Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.OK, gun owners for Fred.
Now what?
Hmmm...??
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
And Then There Were Five...
Now what?
Hmmm...??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
I did my duty and voted for Fred in NH.
Now ... No plans for election day! Hooray! I'm going to buy an AK-47, a thousand rounds of ammo, and head to the range to shoot the hell out of steel cans, scrap wood, and any other unfortunate hunk of useless material resides in my garage.
Certainly better than voting for any of the remaining Democrats with a shot at the GOP nomination.
In my happy world, McCain picks Fred for VP then wins the election. Three days into his term, McCain has a very mild strke that nonetheless forces him to step down, thus turning the nation over to Fred...
Or I vote for Paul come hell or high water.
Well, ya gots yerself 5 choices.... vote for an anti-gun collectivist authoritarian, vote for Ron Paul, vote for the LP candidate, write in my name, or sit it out. Did I miss any?
I pray for a Ron Paul victory. I simply refuse to vote for anyone else. I can't, in good conscience, vote for Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain.
My new plan... nay my new mission in life is to convince ALL GUN OWNERS to vote third party.
I don't care which third party, either. Vote Paul, vote Libertarian, vote Reform, vote Green, vote Cylon, vote Scientologist.
Just don't vote for the mainstream.
See, the GOP has taken the gun vote for granted for decades. Heck, they've said, who else the gunnies gonna vote for?
Well, let's show them that they don't have the gunowners to kick around anymore.
Let's face it, a vote for Mitt, Rudy, McCain, Huck, Hilary, Obama, or Edwards is a WASTED VOTE. As gun owners, we're boned no matter who wins.
So, let's put our votes to good use. Get out there and vote third party.
Maybe after the GOP sees this shift, they'll be more recptive to our needs come 2010.
Spread the word. Third-Party Gunnies Unite!!
That would teach a lesson, Joe, but why not win?
RP won't get the Repub nomination, but I'm betting the "Revolution" will draft him to run 3rd party.
Then gun owners and conservatives and other repubs will have a choice: vote for him or lose.
In a 3 way race, he'd only need 30%. Perot got 20, and he didn't even stand for anything. Let Bloomberg and Nader enter the race and things will indeed get interesting.
The mainstream GOP candidates cannot win if the last elections bear out--Bush could not have except for gun owners. Mitt, MCain and Rudy will not get that support--although the timid and unimaginative in our ranks would have you believe we must hold our noses.
I predicted this would happen and am not surprised.
I'm going to work on hijacking the bus. I'm not going to allow the compromisers to get away with it again if there's anything I can do to help derail them.
And if we get Hillary, they can blame themselves. Besides, who says gridlock is always a bad thing when it comes to the bloated fed?
I like Ron Paul on almost everything, but he's so damn unrealistic when it comes to the military and when it comes to Iraq, I just can't bring myself to do it. He's beyond clueless on the whole Iraq withdrawal, it's ridiculous. I have to think long and hard on this.
"In a 3 way race, he'd only need 30%. Perot got 20, and he didn't even stand for anything. Let Bloomberg and Nader enter the race and things will indeed get interesting."
Now that would be something to see. But it wouldn't much matter because the Dems own the House, which is where it would end up should no one get the minimum electoral votes needed.
Call me what you want, but I'm thinking about Romney.
The Dems are all going to withdraw, Nicki, and no other Repub stands a chance--McCain wants to be there another 100 years. Besides which, I'm for Iraq withdrawal, and guarantee you I'm hardly clueless. I'll do a piece on national security and make my case when I get the time.
Stan, go ahead and support a gun grabber--but don't expect "free constitution" to be much more than words if you do.
We either believe the words of the Second Amendment are true or we don't--let's at least be honest about that. An uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state.
If you think those are just words, say so. Those of us who don't are going to support the only candidate who has proven he actually believes them.
Time to see who's serious.
It's truly amazing to me--the only guy in the race who makes the Constitution the centerpiece of his platform, and we're arguing about it.
David, my problem with the way he wants to withdraw is that he's claiming it's somehow realistic to just pull out. It took us almost a full two years to demob out of Kuwait, and that was a FRIENDLY nation! Iraq is hardly stable right now, and if we pull out now and leave a skeleton force like the libs want, our guys are going to die, and I'm unwilling to vote for anyone who will let that happen. Additionally, it's logistically unrealistic.
Whether I agreed with the initial action there or not, I'm unwilling to let my fellow Soldiers die out there because there are politicians who have no concept of what withdrawing would entail.
Besides, the surge is working. We've invested a lot of time and resources into it, and it's finally paying off. I'm not saying I agree with the concept of keeping troops there permanently - not at all. But we need a realistic policy over there, and Ron Paul's isn't it.
Having said that, no other candidate is worth a damn either, and the Libertarians have taken a step off the Cliffs of Insanity with what they have to offer. I'm not even remotely impressed with them.
Like I said... I'm thinking.
They're a lot more than words, it's what sets this nation of people apart from the rest of the world. Mitt couldn't erase the Second Amendment any more than Obama could. And even if some president could, it would still be a preexisting God given right, of which no social compact could nullify.
But I see what you are saying.
I compare all of the issues very important to me with those of the candidates at hand, and right now, Mitt utterly fails, but he failed with a higher score than the rest. I suppose I could just write in someone, or vote Democrat because it won't much matter here in Utah. But my money and support is where it counts during the primaries, and I don't see anyone in the field that I could contribute to without kicking myself.
I wish I was a one issue citizen, then I would have the luxury many of you have here, by supporting Ron Paul. As a student of history and foreign policy, I fear RP would be a serious blow to the advancement we've made in global stability, which is directly related to U.S. security.
What good is liberty if we haven't a president ready to defend it, here and abroad? As Edmund Burke said, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil...
I am still thinking too.
I don't see how bringing all the troops home now (also known as "REALLY supporting the troops") will get them killed. Staying where they are not wanted brings bad things down on America and has kept getting them killed.
I admit it: I am a one-issue person. Liberty matters. When any candidate opposes liberty I differ with him on that issue. I do not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but the rest of the Demopublicans are completely out of the question. I could no more vote for them than for the worst historical tyrant you can think of.
If my unwavering stance for freedom makes me shallow or unrealistic, then so be it.
Kent, you can read more on my blog. I just posted it there. I don't want to litter David's blog with my mess, but I'll explain in short...
This past year, we were in Kosovo - a fairly stable, friendly area compared to Iraq. Demob plans started happening almost immediately after we arrived there. And that is a FRIENDLY region. Withdrawal involves more than just an executive order to come home. It takes time. Who is going to break down, account for millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment, close down the SCIFs, take down the TOCs, break down the living areas, etc. etc. etc.? How long do you think it's going to take in an unstable area? Withdrawal would leave a small number of troops to do an enormous amount of work. Withdrawal would leave them with little security, since all the line units would be brought home "immediately". It would leave them to die.
As I said, I'll get to all of this as I get the time to adress it properly.
Bottom line--we ARE coming out, whether any of us agree or not. We may not like to hear that, but all of the Dems have pledged it and the mainstream Repubs are not fielding any candidate who can beat the other dems the way Bush did--by squeaking over the top due to gun owners rallying--we were that powerful a force. And soldiers will die staying there, too. There are no benefits without costs, either way you go.
Paul is not a fool--he will consult with the military and do things in a way to maximize benefits and minimize loss. The man has demonstrated throughout his career that he values human life and that he is not irresponsible--he won't want to be the one who presides over wholesale slaughter of Americans.
And as for equipment that is too hazardous to life to move: burn it or give it to the factions you think are in a best position to stabilize an area. We can get more. Again costs vs benefits: in order to determine the net, you need to factor in the open-ended costs of staying--otherwise,how is that different from the argument the antis use against guns?
The issue here is this, and this is what I'd like to focus on: does anyone seriously think McCain or Romney will win without strong gun owner support? Because that fire went out of the belly a long time ago.
That's the argument we should be having. If the answer is "no," then what are we talking about?
"and if we pull out now and leave a skeleton force like the libs want"
Out means out. It's not politically correct to say so, but it is CORRECT that the ongoing civil was is over Islamic *fundamentalists* bickering over whose long-dead guy is heir to Mohommad.
Freedom cannot be forced on people, not even people we Americans consider rational.
You worry about breaking down SCIFs? In a hurry, thermite works well.
The more I learn, the more I see that Ron Paul is the only real choice for America, if we want to survive as a free nation.
Anon - you're being unrealistic and ridiculous. You don't just blow up important intel and equipment. And no, you don't just leave it to adversary factions. Talk about your huge waste of money. A withdrawal has to be done properly. As I said, it took us months of planning just to have 1500 Americans leave friendly Camp Bondsteel. How long do you think withdrawing tens of thousands of troops out of a dangerous area will entail? Withdrawal doesn't just happen. Sorry, folks.
Additionally, while things are getting better, it's still a mess over there. I think since we went in (whether you agree or not) and basically instituted a completely new system, we have an obligation to see it through, not just leave a mess. Again, regardless of whether or not I agree with the reasons for our going to Iraq, tossing everything and just leaving is not right and not an option. It'll get our guys killed.
"The man has demonstrated throughout his career that he values human life and that he is not irresponsible--he won't want to be the one who presides over wholesale slaughter of Americans." - I would hope you're right, David. But right now, the only thing he has said is that he would immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. There's no plan, there's no organization. Just a completely unrealistic promise.
what the government has an obligation to do and what it does are two completely unrelated things these days.
It was SUPPOSED to guarantee our rights and protect the nation. It has primarily guaranteed it's own ever growing power and protect other people.
We're not going anywhere, except maybe to Iran, no matter which liar gets elected...I say liar because everyone but Paul is, and as usual the fix is in. You can't argue that the controlled Q&A sessions that pass as debates, the media near blackout on Paul, the hypocritical charges of racism are symptomatic of an effort, a conspiracy to prevent a message of true change from getting out in, sadly, what most Americans rely on for news, television PROGRAMMING. I AM voting for him as he is the only person who has values and ideals that are not a sell out or a finger in the wind...as Thompson's entire run was...he only did so thinking he had the support of people. When the going got rough he packed up.
Kent had it right...those are your choices. I know, and YOU know where I stand. I will vote for the person BEST SUITED for the job based on the supreme law of the land, something the military is sworn to uphold and defend. I just wish more people would bother trying to stick to what worked.
Nicki,
Paul has said he would withdraw our forces from Iraq as soon and as rapidly as he could safely (for them) do so. That's a near-quote.
Computers make destruction and relocation of classified a lot easier than it used to be. EVERY military unit that handles classified has a plan in place for this.
It's not going to be a stroll through the daisies, but it's not going to be Dunkirk either.
And I do believe that the Iraqis won't be in for an easy time when we withdraw, but I also believe that'd be the case even if we were to expend blood and treasure there for another ten years.
Assuming that Jorge will be nice enough to peacably relinquish power next year, the withdrawal from Iraq is coming. Do you debate this?
If not... do you want said withdrawal presided over by a VETERAN who's proven he actually gives a rat's ass for our men and women in uniform, or Hillary/Obama, who'll simply transfer them to "peacekeeping" duty in Darfur, Sudan, Kenya or whatever's the latest liberal globalist cause du jour?
Luke, I wish that near-quote was accurate. Check here.
“I’m Ron Paul and I’m running for president. So are a lot of other people as you may have noticed but I’m the only one in either party who’s pledged to bring our troops home from Iraq immediately and cut government spending. ..."
No, the Iraqis will be in for a difficult time once we leave, but I also don't think it's viable to be there for another 10 years. We have momentum on our side now. The surge is working, and the Iraqis are FINALLY starting to work with us. We are teaching them how to be self reliant, and we finally have a leader in Gen. Petraeus who knows what the hell he's doing! Thank GAWD for that!
Our enemies aren't dumb. They know when we come and go, and they know we're at our most vulnerable when we're conducting mass movements. You want to see chaos? Watch what happens when we try to withdraw thousands of troops in a short amount of time out of a region that's volatile while leaving behind a small force to clean up after ourselves... The only way to truly get our guys out safely is to ensure that the Iraqis are doing their part, and I think we're slowly but surely getting there.
Believe me, Luke, we don't want to be there either! We'd rather be at home with our families. But we also know that we need to complete the mission before we go, because otherwise, we WILL have a massacre of our troops on our hands.
I can see no one viable as a conservative or a libertarian in this race. I'd rather eviscerate myself with a spork than give my vote to John Never Met an Illegal Alien Whose Rectum He Didn't Slurp McCain, Mike We Need to Amend the Constitution to Reflect What I Think JAAAAYSUSSS Says Huckabee or Plastic Boy I Respect the Second Amendment, but Still Will Deprive You of Big Scary Guns That Make Me Crap My Pants Romney. And none of the Demonrats will ever get my vote...
Man, I'm pissed!
...and the Iraqis are FINALLY starting to work with us. We are teaching them how to be self reliant...
Yeah Nicki, We'll Stand Down as They Stand Up...
That was funny as crap! Reminds me of early morning PT at Camp Atterbury right before we deployed. Same amount of energy at 0430... maybe a little less!
Seriously, though, we are making progress. According to the MNTF Spokesman, last year the Iraqi security forces grew by more than 106,000 personnel. That's pretty good, considering how much suck there was prior to Petraeus taking over.
"By the end of 2007, some 140 battalions of Iraqi army, National Police and special operations units were in the fight with 122 of those battalions capable of taking the lead in operations. “All Iraqi battalions are heavily involved in combat operations and have been increasingly the first line of defense, with losses two to three times that of the coalition,” according to Adm. Greg Smith. That's pretty good too.
We're getting there.
"You don't just blow up important intel and equipment."
You do if the CiC tells you to.
"And no, you don't just leave it to adversary factions. Talk about your huge waste of money."
Just what our federal gov't does best. :)
"Just what our federal gov't does best. :)"
Can't argue with you there! LOL
Got two words for ya, Nicki...
"last throes"
To hear the brass, the politicians and the WSJ/NRO/LGF sofa samurai safe at home behind their keyboards tell it we've been "turning the corner" for nigh on five years...
You're talking to a fellow vet, Nicki. I don't buy the sunny press releases. There's a reason they wouldn't put Petraeus under oath.
And besides, a "successful" bank robbery is no less immoral.
"The stupid phrase ["My country, right or wrong"] needed help, and it got another one: "Even if the war be wrong, we are in it and must fight it out; we cannot retire from it without dishonor." Why, not even a burglar could have said it better. We cannot withdraw from this sordid raid because to grant peace to those little people upon their terms - independence -- would dishonor us." ~Samuel Clemens
I would point out that Islamic terrorists have not attacked us, us, the USA, anywhere in the world in more than six years,(with the exception of the battlegrounds WE chose) which is longer than any period of time we have gone without a terrorist attack against
Americans in nearly 40 years.
I would also, point out that we were being attacked by Islamic terrorists, all those years, while we were engaging in the diplomacy and persuasion that R.Paul advocates. During all that time we were pursuing peaceful dialogue with the third world, the Arab Street, etc. ad nauseum. Yet we were regularly attacked by Islamic terrorists for nothing other than we were American.
What stopped the terrorists attacks against us was the fact that Islamic terrorists were too damn busy trying to recruit enough stupid suiciders to resist us on their own ground. There were a few attacks against others, Bali comes to mind, Spain, England, etc., but they have been too busy trying to keep their own turf to be very effective. I prefer it that way. I wish that we had no reason to send troops anywhere in the world, but when you have a declared enemy who will follow you home, kill him where he lives. That is what we have been doing, beats the Hell of him killing you where you live.
Unfortunately Ron Paul does not understand this. If he did, I could vote for him, because I am a fan of his views on the constitution, but I do not want to join him in a surrogate suicide pact, nor do I want any of my American fellows lost on our soil because of the diplomacy of suicide.
I truly regret this stance, because I have voted for Mr. Paul in the past. Before I was aware of his complete naivete as regards Islamic terrorism.
We can argue who will occupy foreign lands best (at great expense of life and our dollars), but it don't amount to shit if our civil liberties keep getting railroaded here at home. Romney will railroad us just as much as Hillary, Obama, McCain, and the rest of them.
We've been voting for the least-bad candidate for so long (or the faux-best like Bush), that we are under a slow painful attack from our own government.
Please don't vote for those who would attack us most gently, like Romney.
I'll stay optimistic and vote for Paul. I don't agree with him on everything for sure, but he certainly won't continue the wholesale rape of my civil liberties.
I'm voting on principal. Now that Fred is out, the only possible candidate for me is Ron Paul.
If I vote for the pap they give me, how will they learn to give me better?
I thought it was stupid to goto Iraq in the first place, but I do agree that Paul is being a bit unrealistic about an immediate withdrawal.
That said, I would much rather leave Iraq with a messy civil war than to have to fight one right here. Granted, most of the other candidates on both sides probably aren't stupid enough to heat the proverbial water fast enough to do that immediately. However, none of them besides Paul seem interested in slowing our creeping descent into tyranny.
As for the idea that Romney, Obama, or whoever can't erase the Second Amendment on their own; they don't have to. If whoever is elected keeps up the Clinton/Bush crusade to close all the gun shops, what good will a right to keep and bear something you cannot buy do?
Thompson was my second choice after Paul. With Thompson gone, there is no other Republicrat I can bring myself can vote for if Paul doesn't win the nomination.
If it comes down to Hillobama versus McRomnabee, whoever the Libertarians run will get my vote.
"RP won't get the Repub nomination, but I'm betting the "Revolution" will draft him to run 3rd party."
I don't know how you can say that. First you say he won't get the nomination, then you engage in wishful thinking despite Paul's near and repeated Shermanesque statements saying just the opposite.
In essence, Paul, by not getting the nomination, and by not running as a third party candidate, is tacitly supporting the GOP nominee.
If Paul is a man of his word, then the Second Amendment is just as well "words" to him as any other candidate. But that's ok because Hillary will win and it will be the GOPs fault, the same GOP that Paul refused to compete against. And we can all bathe in our glory knowing we settled for nothing less than the best, while we rattle our chains.
The mainstream GOP is our ally, yes they have been known to bite, but they need us, and we need them.
Paul has said he has no plans-he's focusing on the GOP race. But you're living proof the GOP will go mainstream above all else. Then he'll be sitting on millions with a team behind the 'revolution' that wants him in the white house--badly. I don't think it takes a crystal ball to know what kind of groundswell there will be on the part of those who have staked their hopes in finally being able to make a difference.
SA-I'll get to you. This stuff takes time to put together,and in my case, everything you see is spare time. Hope everyone understands that feeding my family comes first, and this blog doesn't.
I do note not one person has addressed the direct question I asked: The issue here is this, and this is what I'd like to focus on: does anyone seriously think McCain or Romney will win without strong gun owner support?
I'd like an answer from one of the Paul naysayers.
Luke, that's the kind of crap that upsets me most - people who claim they won't buy the press releases from the military. Guess what - the PAO may be behind a keyboard some of the time, but they're outside the wire a LOT. The press releases aren't sunny. They're direct from the horse's mouth - those who are there. They're also a balance to the constant barrage of negative bullshit we hear from the mainstream media. Are they completely objective? No. Do they lie? No. Even Murtha - an ardent opponent of our military in Iraq - was forced to admit that the surge is working. Sorry, while I honor and appreciate your military service, your status as a vet doesn't add any credibility to your claims. I'm not arguing the morality of our being in Iraq. I'm arguing that the promises of immediate withdrawal are unrealistic, downright impossible, and reckless.
David: The issue here is this, and this is what I'd like to focus on: does anyone seriously think McCain or Romney will win without strong gun owner support?
No, absolutely not. But, David, you and I both have enough experience with gun owners to know that when push comes to shove, they're - for the most part - cowards who will, in the end, hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. I have zero faith in most gun owners and NRA members. Historically, they've pulled the lever for whoever was endorsed by the NRA, and the NRA has a pretty shoddy record, as far as I'm concerned.
"No, absolutely not."
Bingo. Which means, dear Nicki, either Obama or Hillary, who will begin immediate withdrawals, will win.
And then it's off to Darfur, because George Clooney wants us to.
David, I'm not debating that at all. Realistically speaking, here's the way I think it will play out - with or without my vote: McAmnesty will get the GOP nomination because the majority of gun owners are blind enough to vote for him (and whoever is endorsed by the NRA.) However, many true conservatives and libertarians will either stay home disgusted or throw their support for a third party - enough to split the conservative vote and give Hitlery or Osama the presidency.
I have a fatalistic attitude about this election. I think we're screwed no matter what, unless there's a HUGE mental revolution in this country, and we're just not there yet.
I have also always given my vote to the candidate who best represents my views and interests, without much regard for how much of a chance he has to win. So for me, it's a question of personal morals. I know we're screwed no matter what, so who will get my vote of confidence? I agree with Ron Paul on most things, but this Iraq issue is critical to me, much like immigration and gun control. So my moral dilemma is: will I sleep well at night knowing I gave my vote to a candidate who promises to be reckless with the people I love? I don't know. I would HOPE that he would use common sense, but this "immediate withdrawal" BS has GOT to stop.
Am I making sense or just rambling incoherently this morning?
No, you're making sense. Paul needs to do a better job of explaining what a withdrawal would look like--how the general order would be implemented by the military commanders with safety and minimal loss being the overriding concern.
David Codrea said...
"No, you're making sense. Paul needs to do a better job of explaining what a withdrawal would look like--how the general order would be implemented by the military commanders with safety and minimal loss being the overriding concern."
Should that happen,and it is sensible I could vote for him again. And he is the only possibility in the race for me. If he does not do that, then there is nobody I can vote for who is a declared candidate.
At the moment I am having thoughts that it would be ok with me if millions of Americans were to be horrendously abused by an Obama, or Clinton. Maybe that would wake some of them up. If not, then let's just do the every man for himself thing and whatever one is strong enough to take and defend, let him. Unless you can take it from him.
Sounds bad when you say it out loud, but isn't that what the majority of Americans are tolerating now?
nicki (since I can't leave comments on your blog),
I wanted to point out a matter that bothers me any time someone says "I like Ron Paul except for this ONE issue...". We're willing to accept our future as a penniless socialist state, a tyrannical fascist nation, a nation who tries to legislate morality (more than we already are) to the point of making the Prohibition look balmy, all because the one candidate who not only understands, but has followed the supreme law of the land for ten years in office, has some perceived flaw in one of his plans that we probably agree with on the whole anyway??
Have you ever tried to fit a comprehensive explaination for a high-profile choice you've made, or will make, into a two-minute soundbite? Or even a twenty-minute interview?
Advisors (and Generals, etc.) are there to help hammer out the details; let's get the only properly qualified person elected and go from there.
Anon - I've disabled anonymous comments on my blog, because of the ridiculous amount of spam I was getting. You can register with blogger, and you don't actually have to blog yourself, but that's an aside...
I am not willing to accept tyranny in any way, shape or form. I don't know where you're getting this from. As I said before - we're at a point where I think we're pretty much stuck with the Cankled One as president. This leaves me with a choice to make as far as to whom I will give my vote - as a vote of confidence - as a vote to someone I believe in as a human being. My most important issues are gun control, immigration and the military - all VERY personal issues to me. I am very impressed with Ron Paul's gun control record, and the fact that he opposes amnesty and wants to close the borders is GREAT! But the idea of "immediate withdrawal" is ludicrous and unachievable, as well as reckless and dangerous to our troops.
"Have you ever tried to fit a comprehensive explaination for a high-profile choice you've made, or will make, into a two-minute soundbite? Or even a twenty-minute interview?" -- I'm Army Public Affairs. Yes, I have explained a number of comprehensive issues in interviews that lasted no more than 1/2 hour. Ron Paul has a website. He could very well explain how he plans to achieve this miraculous "immediate withdrawal" on the website and direct people to read it. As it is, he has explained nothing about the issue, but merely given nebulous platitudes about immediately getting our troops out of Iraq. That's unacceptable. Tell me how you're going to achieve this plan! I'm pretty well familiar with the Army, and I know how long it takes us to achieve even a minor redeployment out of a friendly zone. I'd like to hear how Ron Paul plans to achieve this withdrawal while taking into consideration the loss of life that will inevitably come with this scenario if taken literally.
I'll tackle David's question. Short answer: probably not. Depends on the proportion of nose-holders to hand-sitters, but most likely not.
It's possible, in the sense that with G_d all things are possible, that Romney or McCain could have an honest-to-Pete (maybe honest-to-Paul would be more appropriate in this case) road-to-Damascus on the Second Amendment. The problem is, who would believe either of them? (Which raises another couple of questions, but I'll address those on my own bandwidth.)
Frankly, though, a road-to-Damascus on the Second, complete with a reverberating voice from the clouds saying "He really means it!", wouldn't overcome Senator McQueeg's aggravated serial abuse of his oaths of enlistment and office.
I have reservations about Ron Paul, but it's hard to argue with the contention that he's the most Lockean candidate still running. I'll vote for him in the Ohio primary.
I'm a bit disturbed when someone admits that what happens in a distant country to people who signed up to put their lives in danger there is more important than what happens in their hometowns to people who are simply trying to live their lives.
And no, a Republican can not win without gun owner votes, but most gun owners will vote for them no matter what.
"I'm a bit disturbed when someone admits that what happens in a distant country to people who signed up to put their lives in danger there is more important than what happens in their hometowns to people who are simply trying to live their lives." -- And I'm a bit disturbed that those of us who volunteer to put their lives on the line to protect those who sit at home and spew political platitudes are held in such low regard by those to whom politics is more important than lives.
I am talking about saving lives.
David, it all depends on how much they bite the media spin of whatever the Heller case brings out.
If they say individual right with common sense the goPs could win since the fudds would think their guns are safe. If they say collective...hmmm, harder to say, but probably win. Individual with NO restrictions (HAHAHA, that I'd love to see) they sit home and we got the evil one.
For straightarrow..."they" are attacking everyone, everywhere. Here they may just be fighting with different tactics or putting something together that takes some time.
"I am talking about saving lives." -- Not the lives of those who, you so cavalierly point out, sign up to risk them. I just got an email from Paul Boyce - the Army Spokesman - who gave me some info about how many Soldiers we have deployed to Iraq currently. As of December 2007, we have 116,000 Soldiers in Iraq. What do you think is the feasibility of "immediately withdrawing" over 100 thousand troops out of a volatile area? What do you think just pulling them out is going to do? How is it going to affect their safety? OPSEC is difficult enough to maintain when you have a small force of 1000. You really think the enemy won't know if we all of a sudden decide on a mass movement? You really think they won't act? Yeah, we volunteer to put our lives on the line, but that doesn't mean we should be left to die because some politician doesn't understand the logistics and ramifications of what he's proposing.
...moving such large masses of people through hostile territory in the Middle East in a short amount of time is so impossible...
Yeah, because the Israelis are so well known for targeting civilians with IEDs and snipers, and of course a bunch of Palestinians carrying suitcases are comparable to the millions of dollars of equipment, vehicles, weapons, etc. the troops would have to be moved with, not to mention the things that would have to be broken down, packed and shipped with little to no security by a skeleton crew...
But they voluntarily signed on the dotted line promising to endanger their own lives, so they can die and we can sleep soundly, right?
Wow, this one heated up since I've been following it.
There's always one thing that has quietly bothered me. It's when someone implies that people who have not served in the military somehow have a "reduced right" to speak on military matters, matters of foreign policy, or even matters of troop deployment. It troubles me in a small way because it starts to smell a lot like the "only ones" type of attitude.
Don't get me wrong, no one has said that or implied it yet but I'm getting a sense that this discussion could go that route. Sure, I could get bent out of shape over a perceived slight towards my military service but guess what? It’s anyone's right. I know what I've done and what I've sacrificed in service to my Country. I remember my tears and those of my pregnant wife as she stood at the loading gate saying goodbye ... not to see each other until next year. I know what it's like to see your son for the first time at age five months. I know what it's like to see loved ones for 30 days in the span of two years. I know all of that but I don't think it gives me any special privileges or status.
That doesn't mean I don't get riled when someone says something that is obviously uninformed. I just don't take it personally. I try to inform if the person seems receptive. ... I think I've rambled a bit. I hope people understand what I am trying to say.
About the subject at hand...
An often overlooked lesson of history is that no great kingdom or empire has ever fallen without first having been decayed from within. For this reason alone I see no problem with voting for Ron Paul regardless of his foreign policy. All the Muslim extremists in the world right now cannot do as much damage to this country in the next four to eight years that a (insert any name you can think of here that would adequately describe what we see in our current anointed, mainstream candidates) president could do (along with his future SCOTUS appointments).
Our Founding Fathers were spot on when they warned us against being "entangled" in foreign wars and alliances. They had the smarts to give us this form of government (which I have to say has stood the test of time quite nicely) and giving heed to a few of the accompanying warnings wouldn't hurt. Sure the world has changed and they couldn't have possibly envisioned a radical Islam or the current Global climate ... sounds suspiciously close to the current arguments against private ownership of military weapons, huh? Point is that they wrote The Document (Constitution of the United States) and numerous warnings in their speeches and letters with a firm grasp on something that they knew would never change .... They understood Human Nature.
This topic is too grand to be justly addressed here. The answer to our worries lie somewhere closer to our hearts than the polling place down the road ... though that would be a good place to stop the slide we're on.
Lemme see here….? What must I do to qualify for this forum?
OK, let’s start here:
“Islamic terrorists have not attacked us….in more than six years.”
That means, just to start, I need to pretend that “two airliners hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists brought down three World Trade Center buildings in the same or less actual-collapse -time than would have elapsed had those buildings been wired by professional demolitions people, and that Al Qaeda terrorist/pilot extraordinaire, Hani Hanjour, who must have been pretending that he could only-just pilot a little Cessna because when he got in the cockpit of United Flight 77, he performed maneuvers that led flight controllers watching on radar think the Boeing 757 was a military fighter, maneuvers that pilots with many hundreds our hours in the Boeing 757 say that they could not have duplicated.
So then I have to believe that Al Qaeda is not an invention of US intelligence.
And that Al Qaeda somehow got an anti-terrorist exercise scheduled for 9/11/01, effecting hamstringing the US air defense system except for a single pair of fighter jets that for whatever reason didn’t engage afterburners, and so arrived too late to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 before it struck the South Tower.
And that Osama Bin Laden ran the who operation from some Afghanistan cave.
And dozens of other peculiarities I need to buy-into. But I won’t!
Much of the rest of stuff I won’t buy-into is about anything the US Establishment Media says. (That is, of course, unless I’ve reliable outside verification.) I think most of you seem to know at least the basic moves of the gun owners vis-Ã -vis government & Government-Media two-step. Then kindly tell me, when was the last time said Media got it right on anything to do with the Second Amendment? As this is a republic, when was the last time Media called it anything but a democracy? And Ron Paul: what about the Media’s treatment of his candidacy?
So why is it you people believe the Media when it comes to anything else?
Lastly, you military types:
I wasn’t aware that they’d stopped teaching withdrawal at our military academies. And did the US suffer a military “blood-bath” when it finally pulled out of Vietnam. And I’ve not bothered to research the number of dead, but I’d bet it was something less than the average KIA count from combat operations over a like amount of time during the height of that war.
Yes, my combat bona fides are in order, so I’ll tell you it took me some many years and no little pain before I was willing to admit myself that the Vietnam War had nothing to do at all with the Government Media and Government “Education” sloganeering I grew up on.
I sincerely hope the truth comes ultimately easier to you.
"It's when someone implies that people who have not served in the military somehow have a "reduced right" to speak on military matters, matters of foreign policy, or even matters of troop deployment. It troubles me in a small way because it starts to smell a lot like the "only ones" type of attitude." -- Please tell me how people who haven't been in the military are supposed to know about the intricacies of military logistics. It's not an 'only ones' attitude. It's a matter of simple fact. Hell, I didn't even understand what kind of logistical nightmare deployment and redeployment is until I've been through it. If you take it as an "only ones" attitude, it's your perception and has nothing to do with reality. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - regardless of service. However, when that opinion is not based in reality, others have a right to point it out.
Stieger, I would recommend you read LTG Pagonis' book about what kind of logistical nightmare deployments and redeployments are. Things have changed quite a bit since Vietnam. It just ain't that easy.
"Please tell me how people who haven't been in the military are supposed to know about the intricacies of military logistics."
Nicki, most folks who have *been* in the military barely know the first thing about 'the intricacies of military logistics'. This is coming from an ex-military man.
Anon, hence my point about MY not knowing crap about military logistics until I had to go through a deployment. Hence my point that I'm not being elitist, but simply stating a fact - that military logistics, especially nowadays, are a lot more complicated.
Re: "Things have changed quite a bit since Vietnam. It just ain't that easy."
You're telling me that in the 40 years since Vietnam, the US military has become less able to carry out a particular military maneuver?
….OK, I've no background military logistics. And right now, I'd appreciate it if a (another?) military logistics-type would chime-in on the topic.
And hey look, Niki, I have zero desire to cross swords with military people, whose job is to carry out orders. So if they are to do that well--and stay sane while doing it--they must configure their own thought processes--and hence, their feelings--to function in accord and in support of those goals. Having been there and back, I say flatly that it’s definitely not conducive to objective thought.
I'll tell you what: you read Antony Sutton's "America's Secret Establishment, an introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones," and if you then still want me to read General Pagonis' "Moving Mountains: ...." I will do that. And just to make certain for yourself that Sutton was not just some conspiracy-wacko schmuck, but the pure information- fact-driven scholar of the first order that I am saying he is, please do maybe 30 minutes Googling & reading-up on Sutton; you might want to start with antonysutton.com.
Nicki,
Now you really have me puzzled. You have stated that it is impossible to understand the military logistical nightmare, until and unless one has experienced it. You have also stated that you have major concerns with Ron Paul stating that he desires an immediate withdrawal.
Please tell me how Ron Paul could know that an immediate withdrawal would be the unmitigated disaster you claim it will be without having the knowledge of current military logistics?
From what I have seen, I feel that Dr Paul would listen to the JCS and tell them to withdraw as quickly as possible in an orderly manner. That saves lives by keeping the necessary security in country. Obviously I do not know that he would do so. However, I am pretty sure that any of the alternatives, who would withdraw forces, would NOT listen to the experts.
I have my own problems with Ron Paul. However, I have fewer problems with him than any of the other candidates.
For the record, when I said "troop deployment," I meant the overall debate of whether troops should be deployed, whether a political leader with no military background should send troops into harms way ... I was not talking about the intricacies of logistics.
Many that I talk to say that a political leader should not send troops into combat unless he has seen combat himself. They don't like it (and show their hypocrisy) when I point out that the same standard should apply to political commentary about waging war ... since most of them haven't served a day either. That is what I was trying to say.
Wild Deuce,
No worries, at least on my end. Personally, I don't like those types of rules set in stone. I have never seen combat, yet being a future military historian, I know the cost of both combat, and the idiocies that lead to combat. I agree that people with no grasp of the consequences should not have the power to send others to die. THen again, I also think that those who have the power to send men into combat ought to be held responsible for what happens to those men. I know it's polyanna.
Wow, conspiracy theories... skull and bones... that's where I respectfully bow out. There's no rational conversation with the tinfoil hat fruitcakes. Thanks. Have a nice day. I'm going back to my desk to compose authoritarian plans for the Army to take over the world.
Gregg: "Now you really have me puzzled. You have stated that it is impossible to understand the military logistical nightmare, until and unless one has experienced it. You have also stated that you have major concerns with Ron Paul stating that he desires an immediate withdrawal." -- Gregg, I'll go a step further and say that even those of us who have deployed and have seen first hand the amount of insanity that comes along with redeployment have only a superficial idea of what it entails.
"Please tell me how Ron Paul could know that an immediate withdrawal would be the unmitigated disaster you claim it will be without having the knowledge of current military logistics?" -- Last year, when the Democrats were voting on troop withdrawal, several analyses came out about what it would take. The most ambitious of all of them said it would take at least a year. There was a Washington Post article about it. In other words, Ron Paul is no dummy. He has access to information and logistical analyses. He should understand that immediate withdrawal is not only unrealistic but rushing it will put lives at risk. In addition to the logistics, you ahve the problem of implementation. Withdrawing even the majority of forces and leaving the fobbits to take care of the logistics will put their lives in danger. Further, moving such a large number of troops and equipment leaves both troops and equipment vulnerable to attack. This is not uncommon knowledge. And yet, he's promising it. Publicly. Without telling us what his plan is. Even if he thinks it's a great idea in principle, don't promise something you can't deliver. And don't promise something that if implemented on the fly could put lives in danger. That is essentially what he is doing.
Planning for mobilization and deployment of KFOR 8 in 2006 started in 2004. That was 1500 Soldiers going to Kosovo - a relatively stable environment compared to Iraq. Any politician with half a brain should understand - even if they don't know the intricacies of military logistics - that withdrawing 116,000 Soldiers out of a volatile area is not to be done as a rush job. I exchanged emails with Paul Boyce yesterday, he's the Army Spokesman at the Pentagon, who sent me the exact numbers of troops we currently have deployed around the world. Here's what he told me when I asked him how realistic promises of "immediate withdrawal" were: "It's very safe to say any withdrawal of large amounts or all forces will take some time for the flow of transportation and logistics."
Wild Deuce, I don't necessarily agree with those who claim military service should be a prerequisite to assuming the presidency. There's a reason why civilians are in charge of the military. That whole avoiding a military dictatorship thing... I have incredible amounts of respect for those who have served, but their service doesn't necessarily make them better or worse leaders. Shoot, just look at McCain! I have nothing but respect for his military service, but I'll gouge my eyes out with a rubber spatula before I vote for him. Same with Kerry. He served. Great. Would he have made a good president? Hell no! Bush served. Great. Now unass the AO and let someone who is a real leader do the job.
Cheers!
Nicki
Nicki, with all due respect, I see you investing a tremendous amount of energy on an assumption, based on general words spoken by the candidate.
To automatically assume he would withdraw in a criminally negligent, reckless and totally irresponsible, that is, insane manner, presupposes that is his nature. In fairness, we should look at a person's history for indicators of how he will act--I'm just not seeing recklessness and irresponsibility and criminal negligence being high up on his list of accomplishments over the decades he's been in public office. So to make this assessment of him with so little to go on seems a bit like asking a man if he's stopped beating his wife--when there's no evidence that wife beating was ever a reality.
Here's what else it presupposes: that the military command you obviously have such respect for, would be complicit in helping an incompetent tyrant send our people to the slaughter. of course any order from the CiC would need to be implemented responsibly. These people at the top have connections--politically, in the media--why do you not think they would use them if their judgment told them lives were being needlessly wasted by political incompetence? And if they would not stand up, why would we want such cowards in charge of our military?
I've agreed I would like to see something clearer from RP on how he intends to accomplish things to maximize the safety of our people in whatever decisions he makes, but honestly think we're bantering over an assumption that has no basis in anything other than your interpretation of the words "immediate withdrawal."
Instead of arguing amongst ourselves over what we don't know, why not have all of us who think it's important to determine the true implications contact the RP campaign and let them know this is something they need to expand on?
To make good on my end, I just sent the following via the RP campaign contact form:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form/
See the comment thread here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-then-there-were-five.html
A military veteran is against Ron Paul over concerns that immediate withdrawal will subject our troops to additional danger of being killed.
Please have the campaign flesh out how this will be implemented to ensure that military commanders will conduct the planning to ensure an orderly exit where losses are minimized.
This is a big sticking point, and these people objecting to RP on these grounds need to hear it from you or they will continue to opoose him--and they have a not insignificant reach into the gun owner community, amny of whom are still balking at or dismissing your candidate.
Will any of you join me?
David, I would love to see him explain what he means. I really would. You know better than anyone that I've always had a lot of respect for Dr. Paul, so you know I wouldn't poison the well. But I am also a person who voices her doubts (sometimes crudely, but I'm told that's part of my charm... or something)
But here's what I also know about Dr. Paul historically:
He has a history of tilting at windmills in Washington. Every year he introduces HR1146 to get us out of the UN. I LOVE that bill! I would love to see it pass! But realistically, I don't see us getting out of the UN anytime soon. It's unfortunate, but that's reality. He has introduced legislation to abolish personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. I would LOVE to see that bill pass. Will it happen? Doubt it. His other legislation vis-a-vis the IRS and income taxes is awesome, IMO. There's some great stuff there. Will it ever see light of day? Not unless we boot every single congressleech out of office and start anew.
Dr. Paul isn't stupid. He has these great ideals. He wants to get rid of extraneous federal bureaucracies. I'm all for that. He wants to withdraw us from the UN. I support that 100 percent. He also knows that those types of bills have little chance of passing. He understands this. But those are ideals which give people a warm fuzzy. Hey, that's great!
I look at his promise to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq as the same kind of pie-in-the sky promise. He should understand what kind of undertaking redeployment is. I would HOPE he understands it. But again, he makes the promise - an ideal that he has no hope of realistically accomplishing... depending on your definition of "immediate." Words have meaning. His words have meaning. If he has a plan, I'd love to hear it. But until then, this is a promise he cannot hope to keep, and I think he knows that. And if he DOES know that, why is he promising it?
I know I'm getting long-winded here, but here's my bottom line: I agree with Dr. Paul on many things. Fiscal responsibility, smaller government, secure borders, gun rights... he's great on all those! But on one issue that is absolutely crucial to me, he's making what amounts to be an empty promise he has no hope of keeping - for the reasons I explained ad nauseam above. He should know this. So either he's tilting at windmills, or he's making idealistic campaign promises he knows he has no hope of keeping, but that are popular with a number of people.
All the other stuff we've discussed here amounts to: Well, is it really an impossible promise, or isn't it? I say - and I have plenty of evidence to back this - that it is. And I think Ron Paul knows it is. If so, why the hell is he making it and what does he mean? I, for one, will contact his campaign and find out.
Nicki
Here's what I wrote:
I would like to know how Dr. Paul plans to implement the promise that he will "immediately withdraw" our troops from Iraq. Many of us in the military have concerns about this promise, knowing what it will take to accomplish this promise.
I agree with Dr. Paul on many issues, but as a member of the US Armed Forces, I also understand the significant amount of time it will take to redeploy 116,000 troops from Iraq and the danger such a massive troop movement presents to our men and women in uniform if some stability is not first achieved in the region.
I would like to see some details on what your candidate means by "immediate withdrawal" and how he plans to avoid massive losses of life that could accompany such a move if done in a hasty manner without ensuring some stability in the region first.
Stieger said...
First off, this post is a response TO Nicki not FOR her. I won’t waste my time like that. Besides preaching to a sadly small choir, this post for that rarest of individuals who is ready to hear what the hell it is that I and many other Americans talking about.
________________________________________
Re: " Wow, conspiracy theories... skull and bones... that's where I respectfully bow out. There's no rational conversation with the tinfoil hat fruitcakes. Thanks. Have a nice day. I'm going back to my desk to compose authoritarian plans for the Army to take over the world."
“Tinfoil hat fruitcakes?” So it’s OK to call someone names if your newspaper and TV says so? Much more importantly, if the Media says someone is a “tinfoil hat fruitcakes’ then you don’t need to bother checking for the possible facts behind their statements.
Since it’s alright to call people names, I’ll call you one: Nicki, you’re a sheople, a sheople being someone who just goes along with the herd—goes along just to get along—believing what their television tells them they should believe, someone who thinks it’s unnecessary to check facts coming from a someone the television says is not “authorized.”
Oh! You’re saying, Nicki (and the rest of you sheople)… you’re saying you don’t have much truck with what authorized journalists write about guns? So does that mean that I’m a tinfoil hat fruitcake when it comes to everything BUT guns, and that you’re OK except for being a fruitcake gun-nut, or does it mean that authorized journalists can sometimes be wrong? You cannot have it both ways.
The bottom line here is that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE FEW STATEMENTS I I MADE ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01 ARE STATEMENTS SUPPORTED BY A MOUNTAIN OF INTERLOCKING FACTS, just as are those “dozens of other [911] peculiarities” I mentioned. While at the same time, next to nothing the government says holds up to even the most cursory of examinations. But since I’m a “tinfoil hat fruitcakes” you don’t need to bother checking those statements, do you?
Given your standards for tinfoil-hat –fruitcakedom, Nicki, I’d like to hear your spin on David’s new post, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"? It’s linked to a video featuring US Comptroller General, David M. Walker, whom one might assume to be really super-authorized—he a Certified Public Accountant, for godssakes—a CPA who’s served in the office since late 1998. Can you get more Establishment authorized than that?
But on that ever-present other hand, he said stuff about the state of US economy that I’ve not heard from an authorized source like the Commie News Network or FUX. Has Mr. Walker been on Oprah, Nicki? Probably not. And since he said Ron Paul is the only candidate who could possible rescue America from its dire financial straights, I guess he’s just a tinfoil hat fruitcake, too.
Here’s a short list of more American’s who’re tinfoil hat fruitcakes because they don’t buy what their televisions tell them about 9/11 (http://patriotsquestion911.com/) :
LOUIS FREEH – DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, 1993 – 2000….
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001. Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations. Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.
MAJOR GENERAL ALBERT STUBBLEBINE, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
COL. RONALD D. RAY, U.S. MARINE CORPS (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart….
* Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said." http://www.propagandamatrix.com….
COL. ANN WRIGHT, U.S. Army (ret) – Retired Army officer and former U.S. Diplomat…. member of the International law team in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and served in Panama and Somalia….. One of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003….
LT. COL. SHELTON F. LANKFORD, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.
Letter to the Editor 2/5/07: Regarding 9/11 "OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY MEANS OF A "NEW PEARL HARBOR" AND A LOT OF OTHERWISE GOOD AND DECENT PEOPLE WHO ARE GULLIBLE ENOUGH TO THINK THAT THE FIRST THREE STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS IN HISTORY FALL DOWN BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME FIRES THAT THE FIRE FIGHTER ON THE SCENE SAID COULD BE KNOCKED DOWN WITH A COUPLE OF HOSES AND THROUGH WHICH PEOPLE WALKED BEFORE THEY WERE PHOTOGRAPHED LOOKING OUT THE HOLES WHERE THE PLANE HIT . ONE OF THESE - BLDG 7, WAS NEVER HIT BY A PLANE AND EVEN NIST IS ASHAMED TO ADVANCE A REASON FOR ITS COLLAPSE. AND, MIRACLE OF MIRACLES, THESE THREE BUILDINGS JUST HAPPENED TO BE LEASED AND INSURED BY THE SAME GUY WHO IS ON TAPE SAYING THEY DECIDED TO "PULL" THE LAST ONE TO FALL." http://michigandaily.com....
LT. COL. KAREN U. KWIATKOWSKI, PHD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency….
STEVE ELSON – Former SPECIAL AGENT WITH THE U.S. NAVY, DEA AND FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security. Twenty-two years military experience, primarily in Naval Special Warfare and nine years Federal service with the FAA and DEA. Retired NAVY SEAL.
Article 8/3/04: "….Elson is not a timid man. "I'd give the commission a 'D' for investigating the FAA," he declares. ... "THE COMMISSIONERS KNEW A LOT MORE THAN THEY INCLUDED IN THE 9/11 REPORT," he says. "THEY SOLD OUT." http://www.secure-skies.org ….
SGT. CHADWICK BROOKS and SGT. WILLIAM LAGASSE – U.S. PENTAGON POLICE…. ON DUTY AT OR NEAR THE CITGO GAS STATION ON 9/11 AND EYEWITNESSES TO THE APPROACH OF FLIGHT 77 AND ITS ALLEGED IMPACT AT THE PENTAGON….
LYNNE A. LARKIN – Former CIA OPERATIONS OFFICER
DAVID MACMICHAEL, PHD – Former Senior Estimates Officer with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA'S NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL. Former CAPTAIN, U.S. MARINE CORPS.
RAYMOND L. MCGOVERN – Former CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer....
THEODORE J. PAHLE – FORMER SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER WITH THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY….
BRIAN F. SULLIVAN – Retired SPECIAL AGENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST, FAA. Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police..
JANE A. TURNER – Retired SPECIAL AGENT, FBI….
JOHN B. VINCENT – Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI. 27-year FBI career.
FRED WHITEHURST, JD, PHD – Retired SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT / LABORATORY FORENSIC EXAMINER, FBI. FORMER U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
MATTHEW J. ZIPOLI – SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM (SRT) OFFICER, DOE. Vice President, Security Police Officer's Association, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
CHAEL MENNARD, PhD – Retired FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER US STATE DEPARTMENT.
~ http://patriotsquestion911.com/
A former Director of the FBI, Generals, Colonels, CIA Agents, Navy SEALs, combat and commercial pilots… Architects, structural engineers...a stack of PhDs…explosives people (like me) who recognize controlled demotions when they see it. More tinfoil hat fruitcakes? There are lots more people, ordinary Americans, ordinary except that they have integrity and courage, integrity and courage to look beyond and outside where their televisions say they should look.
And that, Nicki, is really what sheople are: people without the integrity and courage to care about finding the truth.
About the word "immediately": Ron Paul has delivered over 4000 babies. I think the odds are good that at sometime in all the years he was doing that he said something like this: "You need an immediate cesarean section." I am quite certain he did not lay the woman down on the floor, pull out a pocket knife and start cutting. No, arrangements were made for an operating room, nurses, etc. Sterile procedures and tools were used.
My point? The word "immediately" has a meaning that is modified by the context in which it is used and by the nature of the person using it. Nothing I am aware of indicates that Paul is a rash man with no, or little, concern for the people who will be affected by an "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq.
I believe a reasonable interpretation of "immediate withdrawal" is: as quickly as possible with a priority of minimizing risk to the those involved in the withdrawal. Such an interpretation is consistent with both his history as a doctor and as a statesman.
OK,boys and girls,let's quit slicing the baloney and get down to the basics here...ALL of the
"Presidential Candidates" are
"Status Quo Stooges" who support the "Neo-Con Imperialist" agenda
and the "Rupublicrat/Socialist
Authoritarian Establishment"...
All EXCEPT one: Ron Paul...And even
he is NOT "perfect"...But if I am
inclined to vote for a so-called
"Republican",Dr.Paul would be it...
However,I am "nobody's robot" an
"ex-voter" and above all,a total
"realist"...As nice as Ron would
be for our nation,this gentleman
would not last a month as our
President...There are powerful
"elitists" within our government,
the "Mainstream News Media" and
the "Entertainment Industry" who
would work overtime to destroy
his administration...His "Humble
Foreign Policy"(i.e.withdrawl
from Iraq,etc) is pointless...
The "Military Industrial Complex"
and "War Profiteers" would have
him "removed" as soon as he
tries to fulfill his "political
promises"...So,there is absolutely
NO sense in "debating" this issue!!
Furthermore,Dr.Paul is the ONLY
real "Constitutionalist" in the
race,so those who make a living at
destroying our God-given liberties
will be willing to get a little
blood on their hands,too...EVERY
"Paul Supporter" should be fearing
for his life!(I know I am)...As far
as "supporting our troops",this is
a twisted and perverted form of
"Blind Authoritarian Patriotism"
that is being taught to the
"Amerikan Sheeple"...Everyone of
our troops should be here at home
defending our OWN NATION from the
"Globalist" TYRANTS we have in our
midst!! To the 130+ countries that
we have bases in,we should say,"So
long,suckers...You're on your own.
We're outta here!" But the Military
Industrial Complex will NEVER let
THAT happen! So the trillions of
STOLEN "tax" dollars will be
flushed down tho old toilet right
into the War Racketeers' pockets!!
And the beat goes on...Whoever is
in the White House in 2009 will
either speed-up or slow-down our
unavoidable "Road to Hell"...That
will be the only "change" we will
ever get...So let's quit kidding
ourselves!! Oh,and by the way...
"9-11" was an INSIDE JOB...Get over
it,folks...There is NO debate...The
"Control Freaks" around us have got
it all fixed...The facts always get
buried by their PROPAGANDA...No
matter "how" 9-11 happened,it really doesn't matter...THEY (the
"insiders") got what they wanted:
A CREATED "Global War on Terror" to
make the "Power-Brokers" RICH and
another "nail in the coffin" of our
freedoms...In order to "create" a
"war",it also has to be SOLD to the
sheeple...Their's was a stroke of
genius because we live in a society
where everything is a "lie" and
everything is the "truth"...It is
up to those "free thinkers" (i.e.
"Libertarians,Anarchists,etc.) to
sort throught the sewage of "spin"
in hopes that some will hear our
"screams of murder"...I am a
"Christian/Constitutionalist" first
and formost and "literalist" when it comes to the Second Amendment...
I have ZERO-tolerance for those who
wish to "compromise" their freedom
and support those POLITICAL WHORES
who expect us to "give up a little
liberty for security"...Anyone who
decides to comment on my little
"sermonette" here,should read my words VERY CAREFULLY and read them
again (if needed) before posting
any rebuttal...Few people today
know how to handle "intellectual
(and painful) honesty"...To the
others who have posted in this
"forum",I say,"I can't agree with
everything you've said,but I admire
your passion!
David, this is for you. You made a statement not quite true, it is absolutely accurate if you meant on this thread, but you asked the original question somewhere else and I, for one, answered it in one word. That word was "No".
Steiger, this is for you, I call bullshit on you. I will address the only one thing, but it puts all your other suppositions to suspicion.
My son was in the Pentagon when the plane hit. It was a plane. It did hit, and there were dead people as a result. He was there. Tell him it didn't happen.
Sign in problem with “Stieger.” …it’s still me.
Re: "Steiger, this is for you, I call bullshit on you. I will address the only one thing, but it puts all your other suppositions to suspicion.”
My son was in the Pentagon when the plane hit. It was a plane. It did hit, and there were dead people as a result. He was there. Tell him it didn't happen."
OK, Straightarrow’s son: “If by "plane" your father means it was an "airliner” that struck the Pentagon on 9/11/01—specifically: a Boeing 757 airliner in service as American Airlines 77—no, it didn’t happen
Making a supposition is expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. I said in my post that all my 9/11 statements therein were “supported by a mountain of interlocking facts.” You support your statements with those of a single eyewitness. So you are the one making suppositions. ….uhm, Straightarrow, your son did, in fact, say that he actually saw an airliner strike the Pentagon
My position is easily proved. Easily proved to someone with an open mind, that is. You've an open mind, right, Straightarrow? You are willing to look objectively at the evidence, to actually read and view what 911 truth movement professionals have to show & tell, people who were also at the pentagon, or were professional pilots, radar operators, engineers, intelligence analysts, and the like?
I’m asking because you said nothing about the alleged hijacker/pilot, Hani Hanjour, whose piloting skills I described in my post. Did you check to find out how knowledgeable pilots described his flying “skills?”
I said also that [the aircraft in question performed] “maneuvers that led flight controllers watching on radar think the Boeing 757 was a military fighter.” You checked that statement and found it wanting? Why?
Then this: [those maneuvers were such] “that pilots with many hundreds our hours in the Boeing 757 say that they could not have duplicated.” You found the assertion somehow bogus, or that those pilots were lying? Where, exactly, did you find that information?
Now, regarding your son. I would really love to hear his story. And yes, I would love more than you know to be shown I’m wrong on all this. I would rejoice in finding that my country was not being run by a gang of globalist thugs. So please do ask your son to join in with us, and tell us what he actually witnessed himself that terrible day. But, to keep this all straight, perhaps it’s best that you relay his words so you can just include his statements in your further posts to this thread.
Lastly, while I’m here:
Nicki, you’ve not responded to the post where I named some 911 truth Movement people— [a] former Director of the FBI, Generals, Colonels, CIA Agents, Navy SEALs, combat and commercial pilots… Architects, structural engineers...a stack of PhDs…explosives people (like me) who recognize controlled demotions when they see it—just more tinfoil hat fruitcakes, Nicki?
Though perhaps you have some unnamed but legitimate reason for not answering that. Ok then, here’s a simple one for you: what is the official cause of WTC Building 7’s collapse?
Now, to Nicki, Straightarrow, and the rest of you. I don’t expect an answer from Nicki because she clearly fits the definition of “sheople” with which I concluded a previous post. But It obviously remains to be seen if I am get an answer from Straightarrow that’s’ based on verifiable fact. And as I said, I’d love to be proven wrong here.
I hadn't seen your last post Steiger until you referenced it in another thread. No, I didn't base it on one eye witness. But he did confirm it for me.
And no, you facts (misnomer) on this subject cannot be proven. Facts that are false is misinformation not fact.
In reading what you have posted, though, I become aware of your emotional need to believe what you say. So I cannot reason you out of something that you haven't used reason to decide.
Nor am I inclined to try. It has been my personal experience that a great many men will protect nothing with their last drop of blood except their ignorance.
You may not be one of those, but your tone, suggests to me that you are. Simply not worth the effort to disabuse a man of his true love. Not to me. And maybe you have a need that would be cruel of me to deny you.
Re: "And no, you facts (misnomer) on this subject cannot be proven."
It is a fact that the official claims about 911 are mostly impossible.
"In reading what you have posted, though, I become aware of your emotional need to believe what you say."
OF COURSE I have a need to believe what I say! I'd otherwise be comfortable lying to myself. ...christ!
"So I cannot reason you out of something that you haven't used reason to decide."
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projection?"
Do you have like analysis for those individuals I cited in a previous post, viz. "A former Director of the FBI, Generals, Colonels, CIA Agents, Navy SEALs, combat and commercial pilots… Architects, structural engineers...a stack of PhDs…explosives people (like me) who recognize controlled demotions when they see it. There are lots more people, ordinary Americans, ordinary except that they have integrity and courage, integrity and courage to look beyond and outside where their televisions say they should look."
How about those people straightarrow, are they, too, acting on what you think is a perverse need not to lie to themselves? Are they just more tinfoil hat fruitcakes?
You have not answered a single question I’ve posed about 911. Why is it that you do not (cannot?) deal in specifics?
No, don't bother trying to answer that. You've made my point. Thanks.
For any of the rest of you who happen also neurotically-driven to be honest with yourselves, I suggest you goto http://911scholars.org/ There you’ll find the works of engineers, logicians, documentary film makers, physicists…. professionals from a variety of disciplines. From good introductory stuff to cutting-edge research.
A caveat: none of this stuff is to be believed without careful examination, multiple viewings, fact-checking, and comparisons of other like materials. And of course you’ll Google for contrary opinion. …but, of course, you already knew that.
Being too old to do things for single motive, I’ll now tell you my other. Simply, there are too many 911 Truthers who need to be disabused of the silly notion that both political power and liberty sprout from something other than the barrel of a gun.
Sic ‘em :-)
Post a Comment