‘lying sniviling traitor’ huh? how many insults can you fit in one sentence? lol
I think looking back we can all agree that something was wrong with the first invasion of Iraq. That American ‘intervention’ has apparently come back to haunt us and Paul’s criticism of that war has, in retrospect, proved to be correct. That said, I disagree with Paul’s angle of attack in this piece, a rare occasion where he truly does adopt leftist rhetoric. He’d be better off sticking to his principles of nonintervention rather than going down the same road as Michael Moore.
“That American ‘intervention’ has apparently come back to haunt us”
And sitting by while Iraqis raped, murdered, and pillaged their way across Kuwait, eyed the Saudi peninsula, and supported terror would have gotten us what exactly?
Yes, Saddam supported terror.
The only thing ‘wrong’ with the first WAR with Iraq was that we didn’t kill Saddam.
Get it right, we did NOT ‘invade’ Iraq, we liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion.
Saddam didn’t decide to cease hostilities and sign a surrender agreement until we were almost at his front door.
TK, I think this is a step forward, admitting he is on the same road as Michael Moore.
Yea, we didn’t get Ron Paul’s buddy, Saddam.
The only thing wrong with that intervention is that we let Hussein negotiate a peace rather than just killing him and making our own peace on our own terms.
That American ‘intervention’ has apparently come back to haunt us and Paul’s criticism of that war has, in retrospect, proved to be correct.
No, what has come back to haunt us was the weakness we showed in not erasing Saddam Hussein from the face of the earth. That failure has now been rectified.
Paul's criticism was not our failure to terminate Hussein - he criticized that war on the same stupid and traitorous grounds he criticizes this one: that he believes that America should always show weakness abroad at all times and wait to show strength until the weakness he advocates invites predators to attack the homeland.
His criticism was vile and pointless then and is now.
That said, I disagree with Paul’s angle of attack in this piece, a rare occasion where he truly does adopt leftist rhetoric. He’d be better off sticking to his principles of nonintervention rather than going down the same road as Michael Moore.
You view it as an anomaly in his rhetoric. What I see is a man who, at the time of writing, was not in Congress and not running for any office - a man who was therefore relaxed, unguarded and showing his true colors.
