“Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!”

Never underestimate the pure stupidity of the electorate. Bush. 8 years. First 4? I can see a mistake, but the second 4?

President Huckabee...well...gawwwwwwleeeeee.

Yeah, but...if Hillary's the nominee we will be facing a choice between a Republican who supported for the war and a Democrat who supported the war.

I agree republicans are gonna crash and burn this time over Iraq and the accumulation of a multitude of sins now publicly known and in some cases even acknowledged in an attempt at damage control... They are done for this cycle unless the dems really shoot themselves in the foot which they haven't quite managed to do yet... though there are indications they are trying. However ConcernedCanuck, without neccessarily disagreeing with your comment regarding the stupidity quotient in this country, I would differ with the details somewhat.. Bush,the first four years...
Result of a stolen election... the second four years, a combination of stupidity, ignorance and denial in 59 million people... Barely a majority and certainly not enough to qualify the lame Bush comment of a mandate... But just enough to screw us all...JD

This can't be a real video. It's a Republican debate and they are talking about relevant issues.

Ron Paul refers extensively to the constitution. He should be reminded that there is companion document in the American litany, one that railed against tyrants that placed themselves above the law and abused the power that rightly belongs to the people. Or has the Declaration of Independence been placed on a terrorist reading list?

Why the Rebugnicunts will win: False Flags.

I'll second others in that the Republicans will win if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. I'm sure all her cult members have rationalized or forgotten her enabling of Bush for the Iraqi war, but many of us haven't and will vote third party rather than voting for this corrupt politician.

ConcernedCanuck @ 1:

“Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!”

Never underestimate the pure stupidity of the electorate. Bush. 8 years. First 4? I can see a mistake, but the second 4?

The democrats are getting wrecked in message control. Of course, the sub prime crisis thrust the economy to the forefront, but the democrats have done an awful job of keeping Iraq a top issue in the media and in the public discourse with respect to the election. I'm looking at a CBS/NTY poll of top issues in the election - in December voters were asked what the most important issue facing the country was and 25% said the war in Iraq, while 12% said the economy or jobs. Now in January 23% say the economy and 22% say the iraq war. We've also seen a rise of McCain favorability numbers in the same period, which is probably attributable to this shift in public focus (remember how awfully he was doing only a few months ago when all we cared about was the war?)

I'll be interested to see if the republicans are able to keep the economy as the top issue for the rest of the election, effectively pushing Iraq off the table.

But all that aside, what terrified me most about this video was Gov. Huckabee's suggestion that we should be thankful that President Bush had the courage to implement and execute a policy of military preemption. Thank god that man is out of money.

You'd like to think Iraq is going to hurt the repukes but ... sadly, McCain, the guy who wants to throw 100,000 more troops into Iraq, polls pretty well against both Hillary and Obama.

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

Except the repubs will frame the debate this way: support a bad decision or support amerrika surrendering.

Guess who will win that debate?

Filthy Harry @ 22:

Except the repubs will frame the debate this way: support a bad decision or support amerrika surrendering.

Guess who will win that debate?

Dem response: we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq. It is time to come home.

Joementum @ 18:

You'd like to think Iraq is going to hurt the repukes but ... sadly, McCain, the guy who wants to throw 100,000 more troops into Iraq, polls pretty well against both Hillary and Obama.

Iraq does hurt Republicans. Remember, we all thought John McCain was down and out when he was the only war canidate. Everyone thought it was suicide when he said the surge was working and we should stay in Iraq.

But then the sub prime crisis hit and recession fears came out, and the Republicans seized the opprotunity to change the conversation. Now Iraq is hardly in the news except to point out the surge is working and violence is down, and voters care more about the economy than Iraq. As long as this (voters caring more about something other than Iraq) is the case, McCain, and by extension Republicans, will poll well.

Uncle Jack @ 15:

...Is it just me?....or is Ron Paul a dead ringer for Dr. Timothy Leary?

Timothy Leary's dead
No, no, no
He's outside looking in

You are spot on! I've been trying to figuree that out for a long time!

James @ 25:

Ian McGarrett @ 11:

Ron Paul refers extensively to the constitution. He should be reminded that there is companion document in the American litany, one that railed against tyrants that placed themselves above the law and abused the power that rightly belongs to the people. Or has the Declaration of Independence been placed on a terrorist reading list?

Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?

Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution is that one is a mission statement, the other is SUPPOSED to be the LAW.

Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW.

Yeah. The law of the jungle

they will lose because they have destroyed the country. they have shredded the constitution, and most of them have pledged to keep on shredding.

Left&Left @ 20:

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

your an idiot if you think ron paul is a racist. just shut up and go sit in the corner.

the last time i seen editing like that was on fox noise!

Michael B. @ 8:

Why the Republicans will win this election: Hillary Clinton. Why Republicans will win back Congress and many state and local contests: Hillary Clinton down-ticket backlash.

Pleeeeeease, I want some of what you are either snorting or smoking !!

ConcernedCanuck @ 21:

Necadawg Says @ 13:

ConcernedCanuck @ 1:

“Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!”

Never underestimate the pure stupidity of the electorate. Bush. 8 years. First 4? I can see a mistake, but the second 4?

You must not remember that the second four was the result of a rigged election.
No one declared war on the USA. We are not in a war.We are in an occupation of a free world country. Al-Queda is world wide. There is no cenral Al-Queda headquarters in Iraq. We are there pure and simply for defense and Big oil companies to extort every last dime out of the American public.

Rigged election or not, millions STILL voted for the buffoon. I understand the 25 percenters being to mental to grasp reality in any election, but to even have an election close enough to steal? EEKS. Why do Americans hate America?

I don't agree with a lot you say, but your last sentence...I like it.

Why do Americans hate America?

It's a good question to ask.

they will lose because they have destroyed the country. they have shredded the constitution, and most of them have pledged to keep on shredding.

Then, after four years with Dems holding the bag,
will it be Jeb in '12?

Doggiebobo @ 38:

Michael B. @ 8:

Why the Republicans will win this election: Hillary Clinton. Why Republicans will win back Congress and many state and local contests: Hillary Clinton down-ticket backlash.

Pleeeeeease, I want some of what you are either snorting or smoking !!

No you don't Doggiebobo, I think he's snorting dried dog poo. (no offense)

The Truthiness Hurts @ 45:

The Republican party must be in a bad state when "the crazy guy" amongst them is the one talking the most sense...

True

Ryan from Portland @ 34:

Left&Left @ 20:

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

your an idiot if you think ron paul is a racist. just shut up and go sit in the corner.

Left&Left @ 20:

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

next time wipe the crap off your fingers before you speak, ron paul is a known racist.

Ruthless People @ 41:

To know why combat dodging chickenhawks are pro-war one need look now further than the king of all war-profiteering combat dodging chickenhawks: Dick Cheney http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

....oh, and one more thing. After being outed by Lautenberg Cheney claims he's going to give that 8 million to charity. If you believe that then you also believe there are WMDs still in Iraq. Halliburton is moving it's headquarters to Dubai while Cheney's stock options are going through the roof. Arrest Cheney for crimes against humanity, murder and war-pofiteering before 2009 and before he flees the country.

McCain only looks good to independents (and he's still not getting the majority) because of the other Repug candidates. Once independent fully digest the fact that McCain has no "vision" for this country other than exhausting our treasury on NeoCon military ventures, they'll cool real fast. Which hasn't gone unnoticed among the RNC, so expect McCain to be derailed by the Republicans themselves. Which leaves Romney, I guess.

Regardless of who wins, the Insurgency will go on.

[Deleted]

Rusty Shackleford @ 30:

James @ 25:

Ian McGarrett @ 11:

Ron Paul refers extensively to the constitution. He should be reminded that there is companion document in the American litany, one that railed against tyrants that placed themselves above the law and abused the power that rightly belongs to the people. Or has the Declaration of Independence been placed on a terrorist reading list?

Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?

Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution is that one is a mission statement, the other is SUPPOSED to be the LAW.

Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW.

Yeah. The law of the jungle

Yeah. The problem with the "Law of the Jungle" is that it's not written down anywhere, so it's completely up to interpretation. The only reason why I used the example above is because, if anyone thinks the Declaration has ANY legal sway at all, then one MUST conclude that it's LEGAL to secede from a tyrannical government.

The point being, we've been taught history from the viewpoint of the victors, not the defeated. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that the winners didn't gloss over their inhumanities.

Ron Paul has everything that the supposedly "conservatives" want, except a belligerent foreign policy. In fact, Ron Paul has more in common with a Jeffersonian DEMOCRAT than he does with a Lincolnian REPUBLICAN!

Peace.

dadams @ 48:

Ryan from Portland @ 34:

Left&Left @ 20:

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

your an idiot if you think ron paul is a racist. just shut up and go sit in the corner.

Left&Left @ 20:

Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.

next time wipe the crap off your fingers before you speak, ron paul is a known racist.

I think Racist would revel in a war with middle eastern people. I think a racist wouldn't have MLK as one of their heros. I think a racist would have a totalitarian platform to suppress other racists...... Ron Paul is none of these... Actions speak louder than words.

Too bad for us all that the Clintons are so egocentric. As if there is no one else who could be president other than a Clinton. Why don't they go away for a decade or so and prepare Chelsea for the role. We don't need them, in fact they are negative factors. But Chelsea is not tainted by their roles in government. Let's wish the Clintons could think of other than themselves.

Can't support Ron Paul, but man anything he says about Foreign Policy is right on the money. If there was a democrat who could speak about Iraq the way RP does, the nomination would have already been wrapped up.

Necadawg Says @ 57:

John Rawls @ 51:

Lalo @ 37:

oh yeah, I forgot. Rich people don't fight wars, only poor people get their hands dirty.

Actually the military is made up disproportionatly of folks from middle-class homes. The very poor and the very rich represent the lowest proportional contributors to the military, with the rich being more represented than the poor.

The median soldier is better educated and from an equally rich household than the median american.

I think people are referring to the grunts. They are the ones who are getting their hands dirty.

The data I looked at to make that post was a study of enlisted men, who I assume make up the majority of grunts. This isn't looking at the entire army including ROTC folks and Westpointe grads, who I suspect would skew the figures even more against the poor man's burden hypothesis.

There's no evidence to suggest that the poor people are discriminated against and funneled into the grunts in any way. In fact, the statistical clustering around income and education among recruits makes such a practice basically impossible.

These guys, Ron Paul excepted, are like those dolls of which you pull the string and they always say the same thing. They share similar IQs, too.

The reason the audience agreed with him is that it wasn't filtered by Faux Noise and Frank Luntz to have only neocons in it.
Fuck you Frank!

John Rawls @ 65:

Necadawg Says @ 57:

John Rawls @ 51:

Lalo @ 37:

Actually the military is made up disproportionatly of folks from middle-class homes. The very poor and the very rich represent the lowest proportional contributors to the military, with the rich being more represented than the poor.

The median soldier is better educated and from an equally rich household than the median american.

I think people are referring to the grunts. They are the ones who are getting their hands dirty.

The data I looked at to make that post was a study of enlisted men, who I assume make up the majority of grunts. This isn't looking at the entire army including ROTC folks and Westpointe grads, who I suspect would skew the figures even more against the poor man's burden hypothesis.

There's no evidence to suggest that the poor people are discriminated against and funneled into the grunts in any way. In fact, the statistical clustering around income and education among recruits makes such a practice basically impossible.

I wish the poor man's burden was more of a reality. It is bad enough losing one of my soldiers in an attack...its harder when I know that they didn't join out out of necessity, but because they truly believed in the cause. Give me a few more "just in it for the money" folk and it would make those combat zones a little less intimidating.

Chris @ 66:

Pete @ 60:

I was with Ron Paul until this point:

"we should never be a country that starts war(s) needlessly"

Take out the bold type and I would agree completely... but the bold is there, and the underlying attitude that somehow, someway, it is at times okay for the US to start wars, we just need the right rationalization... something like WMD or another contrived cock and bull story that the unwitting, unwashed and bloodthirsty public can really sink their teeth into.

What, you mean like if we got attacked by another country, that's not a good reason to start a war? It's interesting when you listen to him and read some of the things he's written that he thinks the vast majority of wars our country has been engaged in were needless -- Iraq, Viet Nam to name just a couple. I guess it depends on what you define as starting a war. I think what Ron Paul really meant there was "we should never be a country goes to war needlessly.

I think RP would agree with this - borders frequentd by trade seldom need soldiers

Filthy Harry @ 36:

Rusty Shackleford @ 24:

Filthy Harry @ 22:

Except the repubs will frame the debate this way: support a bad decision or support amerrika surrendering.

Guess who will win that debate?

Dem response: we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq. It is time to come home.

Ok, dem response vs. the word 'surrender'.

All I'm saying is that the issue wont automatically sway the election the dems way. Despite being wrong on the issue, the repubs will say 'the dems want to surrender' and many people will vote repub.

You're right, but I think the 29-percenters who will fall for that tactic will vote Repub no matter what. I don't think framing it as "the Democrats want to surrender" will sway the election in the R's favor.

unfrozencaveman @ 63:

Can't support Ron Paul, but man anything he says about Foreign Policy is right on the money. If there was a democrat who could speak about Iraq the way RP does, the nomination would have already been wrapped up.

If only he could be right about more than one thing...

peaceful easy feeling @ 64:

First of all, leaders lead, while politicians do the politically expedient thing, typically as dictated by "public opinion." It's been a long, long time since leaders held a clear majority inside the Beltway.

Secondly, the '06 election was already "about Iraq," and the Democrats have failed to deliver an immediate withdrawal or timeline, as expected by the majority of people who voted this as their #1 issue and perceived a commitment being made to make it happen. Although Democrats cannot be blamed entirely not keeping this "promise," some will still be punished for it in '08 at the polls.

You are aware that Congress does not command the armed forces, aren't you?

Rusty Shackleford @ 75:

Filthy Harry @ 36:

Rusty Shackleford @ 24:

Filthy Harry @ 22:
Dem response: we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq. It is time to come home.

Ok, dem response vs. the word 'surrender'.

All I'm saying is that the issue wont automatically sway the election the dems way. Despite being wrong on the issue, the repubs will say 'the dems want to surrender' and many people will vote repub.

You're right, but I think the 29-percenters who will fall for that tactic will vote Repub no matter what. I don't think framing it as "the Democrats want to surrender" will sway the election in the R's favor.

You're right, it won't win it for the repubs but remember 50% voted for bush the 2nd time. I think sticking to the 'dems want to surrender' meme will keep it closer than it should be. grrr!

IRAQ: Military Fatalities: By Time Period
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
6 845 44 9 898 2.51 358
5 933 32 20 985 2.39 412
4 715 13 18 746 2.35 318
3 580 25 27 632 2.93 216
2 718 27 59 804 1.9 424
1 140 33 173 4.02 43
Total 3931 174 133 4238 2.39 1771

All the DNC needs to do to have literally ALL their candidates win in November is to put out a simple commercial.

Visual - Still photos of exploded IEDs, burned Humvees, injured Iraqis.

Overlay the images with captions stating quite simply...the Year...and the cost of the war for that year...Six images, six captions = VICTORY.

Trillions of dollars.. and to ensure there won't be an attack from someone.. who didn't want to attack us.... No, I don't see it.

Old Billy @ 76:

Check out Obama's top ten on Letterman.

http://tv.yahoo.com/the-late-show-with-david-letterman/show/31647/videos...

Huckabee: "the WMD are there, we just can't find them..." demonstrating the faith only a southern baptist minister can have.

Nice one. Actually his line was "...we didn't find the weapons, it doesn't mean they weren't there."

Yes, blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

These bass-ackward, mind numbingly stupid dinosaurs! Aside from Ron Paul, of course. I'm disappointed, but not surprised

"A HRC nomination will increase Repub turn-out. Even if they don't really like the Repub nominee that much, they wouldn't want HRC in the WH. That will make all the difference.

Allright, let's get out and work hard for Obama, or for Edwards, and hope one of the two pulls it off. And then, no matter who gets the nomination, we need to remember the one overriding priority: getting the Republicans out of power. I don't care how many Republicans will be motivated to vote. What will do us in will be those of us that for one reason or another will put their dislike of Hilary ahead of getting a Democrat in the White House and either stay home or vote for some ephemereal third-party person. Which means opening the door to more politicization of government, to more privatization, to more defecits down the road because of wreckless tax cutting, more militarization, and I've yet to hear any of the Repugs have a bad word to say for John Robert or Samuel Alito. There's plenty more like them ready to go in the Federalist Society wings too. And, finally, if you think 2006 derailed the Rovian "Republican permanent majority" plans, you're in for a terrible surprise if we let them back in the door in the next decade. Is all that worth some Hilary spite on our part, if indeed she's the candidate? If you say "yes", then you've got some very skewed priorities. Sorry to say.

Filthy Harry @ 86:

andy @ 82:

disenfranchised democrats should really consider voting for ron paul, it looks like Hillary will be the dems nomination, i ask you seriously, since she is being backed by military contractors, will the wars end under hillary ? ask yourself this, would she stand a chance if she ran pro war ? (like she used to be) the reason she is now "anti war" is because other wise she wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance of being nominated. Ron Paul stands for anti war, pro civil liberties , he wants to scale back this empire thats grown massively under Bush, something the dems won't do, if anything it will get bigger.

Problem with Ron Paul is that despite having the ONLY sane responses to foreign policy in the campaign so far, his domestic policy is so far beyond messed up, it makes him a dangerous candidate.

i don't agree that it's dangerous, i agree that it is radically different, but i keep hearing people say they want "change", i suppose they don;t really want change, the just want to revert back to democrat control, whoo back to clinton style government, a government who is much better at covering up there atrocities than the present one.

I personally think it's quite likely that the Republicans will either win or steal this election. And even if they don't, whichever Democrat wins will be a warmonger, too.

You have to admit it, Ron Paul was the only one up there that told the truth. He surely won the debate. I hope he gets it on the Republican side because he is what the true Republican was of yrs. ago. You go Ron Paul, fight for the "Constitution and the truth." We love you.

You have to credit Ron Paul though , getting a round of applause at a republican debate talking about ending the war and how much a bad idea it was, also to be talking about things like blowback, he's got balls thats for sure, he's standing up there talking truth to people who have been brain washed in to thinking terrorists attack purely because they hate freedom, it's pretty remarkable.

And Saddam hid them in Jordan for what reason?

Maybe he wanted his country destroyed. Maybe he wanted to be killed and all of his family member killed.

If the US were attacked, would Huckabee hide our WMDs in Canada?

Bonkers @ 88:

McCain and that scary, weird, disingenuous grin...

People, have any of you ever watched the Deleted Scenes from Terminator 2? There is this screamingly funny scene where Edward Furlong is trying to teach Arnie how to smile. A kid is trying to teach a robot how to smile believably, see? This SO reminds me of McCain's manic grin every time he says something vicious and stupid about Iraq.

Ron Paul:
There is no way in heck I am voting for him because of his libertarian and/or conservative views things like deregulation of the media, but on Iraq he is just excellent. So heartening to hear at least one fella on the GOP side talking the truth. I could dissect his motives until doomsday, because I don't trust a republican further than I can toss one, but I will take his stance on the Iraq occupation at face value and give him polite applause.

ANother sheep being spoon fed poison. Tisk,tisk....THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!! When Hillary gets nominated watch and see ugly its really gonna get.

Ron Paul, We love you!!!!

If Saddam had wmd's wouldn't he have used them when the US invaded ? erm isn't that what they're for, i think once US soldiers made it to Baghdad without any wmd's being used it's pretty well confirmed he had none, i mean if you don't use them when you have an invading army encroaching your capitol you more than likly don't have any.

it just shows how bad the republican party is when everyone refers to Ron Paul as a yahoo when he's the only one there speaking any sense at all.

The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges, including his two Supreme Court appointees, might serve for decades.

I know, people have been throwing "THE USSC" bug-a-boo at the Democrats for years, but the problem it has always been couched in terms of Abortion?

Hell, the MONEY behind the Federalist Society doesn't give a rats ass about
abortion, this is about MONEY and the people who have it and want MORE!

They didn't put Alito and Roberts on the court to overturn Roe v Wade, it
was to vote on crap like the Enron Shareholder case last week...

I have been going to the court for a decade, and, it's really shocking
how FAR to the right it's gone in pro-business/anti consumer.

People don't realize, Renhquist was right wing, but, Roberts and Alito
are much more pro business Idealogues...

But, right now, there is a tenative balance.

Ginsberg and Stevens, one or both won't make it to the 2012 election.

If McCain, or heaven help us Romney gets to appoint TWO new
judges, and Hillary draws downticket support for Republics...

So, we DON'T have bluer Senate then we do now?

Realizes, you have PLENTY of Blue dogs in Congress, guys like
Harry Reid and Ben Nelson, who would rubber stamp some Republic
hack like Orrin Hatch onto the court.

So, no matter how Kennedy swings, the Scalia wing will rule.

Pete @ 93:

Chris @ 66:

Pete @ 60:
Perhaps I shouldn't expect someone speaking to not make mistakes, however, in the clip presented Paul had ample time to formulate his reply before opening his mouth.

I would have hoped that he had been more careful in his response (especially being informed and in agreement with his stand on other wars the US has waged), and perhaps he is even kicking himself in the pants for not wording it better...
something that really needs to be done if we ever hope to get the dialogue on these issues to ever reach a level of true sanity.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction. I've just read a number of the anti-war pieces he's written and it's highly likely that he just misspoke. If you've read the stuff he's written about war and seen the speech he gave against the Iraq war in the House back in 2002, you'd see this is highly unlikely to be what he meant. It's obvious to me that he misspoke. He's not the best speaker of the Republicans, but he is the most consistent and honest by far. He's not someone who speaks in soundbites and rehearses lines over and over again. When you're not rehearsed like that I'd say that you're going to mess up every once in a while.

.

McCampaign: "The war was justified because of Saddam."
~ WHAT WMD'S?
~ WHAT YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?
~ WHAT TIES TI AL-CIA-DUH?
~ WHAT MOBILE BIO-CHEM WEAPONS PLANTS?
~ WHAT SUIT CASES?
~ WHAT MUSHROOM CLOUDS?
~ WHAT TRUTH?

McCampaign: "...and now we are succeeding..."
2007 = Highest US casualties = SUCCESS?
2007 = Highest Iraqi civilian deaths = SUCCESS?
2007 = No political solution in place = SUCCESS?

McCampaign: "We will have peace and success in the Middle East..." "Fight al-CIA-duh there!"
~ S O U N D B I T E S~
~ BUMPERSTICKER SLOGANS ~

.

Rusty Shackleford @ 109:

peaceful easy feeling @ 97:

Rusty Shackleford @ 79:

You are aware that Congress does not command the armed forces, aren't you?

Absolutely aware. As you are cognizant the CIC's power to wage war without Congressional approval is severely curtailed? ;)

Now that we have this witty little exchange behind us, perhaps you would like to actually address the content of my post?

The Democrats in Congress can't end the war. Dick. ;)

Consider the "content" of your post addressed.

I hope you're not serious. They can most assuredly end the war. Mike Gravel, the man who ended the Viet Nam war, made this abundantly clear, which is why he's not in the "debates" anymore. They're just afraid of the neocon propaganda machine and the fascist news channel. The Democrats also "can't" stop telecom amnesty!!! They also "can't" start impeachment hearings against The Dick.

WashStateBlue @ 110:

So, no matter how Kennedy swings, the Scalia wing will rule.

It depends on the depth of post-Bush scandal. Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy violated their oaths when they voted on Bush v. Gore in 2000. That was the vote of co-conspirators, and they can be held to account (impeached) if Bush's crimes create enough of a backlash in the next couple of years.

Rusty Shackleford @ 113:

Chris @ 112:

Pete @ 93:

Chris @ 66:

He wants to leave war up to the states.

Right LOL!!!1 Hillary/Obama '08! No war or weapon is "off the table".

James @ 26:

Ian McGarrett @ 11:

Ron Paul refers extensively to the constitution. He should be reminded that there is companion document in the American litany, one that railed against tyrants that placed themselves above the law and abused the power that rightly belongs to the people. Or has the Declaration of Independence been placed on a terrorist reading list?

Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?

Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution is that one is a mission statement, the other is SUPPOSED to be the LAW.

Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW.

I don't get your point. Am I being pilloried for being a supporter of Lincoln? Let me set the record straight. When Huckabee, as a candidate to head the "party of Lincoln" pandered shamelessly to a crowd of confederate flag wavers, my reaction was not one of horror or disbelief but amusement. When Jesus said "A house divided against itself shall not stand," he was right but when Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand," he was wrong, because he used it as merely a rhetorical trick, a clever turn of phrase, devoid of meaning. The plain fact was that America was a house divided against itself and the best it could hope for was an amicable divorce. The worst was what America got, a civil war and a trading off of one form of slavery for another, an enslavement to the monumental hypocrisy of the imperial president and the notions of some great, grand civilizing mission to the world, an enslavement to vanity.

.

Up-Chuck-abee: "I supported the president as did the Democrats..."
~ All good leaders follow blindly... NO?

Up-Chuck-abee: "... the president had the courage to recognize the potential..."
~ And Up-Chuck-abee has "potential" to become an evil man, hell, we all have the "potential" to do real evil shit, so this justifies killing and assassinations; Because of POTENTIALITIES?

Up-Chuck-abee: "Presidents will be second guessed and I hope we have the courage and resolve that once we commit to something to make sure we don't back away because the polls..."
~ Resolved: Up-Chuck-abee thinks being committed to mass murder and genocide, invasions and wars of aggression, occupations of sovereign nations and the proliferation of nuclear material and terrorism IS A COMMITMENT TO STAND BY!

.

Paul in LA @ 123:

Chris @ 116:

Rusty Shackleford @ 109: They can most assuredly end the war. Mike Gravel, the man who ended the Viet Nam war

That's hilarious. His effort to stop the draft failed.

There you go with your pedantic rants again. Gravel's reading of the Pentagon papers flipping the bird at Nixon was a big deal and even if he wasn't successful in his attempt to end the draft in the Senate, that had a huge impact too. What a pendant can never realize is that these efforts can turn the tide, even if you don't win a particular battle.
It's the same reason Obama and Clinton should go back and help Dodd stop retroactive telecom immunity. "Two votes won't make a difference." Bullshit. The press that could get and the speeches they COULD give could make a HUGE difference. It could get a LOT more pressure put on others by the public to also oppose it and could turn the tide. But a pedant like you could never understand that.

Ron Paul is the only decent republican.
I'd vote for him over Hillary.

.

Mittens: "It was the right decision to go into Iraq..."
~ WHAT WMD’S?
~ WHAT YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?
~ WHAT TIES TI AL-CIA-DUH?
~ WHAT MOBILE BIO-CHEM WEAPONS PLANTS?
~ WHAT SUIT CASES?
~ WHAT MUSHROOM CLOUDS?
~ WHAT TRUTH?

Mittens: "The plan by the President and Petrayus is changing lives..."
~ About a million lives... changed and silenced... FOREVER!

Mittens: "It's making sure that al-CIA-duh and no other group like that is becoming a super power in the communities..."
~ How many car bombs went off under Saddam's rule?
~ How many suicide bombers attacked civilians and US occupiers under Saddam's rule in Iraq?
~ Prior to ANY war in the M.E. by the USA this Century, al-CIA-duh existed primarily in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Under the rule of George W. Bush, al-CIA-duh has strong holds still in Afghanistan, and have spread into Iraq and Pakistan. And this equals SUCCESS?

Mittens: Let's not worry why the breaks failed. Let's just worry how to clean up the mess.
~ Problem with narrow thinkers like this: They encourage the breaks to fail again, and again, and again, and again... a-la-Bush! - by not questioning why it happened.

.

President PNACcio @ 127:

Ron Paul pointed out something that bears repeating. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS MADE IN 1998.

Thank you!

Least we also not forget,
the decision to WARRANTLESSLY WIRE TAP AMERICANS happened PRIOR to 9/11.

.

Giuliani: "Clinton was for the war when the polls said so, but against the war when they didn't. Me? I'm wrong all the time!"

Clinton does seem to be the type whose opinions seem to be swayed by public sentiment, but when 40% of the country changes their mind from 'yay' to 'nay'.... she'd do well to admit that her initial decision was wrong, because her behaviour clearly indicates that's what she believes.

Chris @ 133:

ConcernedCanuck @ 129:

"When targeted by a roadside bomb or suicide bomber, U.S. soldiers shoot at people randomly. Innocent civilians have been killed or injured," Yaser Abdul-Rahman, a 45-year-old schoolmaster told IPS. "Thousands of people have been killed like this."

If I was there and bombs were going off or I was getting shot at, I'd be returning fire too. If you don't you'll be dead. It's not exactly easy to tell where it's coming from. That's why I don't blame the soldiers over there for the mess. Responsibility belongs squarely at the feet of the DUHcider AND his enablers (many of whom are Democrats, sorry guys).

German and Japanese soldiers were not allowed to use that as a reason for killing people. Just following orders is Bullsh*&.

Paul in LA @ 115:

James @ 26 "Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?"

The word is TRAITOR. Unlike the relationship to Britain, the colonies chose to ratify the Constitution. At that point it became non-optional.

"Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?"

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln was a racist. By the end, he was not.

"Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW."

Hilarious. He wants to strip out the LAW, and you know it. He wants to go back before those mean old Nigras got their equal rights, back before those dirty women got their medical rights, back before those goddamned FDRers set up some social programs.

He says he wants to leave everything not explicit in the Constitution to the States. And then TWICE last year he tries to pass a federal law mandating that personhood begins at conception. He's a LIAR.

At WHAT point did it become non-optional? Because prior to the Civil War, MANY states had threatened to secede, and it was considered a RIGHT of the states to do so.

Are you going to be the one to tell the Puerto Ricans that, if they join the union, like they petition every year, that they are never going to be allowed to LEAVE?!?!

As a matter of historical FACT, Jefferson Davis WANTED to be tried for TREASON. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told Andrew Johnson that if the government tried, they would LOSE, because there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says that secession is illegal. The Tenth Amendment applies.

As for Lincoln becoming a non-racist in the middle of the Civil War, then why are there numerous accounts of Lincoln telling racist jokes to his friends? Why is it that, as late as 1863, he is known for having advocated the "back to Africa" plan?

"Proof by Proclamation" is a tool of apologists. Simply SAYING that Lincoln magically stopped being a racist DOESN'T make it true.

And again, before you make claims about what you THINK Ron Paul wants to do about the law concerning blacks and women, LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION! He hasn't called for a repeal of the thirteenth amendment, and he hasn't called for a repeal of the nineteenth amendment either! So your last statement is just race-bating.

Lastly, I hope you're not the kind of person who assumes that criticizing the New Deal isn't the same as calling for a return of Nazi Germany, or the fascist Nipponese Empire.

Likewise, criticizing Lincoln for suspending Habeas Corpus, and chasing a Congressman out of the country(!?), and for authorizing the RAPE of Georgia (which would be considered an international war crime today) is NOT the same as calling for a return of the Confederacy.

Perhaps it's simply looking at history objectively?

News Flash: Neither Hillary or Obama will pull out of Iraq.

Chris @ 135:

"I'm not planning to nuke anyone right now" -- Barack Obama

This statement reflects Obama's sane, rational view that wars can be necessary and just, as he declared in his famous Oct/26/2002 anti-Iraq invasion speech in Chicago. In contrast, Dennis Kucinich and his peace-worshiping followers have their "Department of Peace" concept, well-intentioned, yes, but reflecting a serious dearth of understanding about the nature of the world we live in. For this reason and others, Obama is electable, Kucinich hopelessly unelectable. No surprises there.

You're damm Right...it's about IRAQ!

It's hard to immagine that people went on cloud nine about it......knowing that it's occupation has bankrupt our nation to a chapter 11 for generations to come and for TRILLIONS of dollars taxpayer will have to endure (YOU , YOUR children and UNborn children to come)!

Anyone foolish to think that "illegal" occupation of IRAQ has nothing to do with the growing deficits (trade or otherwise) and the accelaration of the global warming and the foreseeable trend of collapsing freeworld enterprises......HAS been living in a LA LA nation in trance of the world of Disneland and falsehood of NEVADA's make-believe WORLD.

The facade is no more REAL than the streets of Universal Studios. The truth lies NOT what WE see "on the surfaces" but rather the flimsy 2 by 4 lumber that that supports the make-believe structure.

WE HAVE BEEN FRAMED AMERICA and will be left empty handed by the TIME government looters, corporate swindlerss, and main-stream media perfect it's wage to deceive DEMOCRACY into successfully trapping us ONCE and for all into a dreadful demise of life-as-usual of "modern living slavery". Freeworld will be a thing of the past, where everyone of YOU will be expendable at the call of the New World of Emperialisms. This time it will not be so simple to reverse for keeping us there has already been advanced through technological design.

OPEN YOUR EYES as the HIGH tech policy-making and negotiations....fights it's survival throught the low tech of WARMONGERING and Military arm twisting.

The WAR between two logic will be at the expense of PEOPLE. Expect more BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS before you see light at the end of the tunnel. Expect more forest to be burn for the fire will be our only light. Endless drought will be sustained by more floodings. Extremes has already gave clue to the darkness ahead. Take notice around you for the lap of luxury will turn its course to a life of misery for those who never knew what it means to live through poverty. For those who have been inflicted by the sins of the greedy and the powerful; they will survive for they humbled themselves and had long adjusted to the reality of what is about to come.

America must learn to RESPECT what they have taken for granted and only through this will learn HUMILITY. Choose the leader that reflects who you are and you will see then what AMERICA has become.

By November, the economy will be gone. Bribing us with Chinese money won't obscure that fact.

ExxonMobil4prez @ 141:

ANOTHER REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR RONNY PAUL -
He is from the dark side folks. Wake up already and deal with this particular issue.

On January 22nd, 2008 McCorvey endorsed Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. McCorvey stated, “I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.”

Women are: your wives, sisters, aunts, family, lovers and daughters, and FUTURE daughters. HALF THE RACE. And he wants to make abortion illegal.. DARK AGES.. Women/girls die from illegal abortions.

What a complete load of crap!! First of all Dr. Paul is against abortion because the killing of an unborn child could be viewed as the ultimate loss of liberty for that child. Second, he wants the responsibility for how abortions are managed to be dealt with at the state level, where it belongs according to the consitution. Third, on The View he admitted that the likelyhood of his having his view adopted was low, but that these were his feelings on the matter and that as a doctor who has delivered 4,000 over babies, he felt it was his personal and professional duty to help save lives rather than kill them off, especially a defenseless fetus. Fourth, the very fact that you need to reach as deeply into your bag of mindless slime to smear him with something like this shows the weakness of your arguements: here is a person who is defending personal liberty for all of us -- blacks, whites, men, women, children -- yet you make him out to be, what, a Muslim fundamentalist!!! Hahaha. That's rich.

You are as narrow minded and as intellectually soft as any neo con you claim to hate so much. And you reflect what is so very disturbing about America today: while the powers that be steer our country into bankruptsy with illegal wars, corporate fascism and a technological police state, while they literally rob this country blind -- Democrats and Republicans both!! -- your need to be on the "winning" side trumps everything. So you can't hear the truth when it is presented to you. The strategy of divide and conquer is alive, well and working like a charm.

God help us all, that's all I can say.