Posted on 11/09/2007 11:37:32 AM PST by LSUfan
Try again, it’s not bias when it is backed by the truth....
He is an anti war surrender monkey...
This was exactly the same position taken by many of the “class of ‘94” Republicans.
And until Paul and Barr and Gingrich called out Clinton on calling a ‘reduction in the rate of increase’ a ‘budget cut’, CNN and the media at the time were giving Clinton a boost.
Damn you Paulites are not only arrogant, but thick.
It is irrelevant where you began, it is where you have ended up...
“Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!”- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007
Well I am not going to vote for another President who ignores our economy and bloats the government. Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who has actually recommended to reduce the size of the government below the year 2000 size. If the other candidates want to compete for my vote then they had better at least learn some more libertarian economic principles.
Good luck with that. We’ll keep the Muslims off your back while you get it sorted...
I know. It’s hard to tell.
That is the entire article.
Are you kidding me? 9-11 did not happen due to a lack of military resources. We had 10 times the military resources we would have ever needed to stop those attacks. Instead we had such a bloated government that it was impossible for one part to talk to another. Even with a military that could have easily taken out the airliners in plenty of time, the information was never passed. If the government was smaller then coordination would have been easier before and during the attacks. The defense budget (which was more than 1/3rd of the defense budget of the entire world at the time) was more than enough to have combated the attacks.
I agree with you on bloated government and our departments can’t talk to each other; but the military budget was cut.
I would like to see the departments moved around the country instead of being in one place. Too much concentrated power can not be good.
And I don’t know that our military would have been ready to do this epsecially after the Clintons and 8 years.
Cutting the defense budget had nothing to do with it nor did it bring about 9/11 ™ (trademark belongs to the campaign of St. Rudy)
I used 9-11; not 9/11. LOL
I think we could easily cut our troops out of where they are in over 100 countries and close some of those bases, save a few billion here or there, soon it’s real money. :)
They weren't. But I don't think it was due to the budget cuts. I think the Clinton military doctrine is what did that. I don't think the Clinton Administration realized that the US itself could still be a target. I think Clinton was too worried about being the leader of the world government to actually consider that the US itself could be attacked.
I can agree with you there.
He needs to run as the green party candidate or he becomes Ross Perot #3.
Which is why they have no place on a coservative message board.
Ahhh, the much esteemed Peace Dividend, crystallized in time by the image of WTC I & II spewing smoke on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
We sure captured attention on 11/05, didn't we? How much money did Hunter raise? A mayonnaise jar full of pennies?
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.