Neo-conned

The Liberty Committee ^ | July 10, 2003 | Rep. Ron Paul

[EBUCK]

Many civil rights groups that are anti Patiot act are backed by World Workers.Frustrating but true,huh?

Then many "civil rights groups that are anti Patiot act" are being duped into being right...what a bummer.

[hchutch]

The fact that some who call themselves "conservatives" object to this statement frightens me more.

We were hit with an unprovoked sneak attack. We are at war. I want victory. If that is so objectionable, then back Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich or whoever else you think will do the best job of appeasement and surrender, but have the honesty to call it that.

This is not "for the children" - this is about preserving our country's security. We cannot co-exist with state sponsors of terrorism any longer. Either they fall, or we will fall. PNAC is intent on making the enemy fall into the dustbin of history.

If you have a better alternative, present the case. No "neocon" tinfoil theories, no phony Constitutional issues, present a better way to do it.

[EBUCK]

I miss the old days when I had
an attention span greater than
a gnat. Maybe Ron Paul could
bring out a Dummies version...
:)

Ron's speech for dummies...

Government Bad.
Liberty Good.
Governemnt is getting bigger.
Liberty is getting lesser.

[MEG33]

I meant that two sides have the same enemy.Would you protest the war or the Patriot act with a Commie sponsor?Civil Rights and ant war has been a mainstay of the commies as it uses our own rules against us since the 20s,30s,40s,and til now.One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is Make them obey their own rules.Our strength..our very Constitution and Bill of Rights is used to further causes that would do away with both.

[Zviadist]

We were hit with an unprovoked sneak attack. We are at war. I want victory.

And this has something to do with Iraq exactly how...?

[gcruse]

Thank you! That's pure Ron Paul, alright.

[Tauzero]

" I want victory."

Victory can't be achieved if it isn't well-defined in the first place. And even well-defined victory conditions might not be attainable.

[billbears]

We were hit with an unprovoked sneak attack. We are at war. I want victory

And Iraq was involved in 9/11 how again? 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, Saudis still supported terrorists after 9/11, yet this nation decides to go after Saddam Hussein to find what? A couple of bags of beans and a centrifuge.

This is not "for the children" - this is about preserving our country's security. We cannot co-exist with state sponsors of terrorism any longer. Either they fall, or we will fall. PNAC is intent on making the enemy fall into the dustbin of history.

Perhaps you may want to reread their intent. PNAC is intent on making the rest of the world subservient to the government of these United States through 'leadership'

[EBUCK]

Would you protest the war or the Patriot act with a Commie sponsor?

I would and do protest the PatAct regardless of sponsor. And I verbally protested the war "before" we went as I would have regardless of sponsor.

I did (and do) on the basis of principle not according to political affiliation nor perceived political gain.

Civil Rights and ant war has been a mainstay of the commies as it uses our own rules against us since the 20s,30s,40s,and til now.One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is Make them obey their own rules.Our strength..our very Constitution and Bill of Rights is used to further causes that would do away with both.

I think you might consider that using our rights against us is the most effective way of removing our rights and moving us toward a more sympathetic frame of mind....the play is three or four moves ahead rather than the 1 or 2 you are considering.

Regards.....

[EBUCK]

I ran the whole speech thru my dummy-o-down-o-matic-o-tron 2000, still has a few bugs but is well on it's way to meeting the '04 rollout date.

[hchutch]

Look at these articles:

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908298.shtml?Element_ID=34908298

The Weekly Standard ALSO reported on the list.

But this leads to some interesting questions.

[u-89]

Wrong. Russia had pretty much been defeated by the time we entered the war. A successful revolution took place in February, 1917 -- two months before we declared war, and a full year before we began serious combat operations in Europe.

You are looking only at our official entry into the war but our loans and ammunition supply while we were "neutral" had a big effect on the war efforts and policy aims of all the combatants and the eventual outcome. So the vast right wing conspiracy is not wrong about how our intervention made one giant bloody expensive mess out of the whole century.

[EBUCK]

So the vast right wing conspiracy is not wrong about how our intervention made one giant bloody expensive mess out of the whole century.

I wouldn't go that far. We had a lot of help from other less than perfect nations.

[Zviadist]

Give me a break... Not even the White House has definitively made a link between the two. Two obscure articles and the Weekly Standard (the neo-con bible)? Sorry, not buying that week-old dead fish.

[hchutch]

Look up ricin and how nasty that was.

And a centrifuge for enriching uranium. You enrich uraniaum to make it weapons-grade.

And how is promoting poltical and economic freedom making other nations subserviant? What sort of twisted logic leads to that conclusion?

When would you have acted? After an American city disappears in a flash of light brighter than a thousand suns? When sarin is released in airports or shopping malls across the country?

[r9etb]

You are looking only at our official entry into the war but our loans and ammunition supply while we were "neutral" had a big effect on the war efforts and policy aims of all the combatants and the eventual outcome. So the vast right wing conspiracy is not wrong about how our intervention made one giant bloody expensive mess out of the whole century.

Are you sure you're not talking about World War Two?

In WWI, even if we had provided ammo and loans the Czar (we didn't, BTW), it obviously did nothing to prevent Russia's military collapse and the ascension of the Communists.

And you need to explain why a little prevention in the mid-30s would not have been preferable to the need to spend thousands of lives in the 40s.

[Poohbah]

And you need to explain why a little prevention in the mid-30s would not have been preferable to the need to spend thousands of lives in the 40s.

Think about it. Why WOULD some folks think that preventive warfare against ol' Adolph would be a bad thing?

(Cue Final Jeopardy theme music.)

[EBUCK]

And how is promoting poltical and economic freedom

Funny way to describe the invasion of another country, as a prompt, talk about sugar coated cow excrement.

[huck von finn]

A couple of bags of beans and a centrifuge.

That about sums it up.

[hchutch]

Perhaps, but if Saddam did assist al-Qaeda, he was fair game under that war. And certainly, after 9/11, one cannot fault anyone for reassessing information they had in a new light.

That seems to be what the neo-cons were doing as far back as 1997, and it seems that their warnings were prescient.

Dismissing it as something from the "neocons" is not sufficient. Refute their arguments, if you can.