Posted on 09/11/2007 10:52:54 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman and Nancy Flores report: While his 2008 rivals in Washington, D.C. spent the morning in congressional panels debating the future of US involvement in Iraq, GOP Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul charged the U.S. has "dug a hole for [itself]" in Iraq, and simultaneously defended his anti-war place in the Republican party and jabbed the current administration saying, "you don't have to be a war monger to be a conservative."
At a policy forum at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C., Paul described Iraq as a "preemptive war" saying it was a "planned invasion and occupation" of a "country that was no threat to us whatsoever."
What might seem like bold rhetoric from the fiery Texas Republican on the anniversary of a historic day is actually nothing new for Paul. His assertions at the forum were consistent with his presidential platform and congressional career, both of which draw heavily from libertarian and constitutionalist ideals.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Whether we should have entered Iraq and whether our initial prosecution of the war and command decisions “dug a hole” is a legitimate issue but can only be decided by future generations with the wisdom of experience. The issue now (the only issue) is how do we deal with the current situation? Cutting and running after this committment would be suicidal. We’ve got to finish this. In Vietnam we had the luxury of knowing the VC would stay home if we bailed out. We know the islamofacisits will be at our front door if we tuck tail. Libs need to face up to the fact this is a real war and either we can draw the battle lines or let them draw the battle lines.
They most definitely describe GWB as well. But they also apply to Ron Paul. I am sure GWB had good intentions in invading Iraq...but I think it was ill advised...there were high level officials in his Administration who had been advocating an invasion of Iraq since the mid-1990's...not because of any alliance between Al Qaeda and Saddam...but because they believed that the US could replace Saddam with a pro-Western regime. After 9/11, these officials saw an opportunity to push the invasion of Iraq even though, in retrospect, Iraq has been so costly and has done little in terms of helping the US defeat Al Qaeda and its ilk
Ron Paul should be applauded for opposing the invasion back in 2003 when that was not a popular position.
Not in my lifetime. This new conservative interventionist nonsense is just a blip on the radar. Why don't you just go back to posting jpegs?
Nice article.
Nowhere do they say that Paul thinks there is a 9-11 conspiracy that needs looking into. But every other item on their list would be supported by FReepers if the issues were brought up by someone other than Alex Jones.
Nice sidestepping of the issue.
(1) No decent person, let alone one who represents the Federal government as an elected representative, should ever give Alex Jones the credibility boost of appearing on his show.
(2) Even if someone of that stature committed such a grievous lapse in judgment and appeared on Alex Jones' program, I would expect them to challenge Jones' despicable views rather than pass over them with an apparently approving silence.
(3) If someone of that stature showed the criminal lapse in judgment to not only appear on Alex Jones' program but also failed to challenge Jones' disgusting views, I would expect them to explicitly condemn Jones' views and to criticize Jones for retailing them while disavowing Jones' support in no uncertain terms.
(4) If someone of that stature made the unconscionable treble lapse in judgment to appear with Jones, fail to challenge his views and then fail to disavow them later I would at the very least expect them to not make the mistake of appearing on Jones' program yet again.
Ron Paul is an abject failure on all four counts.
If you are still a Freeper in a few years, I'll make sure I post a nice fat "I told you so" .jpeg image for you.
I'm confident that this will happpen, at which time, I would remind those who tucked tail when it was time to stand, that don't let the international airport door hit you in the butt on the way out
And as I've said before so was every other Western nation that entered into the ME over the past 500 years. They weren't so confident though when they all marched out....but this time will be different. Gotcha. BTW, how's that campaign going where you're going to run for Rep. Paul's seat?
The question is why does Paul have so many nutball supporters, from truthers to neonazis to racists to drug dealers, maybe even wife beaters, and why doesn't he distance himself from them?
It's reasonable to assume these are the people who would be in positions of power in a Paul administration.
We agree on the UN, I just hold that since we are a founding member, we might as well get a little fun out of it. I really don’t think the resolutions were a key driving force for the administration, but just a really great thing to hang some justification on. “It just not us, but you guys said so, see...”
It’s like my thoughts on getting out of the UN, we need to stay but get someone to dig up the original charter and get back on it so we can debate for a day (not 14 years), send in the troops when needed then otherwise feed kids and give them shots so the big bugs in Africa don’t infect us here...
Part of my do a good deeds not because I am a liberal but because I am a greedy selfish bastard who doesn’t want my kid getting something that will cause body parts to fall off...
Since you love to get in the gutter and play the guilt by association game, which category do you put Fred's ally, Jean Paul Aristide in?
Naw, Ron, we dug a hole for lefties and you jumped right in it with them. But don’t you worry we’re going to fill it back in.
Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. My Congressman is John Carter, who is every bit the small government guy that Ron Paul is, but who stands up to our enemies versus tucking tail.
Fortunately for me, I don't live in that coward's (Ron Paul) district, but support any Conservative candidate running against this traitor.
Nice reach there Willard...
Ron Paul criticizes the US for "overthrowing" Mossadegh, a dictator who seized power in Iran unconstitutionally.
Aristide was legitimately elected and was deposed by an illegitimate military dictator.
Once restored to his elected office, Aristide did indeed turn on the Haitian Constitution and illegitimately overstayed his term of office, becoming a dictator.
But when the US returned Aristide to his rightful office, he did have a legitimate claim.
Well....at least you have some standards. A lot of folks here have proudly announced that they'd vote for big government typles like Sore Loserman or even Hillary over Ron Paul. I'm glad to hear you have some standards. Best, AWW
“Ron Paul would be better advised to concentrate on his stengths”
Which still means he is going to go nowhere, he and Dennis the Elf have that in common.
Simple solution, don't vote for Thompson.
I'm not a fan of Aristides, but it's fair to point out that he was elected, and removed from office twice with what most people think was the support of the US government.
If it was a grave error for the US to interfere with Iranian internal politics in the Shah's time, consistancy requires it also be a grave error to interfere in Haitian internal politics. I presume Ron Paul was opposed to Aristides removal, if not his claims about the Shah ring false.
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.