[ejonesie22]

I remember reading that some time ago. That is the basis that was our involvement in Iraq and else where. The issue is the points mainly in 2 and 3. Both sides in this issues, Bush and the congress have not been at their best. Bush has not prosecuted this war to win IMHO, for reasons I can’t put my finger directly. The congress is full of idiots that surpass anything Reagan would have known.

The rationale for our actions is sound, the execution is flawed and the support damaged by irrational anti American zealots (Dims, KOS kids and their ilk). I think the challenge for Paul is that in the minds of many he questioned the reason not the execution. While that maybe his point, it is lost in the reality of the world today.

I have read several statements about Reaganesque qualities. I feel several Candidates could claim parts of that including Paul, for many of his stances are the same. But there is one Reagan quality I always appreciated, pragmatism. He would understand the rules had changed, and based on the 4 points above hew would very likely have taken the same actions with one caveat...

He would do it to win, no questions asked.

[t_skoz]

I agree about the pragmatic part, which is why I think you’re wrong on your final analysis. Remember, this is from Reagan’s memoirs. I really don’t think that the planes crashing into the buildings changed the whole entire world enough were we need to ignore history. And I am a New Yorker. Best regards,