the President’s supposed gaffes is an easy way to make oneself seem sophisticated these days, after all.”
If I’d read this sneering ‘defense’ first before I bothered with the rest of your post, I’d have saved my time for something important like cleaning my toilets. “Issue with their crew,” indeed. Good day to you, sir, and may your loyalty serve you appropriately.
His strength and determination lives on in you. Our time, our betrayal, is your test, and you will deliver.
Grammer with held!
I still want to vote for someone who can win, not just make me feel good.
“The Marines’ Hymn is a tribute to Warriors. Marine Warriors stormed fortress Derna, raised the American flag, and gave us “the shores of Tripoli.” Marines fought their way into the castle at Chapultepec and gave us the “halls of Montezuma.” Marines exist for the purpose of warfighting. Fighting is their role in life. They “fight for right and freedom” and “to keep our honor clean.” They fight “in the air, on land, and sea.” The Marine Corps is Valhalla for Warriors. U.S. Marines need no song. They have a hymn.
Ironically, no one knows who wrote the hymn, which was in widespread use by the mid-1800s. Col. A.S. McLemore, USMC, spent several years trying to identify the origin of the tune. In 1878 he told the leader of the Marine Band that the tune had been adopted from the comic opera Genevieve de Barbant, by Jaques Offenback. Yet, others believe the tune originated from a Spanish folk song. Whatever! Regardless of its origin, The Marines’ Hymn has remained a revered icon of the United States Marine Corps for almost 200 years.
In 1929 The Marines’ Hymn became the official hymn of the Corps. Thirteen years later in November 1942 the Commandant approved a change in the words of the first verse, fourth line. Because of the increasing use of aircraft in the Corps, the words were changed to “In the air, on land, and sea.” No other changes have been made since that time. When you have attained absolute perfection, there is no need for further modification:
From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of UNITED STATES MARINES.
Our flag’s unfurled to every breeze,
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job —
The UNITED STATES MARINES.
Here’s health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we’ve fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven’s scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By UNITED STATES MARINES.
Sir Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, became an ardent admirer of the U.S. Marine Corps. In the company of guests of state, he often demonstrated his respect for U.S. Marines by reciting, from memory, all three verses of The Marines’ Hymn.”
-—The NRA oftens plays footsie with the Left. -—
So, you think the NRA are fellow travelers? :^)
Because you're an idiot?
Yea he was using the Hillary scare tactic. Rudy was the true Democratic at that debate hands down.
Agreed. You'll notice how Rudy always seems to mention George Will in these debates and every interview he gives too. Will gave mucho kudos to Rudy`s leadership of NYC. Buncha bold face lies. G.Will and Deroy Murdock are two huge Rudy sycophants. Rudy is repulsive.
He did the same thing in California in promoting Schwarzenegger. Second time around, it is falling on many deaf ears. Fool me once...
I can find show transcripts where Sean says he’s Libertarian.
Can you find the same thing for Democrat Alan Colmes?
Nah didn’t think so.
Rush falls in line with the party? Remind me who is credited by REPUBLICANS for their landslide win in 1994?
It would seem that the opposite is true.
Really? Off the top of my head I can think of three... and that’s it.
Rush is in the top five as far as the leaders of the modern Conservative movement.
Falwell was Conservative...but he didn’t do anything near as great for the Conservative Movement as Rush.
And he certainly wasn’t in the same league of great religous leaders of this counry like a Billy Graham.
That being said...He was a good man...a Christian and a patriot. May he rest in peace.
“Let’s see...That lapdog is fighting for your elitist *ss; Your parents taught you common courtesy and respect... didn’t they?”
Speaking of common courtesy, I forgot I asked your two cents. Feel free to add your perspective where it’s requested.
“Nice of you to think that ONLY YOU understand and everyone else here requires an explaination in bite size kindergarten chunks. We don’t know how lucky we are. /s”
Well, I am only posting to you. But if the shoe fits...aw, heck, I’d just have to explain it to you, anyway, and I don’t have all day for that.
“I did not vote for Bill Frist in his last term nor his replacement”
The replacement? That would be Senator Bob Corker...
You are in TN so you will be estatic to have the chance to vote for FRed Thompson again...
:)
I see you haven’t got the memo on the words of the new P.C. Marine hymn.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
“Ron Paul says President Bush should have apologized to the families of the 9/11 hijackers for compelling their wonderful sons such desperate measures, and pulled our companies and military out of the Middle East forewith.
And then President Bush should have admitted that he personally put bombs in the WTC and building 9 and blew them up himself.”
Right, I remember that. Was that after Ron Paul killed babies with pitchforks and wiped his butt with the Constitution?
“I support Ron Paul because I actually bother to listen and read what he says. I don’t let Glorious Party Leaders nor Media Spinbots do my thinking for me.”
And those of us that are from Texs that REALLY know him have read and listened to what he said...and that’s why we know he’s a LOON and an embarassment tot he state.
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.