So why is it that his defining issue is losing the Iraq war? When people think of Ron Paul, they dont think of solid conservatism. They think of this kooky squirrel-like oddball whose tantrums over cutting and running from Iraq have suspiciously become even more shrill now that we are having success there.
I think it's important to keep perspective on that. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are very broadly defined. No one has yet offered a valid definition for 'victory' in these areas. Right now it appears that the way forward is through nation-building. Yet we have not truly shocked these peoples as we did the Germans and the Japanese during WWII. Furthermore, the Germans and the Japanese were advanced societies with central figures of authority who were either eliminated or drawn into the cause of pacifying their countries.
It's not kooky to point out that there isn't a valid exit strategy yet.
Congressman Paul is a leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. As a congressman, Dr Paul tirelessly worked for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.
Sounds real liberal doesn't it? Ron Paul is THIRD on my list of candidates to vote for (Hunter, Tancredo then Paul) but this crusade some of you on here have against Ron Paul because of Iraq is ridiculous. It is NOT a litmus test on how conservative one is. When Clinton was in office Ron Paul had well over a 90% conservative rating from every organization. It dropped to around 70 since Bush has gotten into office because he votes AGAINST entitlement spending increases which these ACU, etc say are 'conservative' because they are smaller than the Democrats. Balogney.
The Ron Paul Anti-War Lefties don't like to hear about that. It's like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.