The Right Scoop- http://www.facebook.com/people/Jacob-Guibault/1309790987 Jacob Guibault
keep fighting sir
- Anonymous
Good dammit! CHARGE!
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan
Perry 2012!!
- Anonymous
This is why we need a President who has been in the military and understands what it means to be the Commander-in-Chief. Once you’ve put American lives on the line, you are honor bound to make sure that their sacrifice has not been in vain. Note how many Medal of Honor recipients have endorsed Perry.
- http://twitter.com/PJRodman Paula J Rodman
He was right! Crap, I’m listening to the breakdown in another window and the nerds are attacking him in the analysis on this….HE IS RIGHT. Boorah! Little wimp and drunk chick…..”He’s seeing the Iranians come in at light speed…” NO SHIT
- http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello Salvatore Anello
Except for this one clip, I am shocked I didn’t fall asleep.
- Anonymous
I keep reading this. Was the debate that bad? I missed it. Should I bother watching online?
- Is_Sense_Common
I think Barry won. (face palm)
- Anonymous
Just a friendly reminder: We are broke.
- Anonymous
Perry Names Controversial Arizona Sheriff to Campaign
- Anonymous
that should put to rest the whole “soft on border patrol/illegal imigration” thing.
- Anonymous
AMEN!!!!!
- Anonymous
Prayerfully he will pull around his performance from now on. He has a alot of common sense ideas. I think in Obama debate, Bhopal would come across as condescending toward the common folk like Perry. Let’s pray, and pray hard for grace in our leaders
- Anonymous
Rick Perry is right about Iraq, but the MSM is already beginning their assault against him. As far as the debate this was the worst; CBS was bad but better than this. This was nothing more than a Mitt love fest and almost every question was either directed to him or in response to what he said.
The best answers came from Perry; a shame he did not get more questions.
- Anonymous
Except for one or two questions Perry was virtually ignored in this “debate”. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the time each candidate received. I think Mitt’s share would be well over 50%.
When Mitt was giving another of his very long-winded answers my hubby said, “What happened to the time clock? Did they just throw it out?”
- Anonymous
Fattening Mitt up for the kill.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
Yes, it seems Rick Perry has now taken the seat that Rick Santorum was sitting at for the previous debates, in the corner, waiting his turn to say something, or jump at the opportunity to speak.. Still he had a good performance
- Anonymous
I also thought Mitt’s answers were well over a minute. This is why I called it a love fest; and the analysis afterward was disgusting as they slobbered over him. Just as Rush has said; if Mitt wins the nomination they will turn on him so fast his head will spin.
Perry was ignored and he had the best answers last night. It’s probably a good thing football playoffs were on, so many, like my husband, were probably watching the game, and did not have to watch this debacle. I thought it was appalling.
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry did a great job showing that they are all real Military hawks….while the doves just sat there and called names..(i.e.Ron Paul)
The World needs the USA in the middleast whether the doves like it or not. The alternative is simply unacceptable!
- Anonymous
…and we need the Middle East out of the United States.
- StNikao
YOU SAID IT RIGHT.
- Anonymous
“The World needs the USA in the middleast whether the doves like it or not. The alternative is simply unacceptable!”
In the Afghanistan clip, Santorum said he would not send troops back into Iraq.
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
He said initially no he would not. He would meet with the commanders and assess and then make a decision based on their input. That is what leaders do…they don’t just jump they get good intel then make a call.
- Anonymous
In the Afghan clip, he said as an answer to Huntsman asking how long do we stay in Iraq, not whether we send troops back in.
The answer he gave about going back into Iraq is “no, not yet.” Santorum did not answer why “not yet.” I know what Perry is waiting for, buy-in from the Iraq government. But if the Iraq government agreed today, why wait?
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
Why are you nit picking the hawks?? Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry are on the same freaking page! Santorum said he wants to consult military commanders before sending it troops to understand what the ”on the ground” commanders need. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
All three of the hawks want more boots on the ground!
- Anonymous
One candidate say “yes,” and the other said “no.” That’s not nitpicking. That’s pointing out the differences.
Santorum said “I wouldn’t,” not yet, which to me says “I have no interest in doing that.” People can watch the video and see.
In regards to consulting with the commanders, he was talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq, just as RS’ description of this video says.
Other than his no on Iraq, it was a good answer.
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
and the two you speak of did not say not to send troops. All three are for sending troops!
- Anonymous
Actually, Perry is the only one who said we would go back and reclaim Iraq. He is the only one to represent the position you applaud.
Here are the relevant excerpts from the transcript:
SAWYER: Senator Santorum, would you send troops back into Iraq right now?
SANTORUM: ***Well, I wouldn’t right now,*** but I did…
….
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, we know you have differences with President Obama, but who’s got the better of this argument right here between Senator Santorum and Governor Huntsman?PERRY: Well, I think that you have to — ***I would send troops back into Iraq,*** because I will tell you…
…..
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Speaker, do you agree, send back troops into Iraq right now?GINGRICH: ***Well, no***. But let me put it in context.
Perry, the only one representing your position. And I wouldn’t call it a hawkish position.
Perry is not calling for a new war. He is saying we invested too much to simply cede ground to the enemy for political expediency. Santorum disagrees.
- Anonymous
I came across the following this morning:
“Perry’s fellow Republicans declined to join him in calling for a return of U.S. troops to Iraqi soil.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/perry-reinvade-iraq-110024.htmlThat reminded me of the fact of all the articles I read on this, they all credit Perry with this idea. No one mentioned any other candidate agreeing with Perry’s good idea.
- StNikao
That was not his best moment.
- Anonymous
In my opinion Iran wants to create a killing box for the USA, Cut the supply line to AFPAK, move accross the Afgan border and at the same time move south into Iraq. The Mideast will blow up this year because LIAR Obama is weak and the World does not respect his limp teleprompter readings!!!!
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Angell/100001860262545 Steve Angell
I would send them back. He got this right. It is much harder than that of course but if you could do it right now it would work. In a year well then Rick Santorum is the right Rick. Perry does not seem to fully understand the Islamic threat to all non Islamic people on earth.
- Maxsteele
I don’t agree that troops need to go back to Iraq. I think it would show more weakness on the behalf of the USA to leave then go back. If the problem is Iran then do to them what was done to Iraq.
I do not understand what the hesitation is? Don’t the nay sayers realize that all the Islamists are bombastic. Remember that Iran and Iraq fought to a 10 year stalemate war and the USA destroyed the Iraqi military in a 2 weeks. While that was happening the Iraqis were saying they were pushing the Americans back and winning the war.
Unless Iran already has nuke capability then it is time to go in and make sure they never do.
Israel needs to bomb Hezbollah and Hamas while the USA and Britain take out all Iranian military capabilities. They threaten to us their pitifall navy to close the strait, easily solved, sink every single one of their ships while you bomb the crap out of their whole military and nuclear developmental facilities.
It seems pretty simple to me and don’t land a single ground troop. Just have the “mother of all bombing sorties” until they submit and Ahmadenijad with the Mullahs dig their own dessert hole accomodations to hide in. - Anonymous
The risk of invading Iran is turning over the middle east apple cart. This is why not letting go of Iraq is so critical. With Saddam’s ridiculous and dangerous behavior, the countries in region were not his allies. It opened an opportunity for us to make a place in the middle east while dumping a jerk in the middle east. Thanks to Obama, all of our successes are at risk.
- BS61
Well, even as a former Dem, I’ve always supported bombing the he** out of Iran! They want us and Israel to wiped off the face of the earth while both
Rep’s & Dem’s have ignored their threats! - Anonymous
We have troops in Germany to maintain a presence in Eastern Europe and in Korea and Japan to have a presence in the Far East. Having troops in Iraq would not only help keep Iraq stable but give us a presence in the middle east. Sounds good!
- Anonymous
We don’t have the money or the troops to police the world. And we should not, regardless of money.
- Anonymous
It’s not policing. It’s providing a stabilizing presence. Like it or not, the world does still view America as a constant, reliable force for good. We are a rock in what can occasionally be a sea of chaos and uncertainty.
See what I mean?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/freedom-protesters-cry-out-for-george-w-bush-in-syria/We’re not out to conquer the world, just working to make it more peaceful. (Yes, despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the world is actually more peaceful, proven by surveys.)
Edit: Our presence, as Perry mentioned, would be by invitation, not invasion.
- Anonymous
“It’s not policing. It’s providing a stabilizing presence.”
Two sentences that say the exact same thing. You’re incapable of dazzling me with brilliance, and you won’t baffle me with bull. What was the phrase the obama administration used? Oh yes, it’s not war, it’s “kinetic military action”.
You’re on the same wavelength as obama. That ought to scare you.
Take a second look at the photo at the link you provided. Do you really believe that a bunch of Syrian protestors could produce such a perfectly spaced sign? With such excellent grammar and perfect spelling? How many of them do you think even KNOW the English word “procrastination”? And, my, my, it just happens to mention Republicans as we approach a difficult election. What an amazing coincidence. NOT. That’s a Photoshop job for sure.
“Like it or not, the world does still view America as a constant, reliable force for good. We are a rock in what can occasionally be a sea of chaos and uncertainty.”
Are you telling me that we ought to or have to act in accordance with the way the world sees us? That we should be, in effect, the world’s puppet?
What about the parts of the world that see us in a totally different light? For every sign like the one at your link (even if it were genuine, which I don’t believe for an instant) I can show you a thousand that paint a totally different picture of America and make totally different demands.
It is the height of folly to base foreign policy on what anyone or everyone “views us” as.
“We’re not out to conquer the world, just working to make it more peaceful.”
A twenty-year global peace war, with no end in sight. I agree, we’re not out to conquer the world. So why are we acting in a very conqueror-like manner? “You will have elections. You will become democratic. You will elect a leader we approve of.” Of course it doesn’t work out that way, does it? Talk about dying in vain…
“(Yes, despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the world is actually more peaceful, proven by surveys.)”
“Nine out of ten doctors recommend blah blah bleat blather…” If you can’t do any better than that, you’d better find another job … something other than attempting to propagandize for the neo-con element.
Proven by surveys, my caudal fin.
“Our presence, as Perry mentioned, would be by invitation, not invasion.”
So what? The “radical” Muslims are “inviting” us to get out of the Mideast and abandon Israel. The U.S. receives many “invitations” on many issues. So what? If Mike Tyson invited you to let him pound on your head for a couple of rounds, would you feel an obligation to accept?
- Anonymous
Are you willing to pay for this “stability” with much higher taxes? You are going to pay for it one way or the other. Since our politicians are unwilling to tax us directly to pay for their adventurism, they tax us indirectly by debasing our currency through borrowing and inflation. In other words, your groceries, gas, and just about everything you buy will continue to cost more as your wages and savings are debased, all in the name of “stabilizing” an area halfway around the world. This country is going in the crapper as wealth is transferred from the bottom to the top, and very few Americans even realize it.
- Anonymous
As Scoop and others keep reminding us, none of our candidates are perfect. This statement by Perry disappoints me. I hope that at least he meant, and will make clear, that he would not send the troops back until we have resolved our extreme, critical, dangerous economic crisis.
*WE* *HAVE* *NO* *MONEY* *LEFT*. That is an unavoidable reality. War is expensive. Modern warfare, conducted thousands of miles from home, is unbelievably expensive.
Does anyone really think we have the truly cosmic amount of money it takes to do nation-building? Which, remember, is a generational endeavor, not a short-term hobby.
Does anyone want to see all America’s young men go off to war for God only knows how much longer? Is there no need for them here, in every area of this devastated country?
Let’s see a poll of the Mideast vets on whether or not they want to go back.
Do we really want to keep a TWENTY-YEAR Mideast campaign going for an indefinite period of time? No clear objective, no endgame, no exit strategy … does any of this sound familiar?
In the days when the sun never set on the British Empire, the Brits tried taming Afghanistan – and failed. The Russians tried it not very long ago, and the Afghans didn’t need us (lucky for them) to defeat the Russians. When they tried, the British and the Russians were superpowers. Does anyone truly believe that we can take on the entire Mideast by ourselves and survive, let alone dominate? In a time when the enemy is already inside our own borders, and we are swamped with other problems of critical nature and intensity?
America was supposed to be about freedom to enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Does that sound like going around the globe trying to force the whole world to be the way we think they should be?
America was conceived as a nation where citizens minded their own business and went about their own lives. No one has the right to twist that into being the policeman of the world. No one has the right to finish off what is left of America by wrapping themselves in the flag and bleating macho-sounding stupidity. That is such an old demagoguery that I’m amazed any American could hear it without gagging.
And for what purpose, honestly? Could it be …. in hopes of winning an election?
Is that a noble, moral motivation for the would-be leader of America?
- Anonymous
You know what else is expensive, 9/11? Trillions lost.
In fact, I would say it was a major contributing factor to the bust of 2008. Why? Because the government overreacted in trying to kick start the economy after it came to a near stand still post-9/11. Example: Promoting everyone should own a home. Home ownership is a major economic booster, but look what defaults got us.
How did we get to 9/11? By helping the people of Afghanistan fight a common enemy and then bailing on them. This allowed Osama and Taliban to enter the vacuum and begin plotting against America.
Guess what we did in Iraq? We helped the people of Iraq fight a common enemy and then we bailed on them. What will fill that vacuum? As Perry says, Iran operatives. If we don’t want Iraq, Iran will be happy to take it.
The costs of troops presence would not be to the level it was before. We are not talking invasion. We are talking a warm blanket level of presence.
- Anonymous
“We are talking a warm blanket level of presence.”
You mean warm, like the flag that covers the caskets of soldiers killed “over there”? Or warm, like their children, who Unmet Needs and others are trying to take care of, since the fedgov doesn’t? You mean warm, like the warm feeling a child gets when he / she tries to remember the parent they lost?
We’ll have far less cost of troops presence if there are NO troops present.
And the business of the rest of the world is *NOT* *OUR* *BUSINESS*! God did not appoint America to force the world to be just like us. They need to handle their own problems.
I remember hearing Bush the First declare that we had intervened in Iraq “because we are a good people”. Yes, some of us are, but the only reason we invaded Iraq was that we didn’t want Hussein (Saddam, not barack) to control the Mideast oil. It was purely a selfish venture for us.
Understand, I am glad we deposed Saddam. I think that the chances are good that if we hadn’t, gas would now be 20 dollars a gallon. We might well have already been financially destroyed, turned into the newest third world country. But when Saddam was deposed, we should have gotten out. If Iran becomes a problem, there is a solution. But we should not, and far more importantly *CAN* *NOT* maintain your “warm blanket”. We are broke, and we are sending far too many of our good citizens to war when we desperately need them here, in every capacity: police, border guards, judiciary, politics, schools – you name it. We need the good guys to stay home and rebuild THIS devastated nation.
- Anonymous
The next time you think we should abandon victories, look at the satellite photo of North and South Korea. How different things would be if we abandoned South Korea. The people in S. Korea are immensely grateful to America for shielding them from the death grips of communism and a dictatorship.
And look at the result? A vibrant, wonderful member of the economic community. They are an active trading partner. They positively affect our economy, and we positively affect theirs. We have good relations with them today, and they do with neighbors in the region, excluding N. Korea of course.
South Korea would not be if we simply said “none of our business.” It would be lost opportunity.
And while the Korean War did not go on as long as the Iraq war, it was certainly more costly in lives and money. If we can withstand the short term pain for long term gain, the payoff will be immense.
- Anonymous
Manifest destiny is a political trick that most Americans abandoned long ago. You are struggling very hard to avoid admitting the fact that we have zero justification for deciding what the government of every nation in the world should be.
South Korea was a whole different ball game, primarily because they didn’t have a religion that teaches them to annihilate every government, religion, and person that will not convert or “give a convincing demonstration of submission” to their god. We only had to defend in South Korea, not destroy their culture and convince them to accept ours.
“short term pain” = Americans in coffins. “payoff” = “vibrant, wonderful member of the economic community… active trading partner.”
What you just said is that money is so important to you that to get it you are willing to shatter American families, kill American service men and women, make orphans and widows who endure countless sleepless nights of agony as they ache for those you killed … for money.
“South Korea would not be if we simply said ‘none of our business.’ It would be lost opportunity.”
In the first of those two sentences, you assume that we have responsibility for protecting the whole world. You have absolutely no authority for that philosophy. You have absolutely no right to ask that others die for your personal ideology. If you want to protect the Iranians, or anyone else, so badly, go join their military. Don’t try to guilt induce the rest of the nation to do it for you.
In the second of those two sentences, you again identify money as your primary goal. “Lost opportunity”? What you mean, obviously, is “lost trading partner”. That is contemptible.
- http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe
Still my #1.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X5SQ7Y7K6HHG5KN2OAV7NWDK3Q Jake
I like this one! I’m going into the Military next month and it does give me chills knowing that if he is voted into office that I might be deployed, but I am not scared and I will do my duty to protect this country! What he said makes sense and what he said is for a good reason!
- LadyLiberty2000
God bless you! Thanks from my family in advance for your service to our country!
- Anonymous
Jake, thank you for your service. And may God hold you in His hands and keep you safe. Kick some ass while your at it, too!
- http://www.davemacleod.net/ dmacleo
this disabled vet thanks you.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Dias/1680711668 Chris Dias
Good start!!
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Penny-TeaParty/100000875935907 Penny TeaParty
I think if the moderator gave Rick Perry some more time to elaborate on his answer we would have found out what he really meant about the Iraq statement. My guess is that Perry meant we should still have a presence in Iraq, which I agree with. Now Iraq is just another middle east vacuum that will attract terrorist from all over the place. Perry really has a grasp on what is happening in international affairs.
- Anonymous
Looking ahead,
I. US Sanctions on Iran
A. Strait of Hormuz under siege
1. Price of oil (gas) goes through the roof
2. World economies cannot handle the cost on top of their existing debt
3. Worldwide Depression
B. War in Iran
1. Europe and Western Powers support US (maybe)
2. China and Russia support Iran
3. Iran becomes Vietnam then World War IIISorry for the depressing picture but as I see it the odds are significant.
- Richard Laycock
The idea that Russia and China would go to war with the US over Iran is preposterous.
They would certainly block any UN approval of military action. Then they’d fuss and bluster as we pounded them anyway.
- Anonymous
Do you think the probability is zero? How about the economic scenario?
- Anonymous
The Chinese Communists are the hardest of hardline communists. There never was a Gorbachev In China. They will go to war with the US when it suits them, not over any nation, but as the next step on their road to world domination.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1257775204 Robert C. Harding
What a bloody idiot! The withdraw date was set by George W. Bush in 2008 and President Obama did indeed try to renegotiate with Iraq to keep troops in the country but Iraq rejected the deal. With this lie, Perry has demonstrated his inability to be a national leader.
- Anonymous
I always love how its a single statement test for Perry but a campaign for anyone else. Who’s the idiot?
- bobemakk
I feel Perry is right. Look at all the bedlam in Iraq since the troops came home. Now all of our losses and the soldiers who came home maimed or lost their lives is all in vain. I like Rick Perry, but…..
I support Gingrich for president. The lamestream media is trashing Newt for “historical” baggage. All politicians have baggage if we dig deep enough, but the lamestream/left socialists won’t expose democrats, they love the big zero/Obama. Newt has made his mark with his “Contract with America,” a contract he fulfilled that no other politician can match. He is a true conservative.
However, I will vote for anyone who runs against the Obama regime.
- Anonymous
Perry is my #1 choice. He is the only one with a philosophical vision of a truly limited government. Ok, Ron Paul is the other, but his foreign policy torpedoes his chances.
I keep bouncing back and forth on my #2 between Santorum and Newt. Both believe government can be a force for good rather than a necessary burden and have supported policy to go with that vision. But, I can forgive Newt’s brushes with big government because most of those complaints are ideas Newt floated, probably as part of his policy wonk exercises, and were never implemented. What Newt has implemented, during his time in the house, shows a good conservative record. (Santorum has a lot of not so conservative decisions in his congressional record.) However, because he’s such a DC guy, he has burned some bridges with people he’s going to be required to work with.
Newt… Santorum… Newt… Santorum… ah! Just go Perry!
- Anonymous
With foreign intervention, limited government goes out the window very quickly.
- Anonymous
I found this statement interesting. On the one hand I like most of America am war weary and frankly sick of Iraq, Iran,Pakistan and Afghanistan. I personally don’t give a damn if the entire “Muslim” world disappears in a milliseconds flash of nuclear justice. These people and their religion are a threat to the world and frankly I feel we would all be better off without them. Harsh, certainly but no apologies this is how I feel. On the other hand it seems we aren’t going to nuke them and they aren’t going to leave us alone. With these facts in hand I agree with Perry that we must confront Iran on every front including Iraq. Though any reengagement in Iraq must be predicated on the over all strategy of removing the mullahs in Iran permanently. Anything short of this goal and you have lost my support.
As far as costs go, we will not be broke with a steward who understands how to grow and foster our economy.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Jacob-Guibault/1309790987
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103
- http://twitter.com/PJRodman
- http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Angell/100001860262545
- http://twitter.com/PoeAllen
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X5SQ7Y7K6HHG5KN2OAV7NWDK3Q
- http://www.davemacleod.net/
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Dias/1680711668
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Penny-TeaParty/100000875935907
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1257775204
Perry is my #1 choice. He is the only one with a philosophical vision of a truly limited government. Ok, Ron Paul is the other, but his foreign policy torpedoes his chances.
I keep bouncing back and forth on my #2 between Santorum and Newt. Both believe government can be a force for good rather than a necessary burden and have supported policy to go with that vision. But, I can forgive Newt’s brushes with big government because most of those complaints are ideas Newt floated, probably as part of his policy wonk exercises, and were never implemented. What Newt has implemented, during his time in the house, shows a good conservative record. (Santorum has a lot of not so conservative decisions in his congressional record.) However, because he’s such a DC guy, he has burned some bridges with people he’s going to be required to work with.
Newt… Santorum… Newt… Santorum… ah! Just go Perry!
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.