PDA

View Full Version : Opinion Editorial: McCain, Huckabee Shine; Romney's Missed Opportunity; Paul Falls




LibertyEagle
09-11-2007, 10:59 AM
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20070911.html

skilt
09-11-2007, 11:04 AM
Again an article critical soft on the facts. Some one like this is definitely not open minded to the issue. Keep on chuggin'. I told three people today about RP, and was able to get two of them to watch a youtube video. They were both intrigued That's what's going to win this thing.

SK

LibertyEagle
09-11-2007, 11:05 AM
Oh, I agree. Dr. Paul was WONDERFUL in the debate. I was beaming from ear to ear.

hard@work
09-11-2007, 11:05 AM
However, to listen to Paul’s objections one would assume the incursion occurred for nefarious reasons.

Someone just watches television. How did he find the internet anyways? Was this posted for him?

:)

Zydeco
09-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Don't be discouraged by the Tokyo Roses and Baghdad Bobs in the CFR-controlled media.

In fact, be encouraged -- they know the Ron Paul Revolution is eventually going to take them down. The United States Constitution will prevail!

The Only Woj
09-11-2007, 12:02 PM
is anyone surprised?

look at the bottom of the article ... the writer is a former liberal democrat who is now a conservative ... isn't that was a "neo-con" is?

Shellshock1918
09-11-2007, 12:04 PM
The guy's a moron. We didn't declare war, we haven't since World War II.

ButchHowdy
09-11-2007, 12:29 PM
is anyone surprised?

look at the bottom of the article ... the writer is a former liberal democrat who is now a conservative ... isn't that was a "neo-con" is?

THAT definition works for me!

johnrocks
09-11-2007, 12:40 PM
He was a liberal just a few years ago who voted for Clinton/Gore(says at end of article), sounds like fresh neo-con meat to me.

American
09-11-2007, 12:42 PM
LibertyBegal, are you on some special anti Ron Paul list, another BS post negative of Ron Paul...

BillyBeer
09-11-2007, 12:45 PM
He was a liberal just a few years ago who voted for Clinton/Gore(says at end of article), sounds like fresh neo-con meat to me.

Maybe its drunk Chris Hitchens using an alias?

Qiu
09-11-2007, 12:46 PM
One of the greatest dangers posed by individuals like Congressman Paul is that, if taken seriously, they will lead the nation far astray, forcing Americans to forget why it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein in the first place
lol

Dary
09-11-2007, 12:46 PM
I sent him an email....

Is Huckabee wrong when he says that the honorable thing for Republicans to do is to lose to Hillary?

He hasn't responded.

Qiu
09-11-2007, 12:48 PM
Paul proposes an isolationist posture that demands America remain within its own walls, praying that its enemies will stay away. That reckless policy would lead to catastrophes that would make 9/11 look like a parking lot fender bender.
Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I don't see people lining up to invade Switzerland. A true reckless policy is one that breeds contempt for us through intervention.

Original_Intent
09-11-2007, 01:13 PM
I emailed the following to the author.

Joe,

I found one part of your article regarding the most recent debate disingenuous at best - your reference to Congress passing the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” This did not meet the Constitutional requirment of a declaration of war. Congress cannot cede the war making power to the president, as that would require a constitutional amendment.

Some have argued that the AUMF is equivalent to a declaration of war. Again, this is not the case, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the motion for a declaration of war, which was brought to the floor of Congress was unanimously defeated. If they are the same then why did one get not a single vote of support and the other passed?

I am not sure if you have a political agenda or if you are just misinformed. Congressman Paul has, from the outset, argued against this war and accurately warned of the situation we would find ourselves in if we embarked on this war. He was virtually alone in this stance as most of the GOP was saying the war would be a cakewalk (wrong) and the other party was deciding that yes, we needed to go to war, then undermining our fighing men and women for political ends by making the war a political issue and essentially fighting for us to lose the war.

You indicate that Paul has been inconsistent in his positions, yet it was Cheney who said that the first Iraq war did not remove Saddam because they determined that removing Saddam from power would be to costly both in money and in US lives.

There was a time when this country's war policy was "Don't tread on me". Your article indicates that such thinking is isolationist and you obviously believe we should pre-emptively strike any nation that appears to be becoming a threat. Well at least as long as they are small enough that we can bully them, I am guessing you do not advocate an invasion of nuclear China, who have long maintained that they feel that war with the US is inevitable.