Ron Paul: 'U.S. Has Dug a Hole for Itself in Iraq' (Johns Hopkins Speech Today)

ABC News ^ | September 11, 2007

[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.

[rideharddiefast]

Honestly guys...you sit here and spew that Paul is only 2% in the polls and won't win anyway, but at the same time there's a creeping, gnawing fear of him running 3rd party and handing the election over to Hillary.

The best thing for TRUE Americans would be for cut and run to run on a third party ticket. He could call it the Appeasers Party. The only voters he will pick up are anti-American cowards, and those votes are already going to go to Hillary or Osama Obama.
RUN PAUL RUN. Oh that's what he wants to do already.

[rideharddiefast]

You don’t think Paul would respond hard if God forbid we were attacked again? He wouldn’t be going to the “international community” or the UN, that’s for sure.

First he would have to pull his head out from under the sand. Then he would have to figure out what the U.S. did to the poor terrorists that forced them to attack us. Then he would try to determine how to appease them some more so they will not do it again.

[Austin Willard Wright]

He's not normal

So you're one of those "normal" Americans eh? I've never met one of thos critters. Does that mean that you're "exactly average" in ability rather than "slightly above average." Do you have 2.5 children? Do you alway take the middle of the road position on every issue? Do you watch the ever "normal" Larry King and Jay Leno (but hate those shows such as South Park)? What does a normal guy wear these days? What kinds of music does he listen to?

Of course.....if you're "normal" one wonders what you're are doing on an "extreme" site like Free Republic which most "normal" Americans think is populated by rightwing whackos and "wingnuts."

[End Times Crusader]

Well, if anything your thread has brought out the Paul supporters and defenders that I was previously unaware of.
Thanks.

My updated list of Ru Paul supporters/defenders:

Extremely Extreme Extremist
JTN
Abcdefg
traviskicks
Austin Willard Wright
billbears
George W. Bush
jmeagan
cva66snipe
philman_36
LIBERTARIAN JOE
tacticalogic
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Oberon
KentuckyWoman
plain old dave
Turbopilot
padre35
takenoprisoner
NHGOPer
specsaregood
hedgetrimmer
John Farson
zeugma
cowtowney
hubbubhubbub
ksen
OrthodoxPresbyterian
saradippity
SubGeniusX
uxbridge
US at Risk
CJ Wolf
Napkin User
NascentDocent
winodog
deaconblues
fish70
Designer
Wolfie

[CJ Wolf]

You got a lot of time on your hands. George W. Bush would have just given you the ping list.

[End Times Crusader]

No problem; I consider it a public service.

[George W. Bush]

No, I wouldn’t. But I notice a number of people there that I didn’t know were RP supporters. Of course, not everyone on the RP pinglist list is a supporter either. Some just like a few of his issues but disagree with others. Of course, no one is in perfect agreement with their candidate on every issue.

[winodog]

I didnt actually say I supported Ron Paul. I just remarked about the hostility being displayed. But if it makes you feel special, by all means, feel free to use my name for your crusade.

[CJ Wolf]

“No problem; I consider it a public service.”

Thanks, I’ll just put you on my noob list.

[Turbopilot]

You have yet to explain why you’ve created your list or what interest you have in the people you’ve put on it. I’m still curious, if you’d care to explain.

Again, welcome to FR.

[George W. Bush]

Don’t bother. He’s a retread.

[billbears]

I’d think you could at least alphabetize it. It’d look better don’t you think? BTW, glad to see you support more government in the lives of the citizens of the respective states.

[cva66snipe]

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."

Well let's see now. 15 of the 9/11 attackers were Saud's Not a single one of them were Iraqi. What is the Bush policy on Saudi Arabia? Iraq was not a military threat. They had no Army, No Air Force, No Navy. We owned their skies remember? Yes indeed even if 9/11 had not happened the United States was headed for Iraq and Bush was gonna make certain of it. Now I ask you. Which made more sense? Use a limited strike force made up of hired guns or military units under Letters of Marque and or Reprisals to QUIETLY without fanfare and strutting kill Saddam and sons In doing so keeping our military ready for other threats, or take the nation into a 5 year war which has no end in sight? Kill the head of the beast and the Snake Dies with it.

In case you haven't looked our military is stretched paper thin thanks to Poppy/Cheney Congress since 1989, and then Clinton and congress to follow through current. Bush JR is also in a military downsizing mode. We are operating at 1996 End Troop Strengths.

OK we were attacked. Yemen also attacked us along with Sauds but hey what are friends for huh?

[padre35]

“And since they’re in Iraq, our action is even authorized by the first Authorization to Use Military Force, Paul voted yea, which puts no time or geographical constraints on the President.”

That trips over Atty General Gonzalez saying under oath “This is not a declared war”.

I will give Paul credit for that, we have no declaration of war per the Constitution.

[JTN]

Ron Paul would be better advised to concentrate on his stengths — tax elimination, the 2A, ...drastically reducing the size and scope of gov’t. But he appears intent on emphasizing his glaring weakness.

I think your perspective is a little to FR-centric. Remember that most Americans now think it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

[padre35]

There is no way Paul could actually run third party, he has no infrastructure or ballot access in the majority of states.

And I would definetely vote against a Paul third party candidacy, no thanks, it is going to be hard enough to beat the Clinton Machine without a Paul third party ticket sweeping up libertarians and Independents.

My view is that I would like “us” Republicans to develop a counter to the Dhimi online presence, and so far IMO Paul is doing that.

[padre35]

"Who said anything about denouncing him? I think he might hurt Hillary more. I’m thinking we might be better off if he runs." There might be something behind that, Paul taking this "innayaface" tact on the Iraq War could lead anti war Dems to vote Paul rather then the Clinton Machine. But man, that is not the reason why I like Ron Paul, for me, he is not emphasizing his Constitutionalist views quite enough to effect a change in some of our leading candidates positions on Taxes and shrinking Govt's scope and reach into our lives. Paul had a great article on "Why" the Mexican Truck Pilot program was getting a free pass while it goes against our stiltified and over regulated domestic trucking industry, something no other candidate mentions, and it got nowhere, he speaks at Johns Hopkins and he is anti Iraq War, and here we are at post #190+.

[traviskicks]

Do we have a transcript or video of this event? I’d hate to just read ABCs ‘take’ on it. :)

[George W. Bush]

Well let's see now. 15 of the 9/11 attackers were Saud's Not a single one of them were Iraqi.

Did you notice that Fox News clipped out Ron Paul's remarks about the Saudi involvement in terror attacks in Iraq and their role in 9/11? In the replays, they don't want anyone to hear that.

[George W. Bush]

Paul had a great article on "Why" the Mexican Truck Pilot program was getting a free pass while it goes against our stiltified and over regulated domestic trucking industry, something no other candidate mentions, and it got nowhere, he speaks at Johns Hopkins and he is anti Iraq War, and here we are at post #190+.

And we still don't even have the transcript. The noise-to-signal ratio on these threads is pretty high. Of course, that's part of the purpose of the Paul-haters.