If voters want to know exactly where candidates stand, they are going to have to nail them down to specifics. You can claim to support the Second Amendment and still vote to outlaw 90 percent of the firearms on the market or in private possession.Exactly. As far as I know, there's only one who will roll up his sleeves and actually start going after federal gun laws. (Incidentally, were you aware of Ron Paul's current fundraising blitz? He set a one-day record for the GOP--and this is the guy who only has a handful of internet spammers in his corner according to GOP establishment mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh.)
But the incrementalists caution it's too soon to expect the candidates to talk plainly about guns and freedom. We radical absolutists need to just be patient, because all our crazy talk is just going to scare people. Oh, yeah, and Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, so we need to just do the pragmatic thing and support the Republican choice, whoever that turns out to be.
I saw this same scenario play out in California. Tom McClintock was a faithful friend of gun owners. But the establishment wanted a "sure win" and went with a celebrity, as the mighty "gun lobby" hid in the shadows and didn't dare show their faces. And we ended up with the bans on .50s and lead ammo, and microstamping .
Before any critic steps up and opines McClintock "didn't stand a chance," be prepared to offer evidence, as opposed to just your say-so, contradicting the CNN/Gallup poll that demonstrated McClintock beating the democrat opposition by a solid 19% had the party convinced Arnold to drop out.
Look--it's real simple. You--yes, you--can either, right now, get behind Ron Paul's campaign or not. Rationalize it any way you want, but the fact remains--there is one, and only one candidate whose stance on the Second Amendment is clear and consistent. And those who want the status quo--or those who would counsel you can't have real liberty because it's too extreme a goal to shoot for--are the ones advising you to pick "not."
IMPORTANT UPDATE FOR FRED HEADS:
Even Fred Thompson doesn’t think he will become president. Chatting off-air to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.
Tell me of one team that ever won a championship with that kind of pre-game resignation and defeatism. That means the GOP fare will be either Mitt or Rudy. I'd like to hear something that makes sense from any "activist" gun owner who won't throw their support behind Ron Paul in the primaries now. We literally have nothing to lose.
56 comments:
I can't take Ron Paul seriously until he disavows the 9/11 "truthers". To give these people respect when even ex-President Clinton says to them "how dare you" marks Ron as too much of a nutcase. Why can't he stand up and say that 9/11 was cause by 19 murderous Mulsim terrorists? Is is really such a mystery?
You are strangely silent about Mike Huckabee. To quote directly from his website:
"The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property."
Not only that, but he has two things Ron Paul doesn't: a grasp on reality regarding the war on terror, and more importantly, experience as an elected executive.
He has never denied that the muslim terrorists were behind the 9/11 attacks. What he says is that US foreign policy is what drove them to do it. Also, I am sure the government is lying about some aspects of 9/11. Why would they be truthful about that one event while lying about everything else? That seems too farfetched for me.
This is from Tancredo's website:
Gun Control
I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.
I don't know about his voting record, but that seems pretty clear.
Ask the candidates if they support the absolute right of anyone to own and to carry any type of gun they want, anywhere they go, however they see fit, without asking anyone's permission ever. If the candidate hesitates, you know they do not. Don't rely on blurbs from their websites. Not even mine.
Well, anon, I don't know how much clearer he can make it: when John Gibson asked him if he "completely disavowed" that our govt was behind it and Paul said "Yes I do."
What more do you want? He did exactly what you demand. Now will you support him?
Matt: I'm silent on Huckabee not only because of his stance on illegal immigration, which has done more to render the security of this nation vulnerable in this "war on terror" than just about anything I can think of, but also his fine words on 2A didn't come into play when Wayne Fincher appealed to him multiple times over the course of years to actually do something and use his authority to support a well regulated militia in Arkansas. As for the generalized charge that Paul doesn't grasp the reality of the war on terror, just because you say so doesn't make it so. From where I sit, those who want to "enforce UN mandates" which is the reason given, to involve us in an undeclared war to try to establish "democracy" in a population that supports a radical Islamic theocracy is hardly preferable over the counsel of Washington in re foreign entanglements.
Anon: I DO know Tancredo's voting record: he sold us out after Littleton, on both gun shows and magazine capacity.
Thanks, David, for the reminder about Paul's surge. I'd given him money before, and just gave him more. He's our last, best hope.
Remember that our current president lays out the same platitudes about "supporting the Second Amendment," but he has done NOTHING for us. In fact, he has presided over the jackbooted ATF and said nothing about their authoritarian tactics and goals.
Paul, on the other hand, is clear: RESTORE the rights that have been taken, stand firm against more loss of rights. He's got my vote, and my financial support.
I'm from Minnesota. We've seen some weird things up here. We know a dark horse can win if his campaign catches fire. I think Paul's campaign is smoldering...
David,
Please provide the link for Ron Pauls' statement (preferably video) disavowing the 9/11 truth movement.
I have no problem with a candidate arguing that our foreign policy is bone-headed (which it is), but when even Bill Maher "gets it" about the 9/11 "truth" movement it makes me wonder why Ron still gives these people respect.
I'd love to have him in office for his libertarian views, and if he is the candidate I'll vote for him, even if he hasn't disavowed the truth movement.
Scott (aka anon).
robscottwilk@yahoo.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmPdXfgXNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmPdXfgXNI
Must be a fake, made by the "internet spammers" that constitute Paul's only support ;-) .
Thanks David, that helps, though one wonders why he would still tell the "students" that he would like to have another "9/11" investigation, though he says he's not allied himself with them. hmmm.
Also, what about -
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/20/ron-paul-his-racial-views/
Anyway, if he does become the candiate I'll vote for him even though he is wrong about Islamic violence. Islam is at war with civiliation and has been for 1,300 years.
Best regards,
Scott
I don't think anyone says Ron Paul is perfect. He is the best Demopublican candidate that has run in decades. There are several things I disagree with him on. That is why I am still a candidate. But, if you have a need to vote for someone in one of the "major parties", there is no contest. Ron Paul or tyranny.
Scott, you cited an anti-Paul agenda opinion blog that cited an article written by a left-wing "reporter" in support of Paul's democrat opponent, and even that article admitted the quotes were cherry-picked so that context wasn't available--in other words, another democrat hit job abetted by the "authorized journalists" and propagated by a hostile blogger--and some of the quotes were from a newsletter and weren't even Paul's. Awful tough to get to the truth in that circumstance. Be that as it may, Paul is correct when he estimates 5% of blacks vote iaw free markets as evidenced by overwhelming support for democrats--and hostility to those few who break ranks as "race traitors" and "Uncle Toms"--people of achivement and intellect such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or Larry Elder, people of the type Paul says "make political sense."
As for saying he'd like another investigation, SO WOULD I. Why you have faith in the federal government being completely forthcoming, and not having any agenda or CYA motives, or protection of interests, is beyond me, with very real problematic events that have come to light in re incidents as seemingly unrelated as Oklahoma City, Flight 800, etc. Plenty of evidence from credible sources has been amassed that say there could be much more than we have been told, and I question why it hurts to look--in a full and open manner.
As for a new 911 investigation, here are a few of the people who "have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report," and while I'm not politically aligned with many of them, such as Wesley Clarke, I can't just dismiss him as a total know-nothing incompetent boob. So if you're just going to automatically dismiss a desire for further "truth-seeking" as wacko tinfoil conspiracy nut fodder for lunatics, you might want to take a look at the CVs of some of the following, and then consider what they know, as opposed to believe, vs. what you know, as opposed to believe, and relative qualifications/likelihood of who might have access to more information and contacts:
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret)
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) –
Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret)
Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret)
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret)
Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)
Col. Michael Harley, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Joel M. Skousen – Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot.
Capt. Daniel Davis
Barbara Honegger, MS
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer,
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy – Commanding Officer of the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps – Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer and Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 199
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Wayne Madsen – Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer
Why have another 9/11 investigation? Well, regardless of who was behind it, there's still plenty to investigate. Like, say, why Clinton and Bush both seemed more interested in devoting Federal manpower into witch-hunts over minor clerical errors on 4473s or declaring shoestrings as machine guns than they were in terrorists.
The government failed to do one of the few jobs actually given to it by the Constitution, then weaseled their way out of culpability with a report which really didn't say a whole lot. I would think this insane misplacement of priorities alone enough to warrant an investigation. But maybe that's just me..
One other thing, Scott:
Anyway, if he does become the candidate I'll vote for him...
The whole point is, he won't be the candidate unless gun owners and other liberty activists get involved and act NOW. If you do nothing before the primaries and wait around for the gerneral election, the candidate will be Giuliani or Romney, and the opportunity will have been lost. Is that what you want? Because if everybody leaves it to someone else, that's what you're going to get.
I've heard you raise objections, Scott, and tell us what you don't like--so tell us what you are doing now to ensure a pro-RKBA candidate will be in the running for president.
Part of deciding to comment on blogs and in forums means you have nominated yourself to be an opinion molder and--there's no avoiding it-- a leader--like it or not--as most just lurk and never say a word. So let me sit back for a moment, Scott: assuming you want me and others to follow your vision so that the results are what you want them to be, lead us in this. Who should we support, why, how, and how soon should we get started?
I've told you my response: Ron Paul, because he's pro-RKBA and liberty, financially and by spreading the word, and right now.
Will you be equally direct?
Ron Paul? Geeze, I dunno, David. Isn’t he one of those conspiracy wackos who thinks the Federal Reserve isn’t federal just because it’s made up of private banks, and that it doesn’t have reserves because it doesn’t? Or that the IRS isn’t legal because they can’t find the law that authorizes it? Doesn’t he know how many laws we have? Geeze (again) they misplace one little law, and he wants to make a federal case out of it.
Why bad mouth Rush Limbaugh like that! Hey, if we can’t trust Rush and the Republicans to safeguard our freedoms then, boy, are we in trouble or what? (I’m surprised you didn’t start in on CalGuns and the NRA again.)
So what exactly IS wrong with Mitt or Rudy? I mean, it’s not like Mitt’s going to come after “our” guns (wink wink). And at least Rudy isn’t a democrat even if he does dress like Hillary.
So there!
To Anonymous, et. al.
Re:
General Wesley Clark,Major General Albert Stubblebine, Col. Ronald D. Ray, Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Col. George Nelson, Col. Ann Wright,Col. James R. Uhl,Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, Commander Ted Muga, Commander Ralph Kolstad,Col. Michael Harley, Joel M. Skousen, Major Douglas Rokke, Capt. Russ Wittenberg, Capt. Daniel Davis, Barbara Honegger, MS, Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, Major Erik Kleinsmith, Major Scott Ritter, Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, Capt. Eric H. May, Wayne Madsen – Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer.... AND A FEW HUNDRED OTHERS--CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, ARCHITECTS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, PHYSICISTS....!!!!
What, exactly, is it you know that these people do not?
Have you actually seen the 9-11 Commission Report? Does its myriad of distortions and omissions disturb you at all? E.g. that the collapse of Building 7 is not even mentioned. (You DO know about Building 7?)
How about information from the "911 Truth" side? Have you seen, for example, "Loose Change?" I doubt it! But I'd bet you have seen the recent History Channel 911 Conspiracies disinformation piece. That really gave those conspiracy wackos what for, huh?!
Have you done ANY research whatsoever that doesn't involve a Major Media outlet (like what comes from your TV set, newspaper, or Barnes & Noble :-) Or would that be just too painful?
Because, in my experience, the latter is usually the case. Of all the attributes required of a patriot, I believe real courage to be the most important. Starting with the courage to study what the other side is saying so as to have some idea of what the fuck it is that you are talking about.
BUMP!
Ron Paul is the only choice.
C.H.
Re: even Bill Maher "gets it"
Watch Bill Maher get it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=469017719523272278&q=maher+911+truth&total=171&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=21
I will not vote for him, nor support him. As it is with Huckabee on immigration, Paul on foreign policy is a deal-breaker for me.
That's why he's shunned David, it's not his freedom message. It's his boneheaded foreign policy of let Iran get nukes, immediate withdrawal... We can't negotiate our way through world politics without sticks and carrots.
So now that Fred has said he won't win, who are you backing, Stan?
That's it, I'm all in. I have never given money to a candidate before, but I'm going to give to Paul.
I was more behind Thompson until now, simply because he seemed more electable due to the vilification of Paul by the media (liberal and conservative alike).
But no longer - I completely support Paul. The man has been an ardent advocate of following the Constitution since he was elected some 20 years ago. I don't understand why that's not good enough for some of the other people here - especially 2nd A. enthusiasts.
So, Stan, you want to be disarmed by the anti-liberty US government while they also fight wars all across the globe for your "freedom"? Yeah, that makes sense....??
Huckabee is a poster
"What scares me about Huckabee is that he's a practitioner of the gruesome art of political compassion. He could even be one of those compassionate conservatives we've heard so much about - except he's not a conservative."
"Superficially, Huckabee looks like the ideal candidate for social conservatives - pro-life, anti-gay marriage and a Baptist minister to boot. A friend of mine who's an evangelical and a Beltway pundit says a lot of it comes down to tribal politics. The religious right, which is dominated by evangelicals, looks at Huckabee and sees one of its own. It is mistaken."...
"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly says Huckabee 'destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party in shambles,' Schlafly charges, 'Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Huckabee.' Call the Better Business Bureau."
"Richard Viguerie, as principled and tough-minded as anyone on the right, observes, 'But while Gov. Huckabee stands strong on some issues like abortion that are important to social conservatives, a careful examination of his record as governor reveals that he is just another wishy-washy Republican who enthusiastically promotes big government' - which is why Time Magazine thought Huckabee was one of the nation's five best governors. Time doesn't hand out awards for cutting taxes and reducing spending."
"During his years in Little Rock, Huckabee raised the state's sales tax by 37%, the gas tax by 16% and the cigarette tax by 103% (all fall particularly hard on the poor). State spending went up a staggering 65.3% -- three times the inflation rate. The state's workforce grew by 20% and Arkansas' general obligation debt increased $1 billion."
"...Arkansas director of Schlafly's Eagle Forum, says that outside of a few key social issues, Huckabee governed as a liberal. 'Just like Bill Clinton, he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.'..."
"Huckabee is a sucker for social spending."...
"When there was a bill [in] Arkansas...to require proof of citizenship to vote and to cut off most government services to illegals, Huckabee did a passable impression of Linda Chavez, claiming the measure 'inflames those who are racists and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not.' "
"12 to 15 million illegal aliens? More coming every day? Hospitals closed and schools severely overburdened? No problemo!"
"In a 2003 radio address, Huckabee told the citizens of Arkansas: 'I looked into the eyes of immigrant Mexican children and was moved. These children often don't have enough to eat, don't have good clothes and don't have a dry place to sleep... And I was reminded we can give something back by offering a helping hand to those who follow the American dream along Interstate 30 and Interstate 40 into Arkansas.' Like Hillary, he's doing it for the kids - and, in the process, throwing away the best issue the Republican Party will have next year."
The article goes on and on if you have any doubts.
I'm not a big Ann Coulter or Human Events fan, but she nails him pretty good with Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn; 10/10/2007; www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22796&1=2
The candidates who look like they won't or probably won't sell out on immigration are Tancredo, Hunter, and, amazingly, Paul. The last may be wishful thinking. I don't trust "libertarians" on immigration, but I do suspect Ron Paul will honor his oath and respect the Constitutional will of the people. The American people have a right to maintain borders and immigration limits. Such laws are totally constitutional. Even if deep down he thinks we should have open borders, he will be taking an oath to uphold and faithfully execute those laws that are constitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly support those laws.
One thing I do know is Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson all have supported and would like to continue to support the "U.S." Chamber of Commerce agenda for amnesty and "guest workers". And none of them have a real intent to honor their oath of office or the will of the legitimate American people. They will continue Guest Worker Bush's mission to subvert the USA.
Anyway, what is it with so many Republicans who won't let themselves vote for a real conservative even in a primary?
Moreover, I've said this before and I'll say it again: We'd be better off with Hillary than another phony Republican.
In terms of domestic discretionary spending, Guest Worker Bush not only made Bill Clinton look like a conservative, he made Lyndon Johnson look like a conservative.
Why would Hillary end up looking conservative compared to the front-runner RINOs? For the same reason Bill Clinton did. Not because she isn't a raving Lear Jet Liberal, but because Republicans will resist her programs. They will resist essentially the same programs they would roll over for if those programs were being proposed by a "Republican". This is the beauty of gridlock.
RH
I have support Ron Paul with $$$s and I've just changed my voter registration affiliation from Libertarian to Republican so I can vote for RP in the Republicrat primaries. Plus, I've christened my Marlin 1895GS 45-70 "Ron Paul" since it is reliable, honest, simple, consistent and sends a powerful message. :-)
Getting way far afield of the gun issue here, but I'm going to take a stab at your objections, Stan:
The current approach has been such a great success in the Middle East--we see how well bellicose threats have worked to discourage the hardliners--right down to their helping devalue the dollar with the willing complicity of nations WE underwrite with trade and subsidize security for. And they sure have been discouraged from ongoing enrichment projects by all our saber rattling.
So what are you suggesting--we preemptively nuke Iran? Do we do the same nationbuilding there, too? Any idea where we get the troops from? And what are we prepared to do when Putin decides he's tired of us ringing him in with former satellites in NATO, and this is the last straw, so it's Gog and Magog time? And if we do go in, will it just be to take out facilities, or will we go after the regime, because if we don't, they'll be bent on opening up the gates of hell in this country with unstoppable low-level acts of terror throughout the land. Besides which, Pakistan already has nukes and is imploding as we speak. Will we take them out, too, and drag China into the mix?
Look, Iran has a population that has many who are pro-Western, sick of the theocracy and looking for ways to make reforms. If we attack them, they automatically go to the enemy camp. IF they achieve nukes and become a threat, their target will be Israel--do you doubt the Israelis will take out a threat before it can be actualized? Do you really think it's more likely that instead, Iran will first-strike us, and do you think the probability of that overshadows the very real tyranny we will develop if we continue down this course demanded by the "war on terror"? Let a few Paradise-seekers blow themselves up in a mall or three, and a depot or two, and watch how quickly basic liberties to travel unmolested are suspended. Add in a Beslan style gun and explosives attack on a couple of schools and welcome to the new police state, where we are compelled to give up all kinds of liberty in the name of security. And we might as well follow thorugh on our plans to label political dissent acts of terror while we're at it.
And here's my take on Iraq: my litmus test is would I pick up a rifle and fight for it, and the answer is "No." That there would be genocide if we leave speaks more of the imprudence of removing the stabilizing factor of evil monster Saddam and thinking it would all be garlands for our troops and Kumbayah democracy--but I agree it would happen and "we," as in the people who put us there, would be to blame. So here's what we should do to get out and do what we can to minimize a bloodbath:
First, admit reality. Kumbayah democracy is not possible with a 13th century religious blood feud. So I would offer one month of safe passage for Kurds to get up to Kurdistan, Shiites to occupy their predominant territory and Sunnis to do likewise. I wouldn't draw firm borders, because that's just asking for trouble, but just let them know to get to their appropriate bases and we would provide what safe passage we can to at least avoid out and out genocide, but they only have a limited time to hightail it to their respective homelands before they're at risk of being trapped behind enemy lines. Then it would be up to them to manage their respective territories and behave themselves, so if the Kurds don't want the Turks to blow them to hell, stop doing cross-border incursions. Maybe promise everybody if they play ball, the nice blue-helmeted Belgian rapists from the UN will adminster their oil fields for them to make sure everybody gets their fair share for infrastructure developement--or not--the important thing is, we will have gotten out and the squabbling parties will be entrenched in their own territories to make the likelihood of outright genocide less likely--and the probability of border wars up to how strong a front they present and how well they conduct themselves--kind'a like real life. Not a perfect solution by a long shot, but I didn't create this mess, and don't see any body else's plans panning out--and those people get paid for it.
Paul wants to strengthen us domestically--and I saw your website where you say "Foreign policy is the single most important factor that determines this country's safety." I disagree with that, and agree with the Founders, who not only admonished us to "beware foreign entanglements," but also let us know that "a well regulated militia [is] necessary for the security of a free state." You call your site "Free Constitution"--I trust those aren't just words?
With our military here to help secure our borders, the likelihood of [more] bad stuff and bad people getting through will be minimized. A culture of freedom is what builds strength and security, not one of repression. And as for foreign relations, I like his approach--quite a bit, actually: "Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
And if a nation wants to push us into war, something I would be for because I would be willing to pick up a rifle, and risk or lose my life for, we would still have the "Free Constitution" way of doing things: declare it.
But we really need to make sure we have the belly for it. We won WWII because we had the stones to do horrible things to Dresden and Hiroshima. That's what war is. It's hell. This limited rules of engagement/undeclared police action crap where you can't cross into Laos or pee in the Yalu does not work and has never worked, as evidenced by the last time we actually outright won something, and how many disastrous adventures in killing off the flower of our manhood we've put ourselves through since then.
In order to win, you need the support of the people. That is a truism, and anyone arguing otherwise has not been paying attention to history. Show me where Paul has mis-gauged this in his calculations.
I gave yesterday, and I before, and will probably give again.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has a VOTING record that can be reviewed easily by using ANY search engine, that is thoroughly pro-liberty, pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, and pro individual.
Not one other candidate can so or demonstrate such.
Goodness David,
I didn't realize that questioning Ron Paul would cause such a firestorm.
To answer just one of the general complaints as to why I can't go gaga over Ron - the desire by the "truthers" for another study of 9/11 is not for the purpose of establishing the incomepetence of our gov't, its for "proving" that Bush perpetrated 9/11. So any lip service to that desire - without clearly identifying that the perpetrators of 9/11 are clearly KNOWN ("causes" we can talk about") - just fans the flames the nutroots are tending. I won't support Ron unless he disavows the "truthers" SUPPORT and quits letting them use him to further their cause, but I will vote for him in the unlikely event he is the nominee.
I question my gov't just as much as anyone, Waco and Ruby Ridge are subjects well know to me.
As for the list of people you provided who "question" the official story of 9/11 - well, I've looked at some of their comments on a "truther" website and found that they DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE than anybody else, but they "feel" it just can't have happended the way it pretty clearly did. I need more than "feelings". How about a coherent theory that explains ALL of 9/11. They can't make assumptions to support their claims. Occam's Razor is a concept they need to understand.
As for defending the 2nd, I've been as much a single issue voter as anybody, but the 2nd has managed to survive even hostile presidents, I don't think failing to elect Ron will change that equation.
I think Rons' views on foreign policy trump is defense of the 2nd.
Sorry, David. Thats what I think.
Scott
robscottw@yahoo.com
oh Steiger,
Have you watched "screw"loosechange?
Don't throw crap like "loosechange" at me and then accuse me of "not doing research".
The 9/11 "truthers" who believe crap like "loosechange" are seriously deranged.
Scott
Scott, how can you say the Second Amendment "has survived"? It is words on paper only at this point, having been marginalized, demonized, ignored, violated, and sodomized by every administration since Lincoln (and maybe before).
David, have YOU, considered running? After that you'd get my vote. Hell, if I was somehow unable to write in a candidate like Paul (since they'll keep a true American off the electronic voting machines) You'd be getting at least one.
Paul/Codrea '08
Hobbit
May I steer this back the other way?
There is so much focus on the foreign policy issue because that is where the President has the most power. For all we know, Paul may be undermined at every turn if he attempts to change the course of the police action. We have a Congress that has so far failed to close their wallet. Electing Paul isn't going to suddenly change the nature of the electorate or the subordinate agencies with entrenched bureaucrats. I'm just pointing out what is likely to happen -- this isn't a statement of my opinion on either Paul or the situation in Iraq.
Speaking of Congress, about all the President can do with one of their bills is either sign it or veto it. Ron Paul or any other candidate is not going to be able to abolish agencies that were created by law, like IRS, BATFE or HUD. (The IRS isn't going to disappear, but simply be renamed -- Congress has the constitution power to collect a capitation tax.) So while I agree that Paul is almost unreal in the near-perfection of his voting record, let's not forget that he's going to be next to useless in concert with a legislature like this one or the last one.
What's important to me about Ron Paul isn't actually Ron Paul, but the surprising number of freedom-loving, constitution-quoting supporters he has. Still they are a minority, but I hope the message doesn't stop just because their candidate gets elected. Any reform candidate is going to accomplish precious little without a like-minded legislature. That's not going to happen until the electorate stops getting its allowance from the U.S. Treasury.
Kent,
Despite that the 2nd does lie tattered and bleeding on the floor it is in existence, at least in most of the country to a great extent. Also, we seem to be on the virge of a legal victory when the DC gun ban is upheld or cert is denied. That doesn't mean I don't have serious complaints about a lot of gun issues, ok? Along with a LOT of complaints about a LOT of Libertarian desires too.
But, electing Ron Paul is NO GUARANTEE of ANYTHING! He may, or MAY NOT, nominate judges that want to interpret the Constitution as he would, or as YOU would like, and even if he does, there is NO GUARANTEE they will actually follow thru. SC Justices have an interesting history of confounding people. Any president has little ability to radically roll-back the infringements on our liberties, and I doubt that Ron, even if elected, would have any more luck, granted that at least we can hope he would be trying.
This odd attachment to Ron Paul as some sort of magical answer to all our ills is becoming mystifying to me.
Scott
Sheesh. My post above (RH) got screwed up in the beginning. Should've started something like:
Huckabee is a poster boy for the "compassionate conservative" fraud: "Compassionate" with your money, conservative with theirs.
It's laudable and Christian to help folks with one's own money. But it's hardly Christian to claim to be a philanthropist based on spending other people's money against their will -- even if he really is just trying to help illegal aliens with your money and not use that as cover to whore for the Chamber of Commerce.
And it's hardly Christian to call you a bigot if you don't like it.
The unattributed quotes I provided are from "HUCKLEBERRY GOV'S COMPASSION PROBLEM" By Don Feder, 11-1-2007
www.DonFeder.com
Russ Howard
Scott--no, nothing magical or mystical, and I sure hope you don't think my addressing the points you raised are intentionally "firestormy"--I've explained why I'd like to see another investigation, and that's all I can be responsible for. The truth is, we're in this mess because We the People have failed to discharge our duties and responsibilities as Citizens of the Republic, and you're right--one man can't change that. I don't know anyone I take seriously who suggests otherwise. An elected Paul would certainly fail if we didn't put our shoulders to the wheel alongside him.
But look at the value his running is giving us--look at all the people who are now taking a look at principles of Constitutionalism and true conservatism and libertarianism--some for the first time--and yes, some of the new evangelists and ardent supporters come off like zealots--show me any movement that doesn't have those--but look at the enthusiasm this man is generating--what other politician do you recall who--on a national level--drew such loyalty and excitement? About the closest in my memory is JFK, and his was for image more than substance.
Here's the thing--my prediction: Giuliani gets it. He leads all the polls, and the Republican establishment wants him, and the overall establishment doesn't dare allow real change.
And when Giuliani gets it, and we're all having the argument about voting third party or sitting on your hands is a vote for [GASP] HILLARY!!!, I won't be very sympathetic, knowing we could have had a horse in this race, but we were too busy squabbling with each other to get it entered.
Hobbit--if I ever run for political office, I hereby give any and all permission to publicly advocate my assasination, and I'll do everything in my power to testify on their behalf.
I like Ron Paul...alot. But I also like Fred. His comment about not being president was obviously a joke...get over it.
I think Ron Paul is, however, a bit naive on foreign policy. There are times when we need to intervene and times we don't. Sure the founders wanted a meek foreign policy, they rightly understand that at that point we had no capability to flex any foreign policy muscles.
I have already publicly advocated my own assassination if I were elected and failed to stick to my principles/campaign promises (and my successor would be under strict orders to pardon my assassin).
A President who was truly on our side could do a lot to advance gun ownership and the Second Amendment by turning the Oval Office into a clemency factory for everyone ever convicted or being prosecuted for violating a non-violent gun law. Make it pointless for rogue government agencies to harass gun owners.
I don't see how it's necessarily a vote for Hillary.
Ron Paul is very attractive to independents and disillusioned Democrats. I think he may take as many votes from Hillary as he does from another phony Republican.
I happened to catch Ron Paul on that smug narcissist learjet commie "libertarian" Bill Mahr's (Maher?) show. Paul was very well received by Mahr, audience, guests.
Paul could do a lot better than people think. If he runs indendent, he could do better than Perot did. In a tight 3-way, he could win the popular plurality with 33.4% (or even less with other indys and 3rd parties on the ballot).
No one should forget that as flaky as Perot turned out to be, he still got something like 20% of the vote - even after pulling out and getting back in and just being Perot. People hated the other candidates enough to give him 20% anyway. Don't forget that it isn't just Rs who hate Hillary. A lot of Ds find her distasteful as well.
It isn't a big leap from 20% to 33.4%, and Paul could theoretically win with that much or less.
The Rs who wouldn't consider something bold like voting for a Ron Paul remind me of a frog who gets accustomed to the water as it heats up. It's time to do something. The USA we fought for is disappearing. Most of the things we used to think the Birchers were "out there" for predicting are actually happening or have already happened. "1984" is on the way. "Your Papers!" is coming fast. Biometric radio-chipped "Real" ID is on the way. You need a passport to travel to-from Mexico or Canada. Won't be long before we're sneaking up on internal passports. This was all done by "Republicans", and we're supposed to be worried about Hillary? We would be far better off with Hillary than another border subverting RINO who defecates on the Constitution with his first words in office. Bill Clinton was only able to get away with a small fraction of the socialist big government crap Bush inflicted on us because the Rs resisted. And Hillary is no Bill Clinton. She would get away with even less.
My only problem with Paul is that as a libertarian he's suspect on immigration. However, unlike Bush, I think Paul might actually honor his oath and enforce what limits we have even though he disagrees with them.
If we keep supporting phony Rs like Romney, McCain, Giuliani, & Dingleberry the liberal Rs will perfect their corruption and domination of the party. The party needs to be shaken up. They need to know they can't keep feeding us crap like that and expect us to support it because we're afraid of Hillary or whoever.
I donated to Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul. The thought of listening to Hillary for 8 years makes me want to hurl.
But I will VOTE FOR Hillary if the alternative is another RINO, e.g., Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson. Hillary + Gridlock would be way better.
You can blame it all on me.
If you're one of those Rs who doesn't like people supporting Paul then give us a real R to vote for. Hell, give us Tancredo or Hunter. We're not slaves on a plantation. It's absolutely pathetic that Hunter and Tancredo are so low in the polls. And that's because so many Rs are so dumb they act like the primary is the general. They won't even vote for a real R in the damned primary for Heaven's Sake, then they expect us all to vote for the RINO they gave us.
Forget it.
Since it is so late in the day, I don’t quite know where to start. However, the core issue here, whether it is foreign policy, 2A, immigration, etc., is really honesty. Who out there on the Republican side is actually honest?
You see, unless someone has been proven honest, you really don’t know what they will do. If they have been proven dishonest – well, we all like to deal with dishonest people don’t we?
No?
Why not?
And if not, why then would we vote for someone who is a known liar? After all, isn’t that what a dishonest person is – a liar?
Whether I agree with a particular candidate on a particular issue, or couple of issues, is not really the point. What is the point follows: Can I trust this person to actually do, or honestly work toward doing, what he or she says they will do?
Now, do any of you care to go through the list of candidates from any party (let alone the Republican party) and evaluate their honesty?
My dad always told me that if a person will lie about one thing, they will lie about everything else. In all of my 45 years I have been have found this to be irrevokably true. Do not expect a known, proven liar to actually defend the Constitution or any of its amendments. Rather, expect them to lie about defending them, all the while subverting them.
Now, if we knowingly vote for a known liar, what does that actually state about us? Particularly if there is a candidate who is honest that we could vote for, but won’t. If we value “winning” over honesty, what does that declare about our own morality?
Perhaps we then deserve whatever evil we bring upon ourselves and our children.
Damn hard to argue with Mr. Davis on this one.
Folks:
There is another grassroots Ron Paul fundaraiser on 11/11; please consider making a (or another) donation:
http://thisnovember11th.com
On the bigger question, is there anyone - anyone at all - in the '08 POTUS race that has both the positions and the long-term track record on the Second (and the rest of the Constitution) that Congressman Paul has?
You're gonna have to look really hard on that one...
It's going to get pretty clear really soon - you either stand for the Constitution as written, or you are part of the problem.
Stand with us....please.
Re: “I've looked at some of their comments on a "truther" website and found that they DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE than anybody else, but they "feel" it just can't have happended the way it pretty clearly did.”
You didn’t look very far or you’re lying. Probably both.
Re: “Don't throw crap like "loosechange" at me and then accuse me of "not doing research".
In other words, you’ve not seen L.C. or any one of the many like it. You make my point about courage. Or, rather, about the lack of it.
“The 9/11 "truthers" who believe crap like "loosechange" are seriously deranged.”
Asshole: Did you actually READ David’s list of “911 Truthers?”
General Wesley Clark, Major General Albert Stubblebine, Col. Ronald D. Ray, Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Col. George Nelson, Col. Ann Wright, Col. James R. Uhl, Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski.... AND A FEW HUNDRED OTHERS--CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, ARCHITECTS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, PHYSICISTS....!!!
“Seriously deranged?” My next paragraph talks about you and the likes of you.
In light of the evident fact that even the most cursory examination of government 911 claims immediately shows those claims to both counter common sense and violate basic physical laws, there is no clearer example of the dumbing down of (at least a portion of) America than the silly, monotone blathering of the (thankfully) relative few remaining holdouts still supporting the Neocon version of 911.
And should you be just another government disinformation troll, Anonymous, when we the people demand an accounting for the 911mass murderers and their accomplices after the fact, that you are “merely following orders” will be no more legitimate a defense than it was at Nuremburg.
My computer has been down all day.. I'll respond tomorrow on my blog.
You and Ron Paul make good points, if Iraq were in a vacuum. I think we have fundamentally different beliefs in what should be the guiding principle in our foreign policy -so I don't see us coming together on this one, let alone convincing one another. As I said, I'll respond tomorrow.
David,
As one can see from Steigers post, this is why I can't get excited about anyone who pays lip service to the "truthers" as Ron Paul does.
Scott
Steiger,
Here's a quote I'll leave you with - "never wrestle with a pig, you only get dirty and besides, the pig likes it".
Scott
I still don't see what "lip service" Dr. Paul is giving to those who claim the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. I also don't see why he should be held responsible for the beliefs of some of his supporters.
45Superman,
Just take a look at the video to which David supplied the link - while it clearly shows Ron Paul disavowing the 9/11 "truthers" it also clearly shows him paying "lip service" to the "students" for 9/11 truth, that is he'll work with Kucinich (sic) for another look at 9/11.
Ron Paul doesn't get it. The "truthers" aren't looking to prove gov't is incompetent. They're looking to prove Bush perpetrated 9/11. Either Ron Paul is clueless as to what the "truthers" are really about (which disqualifies him in my book) or he really hasn't disavowed them.
I can't get behind someone who doesn't appear bright enough to figure that out.
Scott
Scott, I watched that video clip. I saw Dr. Paul state that he supported another look at 9/11. Granted, the "truthers" want another look, as well. While you, I, and clearly Dr. Paul himself, disagree with the "truthers" on why that look is needed--why does that matter?
I'm not going to change your mind, clearly--and I don't see myself suddenly kicking Dr. Paul to the curb, simply because he isn't vocal enough in denigrating those of his supporters who have some ideas I find odd, so I guess I'm going to bow out of this discussion.
Well, Scott, even though I've gone to great length to explain my reasoning regarding every objection you've raised (not for you, but because I support Paul and don't want to leave any challenge unresponded to for others reading this thread) I can't help but notice you've not answered my question about who you DO support, why and what you're doing about it.
That's hardly fair, to keep bringing up new objections and new points without addressing the ones posed to you.
So, Scott-I will repeat myself:
[A]ssuming you want me and others to follow your vision so that the results are what you want them to be, lead us in this. Who should we support, why, how, and how soon should we get started?
I've told you my response: Ron Paul, because he's pro-RKBA and liberty, financially and by spreading the word, and right now.
Will you be equally direct?
David,
I'm a registered Libertarian in AZ.
At one time the Libertarian party advocated a platform plank of requiring that any ballot include the choice "none of the above".
Thats my choice right now. I'm not happy with any of them, including Ron Paul.
So, in good conscience I can't support anybody. I would vote for none of the above on any ballot.
But so you know, Tancredo has said if we ever get nuked that we should nuke Mecca and Medina in response. I like his attitude.
Scott
Scott
A bit delayed, but my response here. Thank you for taking the time to respond, especially on a subject beyond the scope of this blog. If it sounds harsh, it's nothing personal, it's just that I have as much passion about foreign policy as I do gun rights. Ron Paul for me is a catch-22.
Re: "The company he keeps", guilt by distant association, etc.
One pro-gun writer, Clayton Cramer, recently wrote a piece impugning Ron Paul because some volunteers in his campaign are too enthusiastic and starry-eyed, while some others seem anti-zionist. He worried that Paul supporters were enthusiastically cheering "Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul will save America".
e.g., "When Ron Paul arrived, there was a frightening intensity to the
chanting, 'Ron Paul! Ron Paul!' "
Ooooh. Chills! Better slip over the border before Ron Paul breaks out the Zyklon B!
Cramer disclaims any direct slur that they're closet Nazis, while at the same time clearly implying it: E.g., He's never seen this level of "leader worship". And calling it "chanting" instead of "cheering" raises images of hooded robes and candles.
He also is concerned that a Paul newsletter talked about Israeli agents influencing congress. Now I certainly hope Paul isn't one of those "anti-Zionists" (wink wink), i.e., anti-semites. They're usually pretty easy to flush out: They have no perspective, and they engage in moral equivalence at best, (e.g., they portray collateral damage from Israeli surgical strikes as morally equal to or worse than grisly intentional murders of innocents by Muslims, etc.) In my humble experience, if you go back and forth by email a couple times, most "anti-zionists" drop the anti-Z pretense and start talking smack on Jews generally.
That said, there surely ARE some Israeli agents doing questionable things here, at least from the POV of a guy like Paul who honors Washington's skepticism on foreign entanglements. Let's remember we DO have a guy doing life in prison for espionage on behalf of Israel. Not cool.. I can't fault Paul for mentioning an experience with Israeli agents per se, provided it actually happened and as long as he keeps fair perspective and doesn't harp unfarily or disproportionately on Israel.
Israel is an ALLY. I sympathize with the extremely tough position Israel is in. I wouldn't worry about Israel any more than I would our British allies who also have agents here and influence U.S. policy. So what?
Maybe in some cases Israel felt compelled to spy to get the same information we GIVE to the British. If so, to the extent that's the case, maybe we should share more info with Israel. I don't know. And maybe our ALLY Israel is forced to lobby, whereas British concerns are addressed without having to lobby. Maybe that gives our weasely administrations plausible deniability with the Islamic dictators whose asses people like Jimmy Carter are always trying to kiss. To the extent other allies have far more influence without having to lobby congress, it's unfair to portray Israeli lobbying as undue influence.
More importantly, there are agents from China and various Islamic regimes who are out and about trying to influence our policies, buy politicians, do espionage etc. Unlike Israel, they're HOSTILES. If Paul focused disproportionately on Israeli influence and never complained about all the Congressmen, Senators, and even Presidents (e.g., Clinton & Carter), who whored for the Saudis & ChiComs, I would have a problem with that. But I don't see that. I see Paul smearing; guilt by stretched association.
Far as the company he keeps or attracts, it's pretty grandiose to use that phrase in reference to volunteers. I mean really, are his key advisers Islamofascists, Holocaust revisionists, or 9/11 'truthers'? And it doesn't mean jack that a few "anti-Zionists" etc volunteered. There are weirdos in every campaign, including the front-runners from the major parties. I've noticed that "anti-Zionist" Jew haters will latch on, at least initially, to anyone who will say anything critical of Israel EVER, hoping they found one of their own. That hardly proves they found one of their own.
Anyone who's been around presidential campaigns should suspect the criticism of Ron Paul "chanting" is unfair or naive. EVERY presidential candidate gets those kinds of "chants" from volunteers. As if no one got all starry-eyed and said "Reagan, Reagan, Reagan". Please.
What, volunteers can shout "McCain, McCain, McCain", and it's just enthusiastic cheer, but if they say "Paul, Paul, Paul", it's an ominous chant? I liked Reagan, but there were plenty of glazy-eyed true believers who worshipped the ground he and every other president and presidential candidate walked on. Suddenly, when it's Ron Paul, it's dark and menacing.
As far as 9/11 'truthers'. You don't have to believe that your own government blew up the towers to know that a lot of things stink with 9/11 and the "war on terror". The truths and questions I have problems with are far more conventional. For example, why was there a total evasion of ACCOUNTABILITY for the gross negligence and subversion of borders, immigration laws and law enforcement which allowed 9/11 to happen? Why was no one even blamed, let alone fired, let alone prosecuted for gross negligence, when it was known that questionable Saudi types were romping around the country taking flaky flight lessons, etc., etc.? The answer seems pretty self-evident. The Bush administration couldn't hold a single person accountable for a single thing without the gross negligence and subversion being exposed at levels too high and too wide. Naturally, no one would accept responsibility for gross negligence leading to 9/11 without pointing fingers at the superiors under whose orders or policies they were operating, and the chain of responsibility for the gross negligence would've been too wide and too high. Would you roll over and accept moral blame for negligence that facilitated the deaths of 3000 Americans if you were just following the orders and policies of the administration?
And why has "Guest Worker" Bush continued to relentlessly subvert our immigration laws and borders even after 9/11, when it guarantees that terrorists can continue to saunter in and mass murder us? Why was Sandy Berger barely given a slap on the wrist? I could go on.
To me, the 9/11 "truther" movement serves as a very effective smokescreen to divert attention from these more conventional accountability, gross negligence, and subversion issues.
RH
I am supporting Ron Paul. He is the Champion of the Constitution and the Modern Day Thomas Jefferson. He is the most consistent conservative running for the Republican nomination.
I have donated money to Ron Paul, including making a donation on November 5, and I will continue to donate money to his campaign and to help to get him elected. The next big fundraiser will be held on December 16 to commemerate the Boston Tea Party:
http://teaparty07.org/
In regards to foreign policy, Ron Paul is correct that we need to stop being the world's policeman. It is only contributing to the erosion of our national sovereignty. If we can go around the world being the big bully today who is to say that the UN can't do the same thing? Maybe tomorrow it will be the UN sending troops to the U.S. to enforce disarmament on us and getting rid of our weapons of mass destruction. Hasn't the UN or IANSA stated that firearms are weapons of mass destruction? Perhaps someday the UN will decide that we can't have nuclear weapons or firearms. What will we do then?
We need to wake up to the fact that national sovereignty doesn't mean anything when another country can legatimetly disarm another nation that doesn't pose a threat. In regards to Iran, if Islamic exetremism is really the threat it is made out to be then why does Russia and China align with Iran? Wouldn't they have as much or more to fear from Islamic exetremism? Yet, they are actively helping Iran militarily. Russia and China are not muslim countries and it would seem to me, that the muslim exetremists, if they are in fact motivated only by their desire to convert infidels, would be much more likely to go after the godless communists than the very religious United States of America. No, I think we are being deceived. And I have been buying into this lie. But not anymore. We need to pull our troops out of the entire Middle East and stop trying to run the world and "make the world safe for democracy." The only thing we are making the world safe for is the thugs at the UN who will eventually take our place as the big kid on the block. And then it will be our freedom on the chopping block.
Once we bring our troops home, if any nation dares to attack us then they will face the full wrath of the United State's military. If any nation uses weapons of mass destruction on us then we should launch a devastating attack on them with nuclear weapons. With this type of foreign policy, we would be minding our own business, and more importantly, we would be following the Constitution and the advice of our founders.
If you support our current foreign policy then you must support one world government, because there is no way that the rest of the world is going to allow us to indefinately be the worlds' sovereign authority.
I'm all in favor of minimizing foreign military involvements to those that are really necessary. But that doesn't mean no foreign military involvements.
In the world of 2007, it doesn't seem like a good idea to let every country have any nuclear, biological and chemical toys they desire, and then rely only on our nuclear deterrent to keep those weapons from being used on us. The relatively civilized world should, if it can, deny such weapons to certain relatively brutal, primitive, uncivilized countries for much the same reason that it's imprudent to let a 3-year old play with loaded guns. Either you can't take the risk of trusting them with nukes because they're essentially not adult enough, or you know for sure they can't be trusted because they're nutty, brutal, dark age islamofascist dirtbags.
"Minding your own business" only goes so far. The concept doesn't require you to allow kindergarteners to play with guns.
The idea of pretending that all countries are equal and that we can never pre-emptively meddle doesn't seem too prudent to me.
Invasion of Afghanistan and Denial of Rule to the Taliban at a relatively low cost of American life: Cool.
Invasion of Iraq and Denial of Rule at a relatively low cost of American life: Cool by me, but not quite as cool as Afghanistan because it wasn't Al Qaeda's home base.
Endless, underwhelming-force occupation of Iraq, killing off 4000 and wounding / maiming 40000 Americans to give the perfect liberal western style democracy to a relatively brutal, primitive people who haven't earned it and aren't ready for it? Uncool.
We ousted Saddam at a loss of less than 200 dead Americans. Instead of occupying cities, we could've stopped when we were way ahead with the Denial of Rule / Regime Ouster, pulled out of the cities, carved out a few permanent defensible bases as a deterrent and as bases for future Denial of Rule actions. Other than that we could've gotten out, brought most of the troops home and put a bunch on OUR border, armed. Had we done that we'd have 3500 fewer dead and 35000 fewer wounded / mutilated / disabled Americans. There would be more dead Iraqis, but it's really their job to earn their own government, not ours.
Either that or Bush could've done the surge years ago and we'd have less than half as many dead and wounded as we do now.
Either way, the condition would've been VICTORY, the American public would not be weary of an endless occupation, and we'd be in a better position as far as support from the American public to perform Denial of Rule or Denial of Toys in Iran.
Instead, the strategy seemed be an endless "long war", kidding themselves that if we stay at war forever in Iraq, Al Qaeda will throw every terrorist they have into Iraq and not save any to mass murder us here again...
Idiotic considering that there are a billion Muslims, a large percentage of whom sympathize with terrorism (over 25% of Muslims in America openly admit to sympathizing with terrorists) and considering it only took a handful of scumbags to do 9/11.
Even if only 1% the world's Muslims were Jihadi types, that would be 10 million Jihadi types. You could keep the Iraq war going forever and never put a dent in their numbers.
There would be plenty left over for the "perfect day" (see www.policeone.com/school-violence/articles/1355243/)
especially considering that our chief warrior against terror, Guest Worker Bush, continued to subvert our immigration laws and borders even after 9/11, so God only knows how many terrorists have sauntered in thanks to that.
That's why there is no substitute for defending our own borders.
And there is no substitute for holding the leaders of Islamic countries responsible for terrorism that springs from within their borders. They are far more able to suppress Jihadism then we are, long as they understand that if they don't do it, we can and will deny their rule at relatively little cost to us.
Contrast that to the underwhelming force endless occupation model, which is very costly to us and plays by rules that empower the enemy. So what if we kill 33 times as many of them as they kill of us? There are millions of them and they consider themselves expendable. Moreover, I don't think 33-1 or even 100-1 is a good deal. They're expendable because they're worthless. Our guys are not worthless.
What happened to the "Lessons of Vietnam"? Here we are (especially pre-surge) using a modified body count strategy again against an even more endless supply of an even more expendable enemy than in Vietnam, though no one will actually call it what it is. What happened to "don't get off the boat unless you're willing to go all the way"? What happened to never again dicking around and not winning with overwhelming force? What happened to attacking the enemy strategically and never again tying our soldier's hands behind their backs and telling them Hanoi and Haiphong are off the menu?
We can't do an underwhelming force occupation of every Muslim country.
So unless we're willing to declare wars again and fight them like wars we really want to get over with and win, unless we're willing to sacrifice and scorch the earth and occupy countries with a million men as we did in Germany and Japan... If we're going to use limited war strategies then we need to use strategies that work for us and not endless occupation / bodycount strategies that work for an endless supply of enemies who are not only expendable, but actually glory in their own expenditure.
In other words, we need to use Containment and Denial of Rule.
Given our military superiority, there's no Islamic country that can resist Denial of Rule by the USA. The USA has demonstrated that we can Deny Rule at relatively very low cost in American life. Therefore they will opt to stay in power and suppress Jihadism, as Libya's Khaddafi did.
And strict adherence to borders, immigration laws and limits, and U.S. sovereignty, are the critical core of a true Containment strategy.
This is modified non-interventionism. We'll leave you alone if you enthusiastically suppress Jihadism within your sphere. Other than that, your country is your problem.
RH
P.S. I like David's approach to facilitate the natural split-up of the Iraq construct while minimizing massacres and civil wars.
Once the three main groups are mostly self-segregated into their regions, there probably would be a lot less oppression of the minorities that stayed behind than one might suspect. The vast Cambodian / African style massacres wouldn't materialize because the minorities who refused to evacuate to their regions would be so tiny that they wouldn't constitute a perceived threat to the majorities.
But I think we should keep at least one huge permanent defensible base in each of the three regions. "This is our base. Don't come within X miles of it or we will waste you. As long as you suppress Jihadism you can do what you like outside that radius."
Then we can support lesser-of-evil factions without fighting their war for them. If a region lets a group we can't live take control, flick it away and tell the people of the region: "Ok... Try again."
It's one thing to be an insurgent group operating from the shadows to screw up the existing order. Quite another think to BE the existing order. To rule, they must come out of hiding and show up for work every day. Hard to find and kill insurgents in hiding. Easy to find and kill former insurgents who are now trying to run a government. No secret where they're going to be every day.
Denial of Rule strategy is absolute veto power. We don't tell you how or who to run your country. Just how or who not to run it.
Also, when I wrote, "invasion... cool.", I was overstating a bit for effect. I don't really think we should've gone in. Saddam was already contained and emasculated, and he was secular; so he wasn't really really a big threat. We had already sent the Denial of Rule message with Afghanistan. That said, it wouldn't have been such a bad thing to go in, oust the mass murderer Saddam, quickly facilitate the spin-off into 3 regions, establish and keep several huge bases, and otherwise get out.
Had we done that, I doubt Iran would be moving ahead with nukes.
RH
Post a Comment