Posted on 03/24/2010 8:36:48 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
Chief of the U.S. Military: Shut down Guantanamo Bay
Published on 25 May 2009 by admin in General News, In The Media
Admiral Mike Mullen stated it simply, “I’d like to see it shut down.” Mullen believes Guantanamo has significantly damaged the reputation of the United States, even going so far as to say (in other articles) that it has been a powerful recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. Rand couldn’t agree more. Rand believes America can fight terrorism and maintain its moral integrity without resorting to offshore prison camps, “prolonged detention”, and other, highly questionable legal measures. For Rand, national security and the rule of law go hand in hand. More and more high-ranking military officials are confirming his position.
LOL. Blindfolds and maybe a cig for the current bunch, is that what you’re saying?
May I ask what set you off on the personal attacks?
I thought we made a few posts to each other, now you seem enraged.
I am not a Paulist either, I asked you to quit making things up for me.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Cheney has endorsed Grayson. . .and so think I will go with him. That and the fact that IMHO, a Republican convert is still better than a confirmed Libertarian - worse a Green Libertarian (?) - running under Republican name/banner. Paul's belief in limited Government does not override his more very critical defeciencies per his foreign policy views; including Afghanistan, Iran. . .'war on terror'; Gitmo et al - which more closely mirror our current occupant of White House.
As Sara Palin is tied into the Tea Party; it is only politically natural for her to endorse Paul - and to make a substantial contribution to his Campaign. (The next logical question; would you be supporting McCain for the same reason?)
This reminds of the taxi driver I mentioned in another post. . .who 'guessed' he was for healthcare bill because Obama was a Democrat and so was he. Whatever the case; it will be an interesting - and telling - election.
And a very critical one for Republican Party. . .
RandPo must have forgotten that Gitmo is a military base.
I don’t trust “Gays in the military” Cheney, nor the Romney crowd. I do trust Palin. Grayson and his support seem weak to me, as far as McCain, that is a unique situation for Palin and like Jim Robinson and Rush Limbaugh I accept it.
Didn’t you also have a lot of faith in Mitt Romney back in the day, your name seems familiar?
Yes Concerned Women for America, Steve Forbes, Governor Palin, Gun Owners of America make me take notice.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson endorsing, gays in the military, pro Romney Cheneys also lead me to an impression about Grayson, the fact that his own state turned against Grayson gives me an impression also.
Rand Paul is not some remote, third party guy on a quixotic mission, he is the GOP front runner for the Republican nomination for the Senate.
Ah, Bill Johnson, why did you drop out?
Save your breath, Rand is a nut.
Oh, Lord have mercy...
Because he couldn't get off the ground, realclearpolitics never even showed him in the polling.
“I haven’t kept up with Steve Forbes since I supported him in 2000”
I’m a big Forbes fan but he’s dead wrong on Rand Paul.
A problem that I have with that is that this isn’t his dad, safe in a little congressional seat somewhere, this is a first time race for a Senate seat against an experienced, well supported opponent that had a 15 point lead in July of 2009 among the Kentucky voters, now Rand Paul has a twelve point lead over that politician and a commanding lead over his Democrat opposition, the people there are not seeing things the way that you are.
What is the general consensus on Forbes here, is he seen as conservative, moderate, or what?
The problem with the scum bucket politicians is well they are scum.
Let’s get them out. Cleanse our states and Washington DC.
I’ll say it one more time. Save your breath, Rand is nuts.
The truth spoken. . .it is NOT Gitmo that is the problem - it IS our response to the enemy playing the victim card. Appease; and another card is pulled - and another. It is this weakness - like blood in the water - that excites and inspires our enemy.
Hate that Repubs feel compelled to even debate this fraudulent, Gitmo hypothesis put forth by our radical and terrorist-sympathetic Left - and on behalf of this enemy. (We have only to look at CAIR and and a host of rising Islamic Organizations to see same modeling of Left's MO per NAACP et al 'victim' organizations.) When doing so; wish they would stick to KISS MO and nail the Gitmo argument with some easy 'truth bites'. Like soft-serve ice cream, for example/lol. . .
This enemy could not be more inspired, thanks to it's benefactors. . .
As for support team; find Grayson's far more impressive that Paul's. And while I believe Cheney is quite wrong on 'Gay Military issue' - do not think that should invalidate his strength and wisdom of 'Leadership'- a wisdom that neither Rand nor his Father share - if only in comparing most important Foreign policy perspectives; but of course, it is larger than that. (And doubt, had Cheney been President, would he have made it an issue or a priority - despite the Left's best efforts. He has Gay daughter and MSM loves to press him hard to share his opinion - which now is a fairly safe one; as he is not in office.) It does not mean either; that Grayson shares this particular view.
In truth; if we have more Repubs like Paul morphing Repub Party; our Military will be rendered null and void - irrespective of Military 'outing'. What is Paul's position here? Do you know?
As for Romney; initially chose him over McCain. Voted for McCain because he was right on our Military and Foreign policy; and appreciated greatly, the gift of 'spine' that Sarah brought to ticket. Right now; I don't have a candidate and Repubs do not either.
There are no A-B linear lines here. Clearly, you have your own strange twists and turns to justify your choices and the rationale behind them. (Do you think Sarah really chose Paul, only because she thought he would be a good Senator for Kentucky'?) Hope not.
Think Sarah cannot and will not endorse any 'mainstream' Republican as they have not in any way supported her. Of course, McCain exception. ..and he did support her. That was her 'pay' to McCain and RNC - and the only one, I suspect. Should she run; think she knows it 'most likely' will be in 'third party mix-mileu'; the same as Paul - albeit; a slightly different mix per Tea Party.)
LOL/ and my thought as well!
That's exactly right -- and exactly why this is really a non-issue.
The fact is, Rand Paul's position on the Guantanamo Bay detention center is not materially different from that of President George W. Bush in May 2006.
Bush would like end to Guantanamo
US President George W Bush has said he would like to "end" the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
But in an interview on German TV he says he must wait for a Supreme Court ruling on whether inmates could be tried by military or civilian courts....
"We're at war with an enemy. And obviously we've got to protect ourselves," said Mr Bush.
"I would very much like to end Guanatanamo," he went on.
"I would very much like to get people to a court."
The Supreme Court is expected to decide in June whether military tribunals can hear the cases of the detainees.
White House National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Mr Bush was repeating a long-held policy that the US "has no intention of permanently detaining individuals".
In May of 2006, the President made several observations on the Guantanamo Bay detention center:
While Rand Paul can certainly (and, I think, justifiably) be accused of "flip-flopping" on what parts of his beliefs about Gitmo he chooses to emphasize (and yes, that admittedly is "playing to the audience"); nonetheless, the sum of Rand Paul's declared position on the subject, as stated between May and November of 2009:
These are statements which are not substantially different from the concerns and policy intentions regarding Guantanamo Bay which were expressed by President Bush himself, in his May 2006 interview on this very subject. Rand Paul has (blatantly) changed his emphases in response to Grayson's attacks on the subject, but he's hardly "off the reservation" in having expressed reservations which echo those of President Bush himself!
Isn’t that special?
I was on a thread the other day with some Paulinistas
who seemed to think he was the most awesomest.
I remain unconvinced.
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.