Posted on 07/03/2010 2:56:48 PM PDT by speciallybland
LAKE JACKSON, Texas -- Congressman Ron Paul today issued the following statement on Michael Steele’s recent comments that Afghanistan is a war of President Obama’s choosing:
“I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today. He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.
“Michael Steele should not resign. Smart policies make smart politics. He is guiding the party in the right direction and we are on the verge of victory this fall. Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.
“I have to ask myself, what is the agenda of the harsh critics demanding this resignation? Why do they support Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war?
“The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military. Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”
Yup.
Dr. Paul isn’t a loon. He simply wants us out of the wars (which I disagree with) b/c he thinks they go against American interest. I support our troops and the wars but I like Dr. Paul’s way of thinking. We need to focus on AMERICA and not sell out to the UN and the rest of the world. Our country is already under illegal mexican invasion and all our business is going to China (communist) and Indonesia (muslim) so what’s left of America these days? We need to move back to Americanism and the Constitution and Dr. Paul understands that.
This is the difference between Dr. Paul and N0bama. Dr. Paul wants to end the wars but he strongly supports the troops. Obama hates the troops.
I support our troops. We should never send them off and then not provide proper support. However, Afghanistan is not the same as Iraq and it IS Obama’s war. I think he made noises about it to look tough, then figured he could do nothing. McChrystal put an end to that plan by outing his request last autumn.
Steel is right on this and the other ‘gaffes’. He is trying to shape the party to reflect what wins: fiscal responsibility and personal liberty.
Yes. And Obama does NOT support our troops. Dr. Paul does and wants to bring America back to what America was intended to be.
Agreed. Interesting that Ron Paul won the CPAC mock election. Between Palin, Paul, and Steel, I hope they can guide the Republican party wisely. The party looses when it goes into the weeds of rigid social conservatism [and where is that in the Constitution?] and/or ‘compassionate’ conservatism aka big government dooty with a pretty bow tied around it.
Ahhhh, another RINO rejecting social conservatism and its’ inherent link to fiscal conservatism. You can’t have one without the other.
The problem is that no one knows what " 'winning' in Afghanistan" means.
BTW, Ron Paul is one of the few voices of rationality on this issue.
Serious conservatives were primarily anti war as you call it for decades before this new modern era of politics began after Reagan.
The proper term to use is not anti-war, but anti-interventionism and/or nation building. The 9/11 attacks changed this as a knee jerk reaction. Even Bush, in the runup to his first term, was anti-interventionist or in his case anti-nation building.
There are certainly just wars with this belief but Paul would not likely approve of even that with his libertarianism. Steele is not anti-war but he shares Reagan's anti-direct interventionism or nation building that has always led to failure since post WWII.
True. Obama also hates this nation.
well if a Paul supports Steele then Steele is even worse than known!
He's been consistent on this matter for 50 years. He has never seen a war that I know of that he felt was worth fighting, unless the continental US were to be attacked by a armed force with tanks and such.
That is his view and he repeats it often. It is also the view of the oldtime Republican party core that opposed Korea, Vietnam and would if they still existed, Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat Buchanan is a good representation of that.
That's ridiculous.
If Obama announced tomorrow, "As Commander-in-Chief I am ordering all US Military units to immediately commence a land, sea, and air campaign of annihilation against the terrorist State of Israel -- Allahu Akbar!", would you say that we should support "victory, only victory"?
NO! Such an imperialistic campaign of aggression against Israel would unquestionably be an immoral and unjust war. When considering such an immoral and unjust war, the proper Christian, Patriotic, and Pro-Troops response would be to demand, "End the War and bring the Troops home!"
Even if one believes, "My Country, Right or Wrong" (and I sympathize with this sentiment, even if I didagree with it), that's a sentiment which STILL falls far short of, "Whatever-President-Obama-orders-the-Troops-to-do, Right or Wrong"!
disagree, not didagree
See #54.
Argh! Also see #55 (though I agree with #54, also).
Really? Do tell. How so?
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.