Ron Paul is winnign "FAIR AND SQUARE", Paul and his supporters are playing by the rules, not thier rules, the RNC rules. When you play by the rules and WIN it is NOT called Stealing!!!!!!! Your bias is amazing, did they pay you say that? If you are going to call yourself a reporter then act like one and report the truth instead of corrupt political bias.
I know the temptation to be Popular is tough but in the name of morals and standards the truth should be an integeral part of your story, that is sorrly lacking in this piece. The only thief stealing from anyone is Romney and the RNC. Thats the truth, but you can't handle that,can you?
Actually, he is doing well in spite of the GOP breaking their own rules, the MSM purposely ignoring him, or miss-representing his views and otherwise disrespecting the only war veteran in the race. Only one candidate in the last two centuries has been faithful to his oath of office, and that person's name is Dr. Ron Paul.
If we obey the Constitution, government shrinks by 80% and taxes shrink by a similar amount, the budget goes instantly balanced, and trillions of dollars are put to constructive use instead of being used for social engineering. Very soon afterwards prosperity will again reign in the u.S.of A.
Skip is quite correct, and Paulites are mesmerized and far less numerous than they say they are. Where did they vote in numbers great enough to make a difference? The answer is only in a small corner of Texas. He could never even make Texas Senator or governor. His foreign policy would be disastrous. His veto alone would lead to riots.
Thank you Skip for stating the truth, My friend Rolf calls me constantly bragging and predicting aPaul takeover at the convention. When I challenge him by asking how many people actually voted for Paul at the ballot box, and that he did not win anywhere, he drifts into crazy talk like the Diebold machines are rigged. Every idea Paul has regarding foreign policy scares me to death. And despite polls that are paraded around by Paulites claiming he alone can beat Obama, I think he would be soundly beaten. As Santorum said in a debate, the things he might do on day one of a Paul administration are dangerous. Mike
The caucus and primary votes do not determine the delegates.
That is done through the delegate selection process.
We live in a representative constitutional Republic.
Reflecting that, Republicans elect delegates from each State who go to the national convention, to settle the party platform, elect the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee, etc.
While many State rules bind the delegates, the national RNC rules say the delegates can not be bound.
Presuming that the national RNC rules supersede the State rules, the key to winning the nomination is the delegate selection process, because in reality the primaries and caucuses are simply beauty contests.
Simply put the Paul campaign is following the rules.
Of course, the RNC and the Romney campaign do not like this, so we are going to start seeing challenges to the delegate selection process, along with arguments about disenfranchisement, etc.
Hey, will someone pass the popcorn. This is going to be one hell of a showdown between those who insist on following the constitution and those who want to ignore the constitution, while continuing to pile up the debt, etc., etc.
I realize that they are following the rules. But, my point was that they don't respect the votes of people that voted for another cadidate. If this is the way that our selection process works, then why waste money on commercials, campaigns, and voting. A representative republic means electing representatives through voting, not installing apparatchiks into key positions.
Rather be a Ronulan than a Romulan anyday... Ron Paul is playing by the rule - if you even have to ask the question then that tells me you don't know how to read the rules.
Sorry but I just had to say this...I just finished reading thru all the posts...
This chain discussion was been one of the most open, honest, respectful, and enjoyable posts I've read regarding Ron Paul on this site since I think I started posting here.
It's been truly wonderful to read how respectful everyone is of each other's thoughts and comments.
As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I wish all the posts I've had here and on youtube and other sites have been this respectful and enjoyable to read.
My hat's off to all of you!
Now watch...just my luck someone will post something really distasteful and make me look stupid LOL! :-)
"Will Ron Paul supporters invade the GOP convention?"
SOMEBODY needs to invade the GOP convention.
Somebody with a conservative record of achievement - like Newt or Sarah Palin - needs to invade the GOP convention.
Romney is the sorriest excuse for a candidate I have seen in my lifetime.
He is a liberal, liar and cheat. A politician, not a statesman.
I am voting for Newt Gingrich. Period.
A repentant Newt is far better than an unrepentant liar, liberal and cheat Romney any day of the week.
I refuse to vote for Romney. He is a fake and a crook.
The video above, and most of the comments here, consider the role of Ron Paul and his supporters in this 2012 presidential campaign, but the real story is rarely mentioned: Ron Paul supporters are successfully taking over the GOP in many states. This has tremendous implications for future elections in 2014, 2016 and beyond. Iowa is just one example. Not only will Ron Paul ultimately take the majority of delegates from Iowa to the RNC in Tampa, but the establishment chair of the Republican Party in Iowa, Matt Strawn, has been ousted and replaced with Ron Paul's co-chairman in Iowa, AJ Spiker. This literal takeover of the GOP at the state level is happening all over the country.
Ron Paul is NOT a Racist. Dr. Walter Williams defends Dr. Paul on Rush Limbaugh Show
He makes three points in responding to a caller who asks him about Ron Paul:
- Agrees with Ron Paul on economic (domestic policy);
- Disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy (and notes that many of his libertarian friends agree with him); and,
- Says that Ron Paul is not a racist.
Most people do not know that Ron Paul's press secretary, Gary Howard, is black. It is not likely that a white racist would have a black man as his spokesman, and it is equally unlikely that a black man would be willing to be the spokesman for a white racist.
The next time the media throws the racist newsletter story at Paul, the campaign should have Mr. Howard go on national TV (and cable) to respond.
Romney Now Unelectable v. Obama
The Boston CBS affiliate news radio station has obtained an explosive interview with a Romney high school classmate which brings across a much uglier picture of the bullying of a gay student than has been reported. Romney didn't just participate. The classmate, Phillip Maxwell, calls Romney the "ring leader." Even bullies I knew in high school would have stopped when the kid started crying, and said screw it. Maxwell says:
"I remember the realization almost immediately that this whole thing had gone too far and it was destructive and wrong, and I think that feeling is shared by everybody who was either involved in it or witnessed it.”
Romney had his friends pin the boy down while he cut the kid's hair.
This is manna from heaven for Ron Paul. Nobody, conservative or liberal, likes a bully. Romney has tapped into a deep vein.
The Obama campaign will play pieces of this interview over and over.
Combined with Romney's protesting in favor of the Vietnam draft at the
same time he took an exemption from it for being a Mormon missionary, the Obamites have the ammunition to spank Romney like a red-headed stepchild in the general. The Republican base won't be affected, but if the party wants to win in the general election, it had better saddle up another horse.
With all the exposure of bullying and all of the movements that have popped up against it, this will cost the GOP if they stick with Mitt!
Romney has apologized (unlike Obama who admits to bullying a young girl, but never expressed any regret).
Given that we are talking about something that happened almost 50 years ago, this smacks of a smear campaign, especially as the person being interviewed is an Obama supporter.
P.S. Paul has the racist newsletter story. Yes, I know, but Paul's supporters may want to consider leaving this sort of stone throwing to the Democrats. Just a suggestion.
There has been some discussion about the views of Dr. Walter Williams towards Representative Ron Paul.
People might find this interview of interest:
Walter Williams on the Tyranny of the Majority, the US Federal Budget and Free-Market Thinking
Some key points from the interview, for the purpose of this discussion:
Daily Bell: Can you give us some background? Can you identify any influences early in life that pointed you toward classical liberalism? Were you influenced by the American exponents of the Austrian school, such as Murray Rothbard?
Walter Williams: No, I was not. And if I can identify anybody, it was Thomas Payne, who wrote Common Sense, which I have read a number of times. It was a pamphlet that Thomas Payne wrote to rally the American Colonies to rebel against the Crown.
Daily Bell: Would you characterize yourself as conservative, a libertarian or something else?
Walter Williams: If pushed to choose between the two, I would say libertarian. But I call myself a Jeffersonian liberal. Today the people who call themselves liberals are for the most part fascists. I think libertarians need to take back the meaning of "liberal," because liberal means free. For today's so-called liberals, personal freedom is the last thing on their mind.
Daily Bell: What do you think of anarcho-libertarianism as championed by Rothbard?
Walter Williams: Well, I think his ideas are very good. I met him a number of times and had nothing but respect for him.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Dr. Ron Paul and his impact on the sociopolitical conversation?
Walter Williams: Ron Paul and I are friends and longtime associates. I agree with Ron Paul on most matters, but we part company on issues of foreign policy. I believe in a strong defense, and I believe there are circumstances that call for pre-emptive attack on people who would do us harm.
Daily Bell: What is the difference between a conservative and neo-conservative, if any?
Walter Williams: (Laughing) I don't know. But conservatives, neo or otherwise, and liberals all believe it's all right for government to take the property of one person and give it to another. They prove H.L. Mencken's definition of an election as "...an advance auction on the sale of stolen property." Liberals believe in taking your money and giving it to poor people and poor cities. Conservatives believe in taking your money and giving it to farmers, banks and airlines. They both agree on taking our money, but they disagree on who should get it.
[On that point, read this article on how the GOP has thrown away the issue of crony capitalism - http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-joins-obama-embracing-crony-capitalism/531836]
Daily Bell: Was George Bush a good president? Was he conservative? Are there any good presidents?
Walter Williams: Well my hero of all presidents, at least modern day presidents, is Grover Cleveland. He was the "Veto King." He vetoed more legislation than all presidents before him combined. His veto message to Congress often was that "this is not authorized by the United States Constitution." We don't hear presidents today vetoing acts of Congress because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
Few people appreciate how serious our Founding Fathers were about the Constitution. For example, James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for the relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Now if you look at the federal budget, two-thirds to three-quarters of it is for benevolence, and it's been the same under all recent Presidents. Whether you are talking about foreign subsidies, bank bailouts, welfare programs, food stamps, Medicare or prescription drugs. There is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving the government the money; the only way the government can give one American citizen one dollar is to first take it from some another American. I think it's despicable. It's legalized theft.
Daily Bell: What is your opinion on America's present condition? Is it like Rome in the empire days?
Walter Williams: Yes. Rome? Spain? Portugal? France? They all went down the tubes for precisely the same reason. Bread and circuses! In 1892, if someone had suggested during Queen Victoria's Jubilee that England would become a 3rd-world power and be challenged on the high seas by a 6th-rate power such as Argentina, he would have been put into an insane asylum. But the British Empire went down the tubes for precisely what we are doing in our country now – what we have been doing for the past 50 years. Bread and circuses and big-government spending.
Daily Bell: How do you se the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Walter Williams: Our "intelligence" said that Suddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be false. But the question we have to ask is which kind of mistake is more costly? We assumed he had weapons WMDs when in fact he did not. But we might have assumed he lacked WMDs when in fact he did. I think the latter kind oferror is more costly. Keep in mind that intelligence is fraught with error. This is one of the reasons the Allies spent so much time and effort trying to defeat Hitler before defeating Japan. Our intelligence said that the Germans were close to having nuclear weapons. But after the war, we found that they were nowhere nearly as close as we had thought.
In terms of the war and what is going on now, if I were President, I would have toppled the Iraq regime and left. I wouldn't be involved in nation building. As far as Iran is concerned, and my libertarian friends get upset with me about this, I think that if Iran gets any nuclear weapons it would be very dangerous for the world. But I would not send a single troop there. I would call Ahmadinejad and say, "We know where your facilities are; we have a Trident submarine off your coast; tell your people to get out, because at 10:00 pm two days from now we are going to start destroying your facilities."
Read the rest of the interview. Dr. Bell has some good thoughts on the Federal Reserve.
When some Ron Paul supporters suggest that the neo-cons tooks over the tea party movement, they are mistaken. Rather, IMV what transpired is that by and large Representative Paul's views on foreign policy were found wanting.
P.S. I find myself in strong agreement with Dr. Bell.
Paul does not have a view on foreign policy, he is simply telling you what the US Constitution says, that Congress should declare war. I take it you have a problem with the US Constitution. The power to declare war should be in the hands of the people. Do you so doubt your own abilities? As a Christian, preemptively attacking countries goes against everything I believe, but if it is allowed, any excuse can be made for war at the presidents whim.
Paul does not have a view on foreign policy
Disagree. He has made it quite clear that his policy is non-interventionist.
I take it you have a problem with the US Constitution.
As a Christian, preemptively attacking countries goes against everything I believe,
The issue is not one's religious beliefs. We do not live in a theocracy. Rather, the question is what is in our national security interests.
We believe that a country whose leaders have called for our destruction and who have committed belligerent acts against us in the past, is working towards obtaining a nuclear weapon. What do we do?
Do we wait until a nuclear bomb goes off over one of our cities, or after diplomacy and sanctions have failed, do we take a pre-emptive strike.
That decision does not preclude the President from seeking a resolution from Congress authorizing the use of force.
The reality is that we live in a dangerous world and to ignore that reality places our national security at risk.
Well as far as how to poceed.... how about talking to them?
We have been doing that.
the end state would be the mutual nuclear disarmament of both israel and Iran monitored monitored by states in the region that would be effected from the nuclear
Yes, that is what the Iranians want. Leave the Israelis without nuclear weapons. Why should the Israelis agree to that? The Israelis will say no.
Some observations on Iran:
- The claim that the CIA instigated a coup which lead to the down fall of the elected Iranian Government and the Shah taking power is not correct.
The Government nationalized the British owned oil company in Iran. At the time the Soviets were seeking to instigate a communist takeover of the elected Government. In response to the nationalization, the British and the Americans sought to persuade the Iranian Government to reverse course. At the same time, we were working to hold the Soviets at bay.
The Prime Minister was unable to cope with the whole situation. He made the decision to go to the Shah (elder) and surrender power. The oil company which had been nationalized was not de-nationalized. So, how did the CIA get blamed? Look to the Soviets who continued to seek a communist takeover.
- The Shah (son) was over thrown after we withdrew our support in response to a popular revolution. The communists working with the religious fundamentalists, lead by Khomeni hijacked the popular revolution, which wanted to return to the original constitution, have elections, etc., and took control. The US, the UK and Israel became public enemies one, two and three to help Khomeni and his fellow travelers maintain control over the public.
- The Green Revolution was an effort to over throw the existing regime, return to a constitutional government, hold elections, etc. We dropped the ball. The Greens, through a secure channel, came to the Obama administration and sought help. The Obama administration declined. Huge Mistake. With our moral support, etc. the Greens could have taken power. Without help, the Iranian Government was able to suppress the Greens, throw the leaders in jail, torture, etc., etc., while pursuing their goal of pushing out the Americans and becoming the dominant power in the region.
- Forget the show marches. Officials within the the Iranian Government have publicly stated that to achieve their aim of becoming the dominant power in the region (aka resurrecting a form of the Persian Empire) they need to destroy America. Posturing? Maybe, but the goal of becoming the dominant power in the region has been clear for some time.
- The Iranians have been working with the Venezuelans. It is believed that the Iranians are working to provide the Venezuelans with missile capability that can reach America.
- Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood declared war against America in October, 2010. Why is this relevant? Because the Iranians are seeking to align themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Oh by the way, who is working with the Iranians? The Soviets. I am sorry, I meant the Russians who want to return to their previous glory.
- In response to threats of a military strike, the Russians have warned that an attack on Iran will be treated as an attack on Russia.
So, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, and some believe they have already had a successful test in North North Korea, will this lead to the Russians and their ally Iran, becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, with sway over the Suez Canal and the Straits of Hormuz, along with nuclear armed missiles in Venezuela that can reach America?
Needless to say the Saudis are not pleased. Oh yes, let's not forget China. Being concerned that the Iranians were going to get a nuclear weapon, the Saudis recently turned to the Chinese for help in building a nuclear power plant.
What about the Indians? Well for some reason they recently felt obliged to test fire a missile that could reach Beijing. Now, why would they feel compelled to do that? Oh right, could it have anything to do with the Pakistan Government inviting the Chinese to build a naval base, which the Pakistan Government would then share with the Chinese.
Just to top things off, most recently the Obama administration leaked false details about a Saudi / British intelligence operation which stopped a terror attack on a US airliner. Why? For political purposes. Wonderful. Not.
Now, how would a Paul administration respond to all this, or would the administration simply shrug its shoulders and say, we are neutral, not our problem?
Well as far as how to poceed.... how about talking to them? the end state would be the mutual nuclear disarmament of both israel and Iran monitored monitored by states in the region that would be effected from the nuclear
as a show of trust you could start with a assuring we will halt all covert and a drone flights into iranian territory and airspace, and the Iranians will call back hezbollah agents they have deployed attempt terrorist acts against U.S and western.
go from there, in exchange for exchange recall of there kuds force destablizing Iraq we could unfreeze there assests from western banks.
there are so many chips here....
there is no simple way forward, but I no that everything weve done has escalated tension not once have we made a strategic move to defuse the situation
why would we ever have to leAve the persian gulf... UNTIL WE HAVE BUILT ENOUGH TRUST WITH THE IRANIANS THE 5TH FLEET WOULD REMAIN UNTIL WE CAN TRUST THEM.... IM GOING TO SLEEP NOW THOUGH ILL GET BACK AT YOU LATER
come on waldetto, they definately do shout death to america in the streets after hearing a religious leader give a sermon about the great satan Weve all seen it. you have to have seen that. They also are very actively trying to prevent their encirclement. the EFP's they were funneling into Iraq were nasty mother fuckers!! Again it's policy, sanctions, encirclement, and the threat of being invaded, always lead to the citizens of the nations into the arms of their leaders. Policy Policy Policy, It was the hardest thing for me to accept since I had spent a large portion of my youth serving a policy I have believe I now believe destructive. I think sometimes those of us that support Paul get so alarmed when we see much of what hes warning about coming to fruition that we focus only on ending our empire. Understandable, since it's taking place all over again. It's a shame that we and Dr Paul doesnt go into the fact that we would still maintain the right to the freedom of the sees, which provides not only a immediately nuclear capacity, our marine expiditionary forces, and air power... oh I dont know maybe somewhere like the straight of hormuz? Also, Thomas Jefferson declared our first war against the barbary pirates in defense of the seas. This so important because of our access to both major oceans, a enormous strategic and economic advantage that isnt discussed, yet it wont be much use if we continue on our course to bankruptcy. Indeed, if the Rupublican party wants to have credibility when we outline the absurdity of all those duped by obamas welfare state lining up to sign away our liberties... Then we have to address our destructive foreign policy and the sad truth that many neo conservatives at the forefront of implementing this policy greatly influenced by the giant arms companies which depend on the wars and empire and other costs of our base empire. The two cant be mutually exclusive on our platform if we are going to save this country for children.
went off on a tandem there wald but I agree u you. I just think sometimes it's divisive and even counter productive to jump into a history lesson condemning U.S actions in Iran. It comes off sooo much like the over educated (and now glaringly hypocritical) liberals weve been subjected to and conditioned to hate by those right wing media pundits who no nothing about history... and at long last finally being marginalized
Which policy are you writing about?
The decision whether to use absolutely overwhelming military force to bomb the Iranians back to the stone age if we can not to an agreement with them that is fully verifiable, which confirms they are only pursuing nuclear power for civilian purposes.
As to Afghanistan the issue is not whether the Taliban will come after us, the issue is will they provide a safe haven for the training of terrorists for al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood who will come after us?
Oh yes, the Muslim Brotherhood declared war against us in October, 2010.
It is unclear to me whether the Afghanis want us. The existing government in Afghanistan is corrupt. The Pakistanis are providing a safe haven for the Taliban and the Pakistanis don't want the Taliban defeated, because they want to control Afghanistan after we leave.
We are going to be leaving Afghanistan. The question is when, under what circumstances and on what terms.
P.S. Thank you for your service and I agree that we should be listening to those who have fought in Afghanistan and returned home.
Iran is encircled, present the pentagon estimates that is would take 3 weeks to destroy the Iranian military to a extent that they are no longer capable of carrying out force on kinetic operations. The world has never seen the military superiority claimed by America in the 21st century,c and if it belonged to anyone not governed by the most sublime constitution written by human intelligence, I can only imagine what the last century would have looked like. Since our greatest security threat is our national debt, I cannot support (chairman of the U.S JFC) the policy you defend above. Did the Taliban follow the soviets home after they had to withdraw when their economy was collapsing. I would like for my son to be able to have the same military capabilities over our enemies in the coming centuries that I had should choose to be the less than 1% percent who swear that oath. I dont understand why republicans dont listen to what the boots on the ground are saying when they give ron paul more money than all the other candidates combined. It rubs me the wrong way and it was one of the major reason my entire family whom have been devout members of the republican party and contributors (and will continue to do so) started to even look into what Pauls views even were.
Oh please. These sorts of insults reflect poorly on Paul.
I am quite aware that the present course is not sustainable.
The question is how best to proceed forward.
Since some are adamantly convinced there is only one way forward and refuse to consider any other options, nor the consequences of that specific course, no discussion can be had.
People can not develop a consensus by saying there is only "one way."
Yes, there are time tested truths. Yes, there are certain concepts and ideas set out in the Constitution.
We left the path of a Constitutional Republic after the election of Woodrow Wilson. We moved further away during the 1930's. We moved even further away as we put in place the institutions to deal with the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, we have reached, or are close to reaching a fiscal tipping point because we have focused on bread and circuses for roughly the last 50 years. The last time we truly balanced the Federal budget and paid down on the debt was under Eisenhower.
If we do not dramatically change course, there is a clear and substantial likelihood that the Republic will be lost.
In doing so, I am in the F.A. Hayek, Dr. Williams camp and not in the Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul camp when it comes to domestic and foreign policy.
We live in a very dangerous world. To simply say that we will not intervene and therefore we will be left alone means that:
- We are condemning to death a lot of people around the globe, who have in the past relied on our protection.
- We are being naive, in that we will not be left alone, because we live in an inter-connected world.
Want to walk away. Fine, but do so knowingly and with full knowledge.
You are so woefully misinformed as to not warrant a reply. According to you the GOP now stands for endless wars, endless spending, and redistribution of Americans wealth around the world and not much else. Thanks for a glimpse of the "average" voter, it was quite disheartening.
unlike the Democrats that like to make it up as they go along and interpret it to mean anything they want. You may be in that group?
There you go again.
No foreign leaders have called for our destruction!
Not correct. The Iranian leadership has called for America's destruction.
And if they did, it would be a moot point as we are the worlds only superpower
The US is not a super power if it follows a policy of non-intervention.
The concept of a super power means that the country will exercise its power for the benefit of other nations. A policy of non-intervention runs directly counter to that concept, because the US abandons its role of securing "Pax Americana."
That may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective, but it is important that we understand the consequences of what we are discussing.
He made it quite clear that the US Constitution and the founding fathers view on foreign policy is one of non-intervention and we should follow the rule of law, unlike the Democrats that like to make it up as they go along and interpret it to mean anything they want. You may be in that group?
North Korea was named as an "Axis of Evil" member in 2003, in 2006 they tested their first nuke, they are now building long range missiles, yet you are unable to explain the hypocrisy of why you want to bomb Iran (who is in compliance with the NPT), but not North Korea!
No foreign leaders have called for our destruction! And if they did, it would be a moot point as we are the worlds only superpower, however that WILL NOT last if we do not get our finances in order, of which you seem to have no cognizance! Many military leaders have openly said that our debt is the single biggest threat to our national security, you seem not to mind if we bankrupt ourselves, chasing phantom monsters abroad. You are misinformed because you listen to those who have a financial interest in war.
I don't want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon either, and neither does Ron Paul. I disagree w/ the good doctor when he says "I Toppled saddam and gotten out". Iraq was a huge strategic blunder. Something our arab allies begged and pleaded with us to consider before the 03 invasion. The obvious reason is because the saudis and jordanian's new of Iran's desire for hegemony in the reason. We basically handed over the entire shia south to Iran.
Something our arab allies begged and pleaded with us to consider before the 03 invasion.
At the time of the start of the Iraqi war, our intelligence services thought that:
- Iraq had WMD
- Libya was looking at acquiring WMD
- Iran was working towards obtaining a nuclear bomb.
The Saudis did not oppose the action taken. However, what they suggested was that after the invasion, we parole the Iraqi Army. Bremmer refused and the rest is history.
People forget that as a result of the Iraqi invasion, the Libyans abandoned their plans to obtain WMD, which were very advanced and the Iranians temporarily suspended their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon, sending out peace feelers, which the Bush administration did not consider credible.
Also, lets not forget that the Iraqi invasion was authorized by a resolution of Congress.
A couple of comments:
- No link for the quote of the Saudi Foreign Minister.
My recollection is that the Saudis were playing both sides.
An attack on Iraq was not popular with the Saudi people. So for public consumption purposes the King and his people took the public stance of no intervention without UN Security Council approval.
At the same time, the Kingdom was telling the Bush Administration, yes we will allow you to use our bases to get rid of Saddam Hussein and in fact the Saudi's had been allowing the US to their bases to enforce existing Security Council Resolutions.
In October, 2002 Congress passed and the President signed into law:
Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
The recitals make for an interesting read.
After the passage of UN Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 which in essence said to the Iraqi regime, co-operate with the weapon's inspectors or else, the Saudi's tried to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave, offering him a safe harbor. SH refused.
United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Iraq
Pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Resolution passed by Congress, President Bush made the determination that military intervention was necessary because the Iraqi's were not co-operating with the weapons inspectors and therefore ... The administration also took the position that the use of force was authorized under the existing UN Security Council resolutions. The Saudi's accepted this position and allowed the Americans continued use of their bases.
- Deficit Financing
Whatever side one takes on the Iraq War, the Bush administration and Congress made the decision to finance the cost of the war through deficit financing.
So, we are now financing the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the subsequent nation building, along with all the related efforts to fight radical Islam, etc., with no plan to bring the budget back into balance and pay down the resulting debt.
During this period, Congress also expanded Medicare, creating another huge unfunded liability.
Then we have:
- the housing bubble burst and two attempted stimulus which were financed with debt,
- the financial crisis which lead to TARP (which many feel was a huge mistake, because the problem was with the wholesale financial sector and not the retail financial sector, and we should have allowed the fire to simply burn out in the wholesale financial sector), and the initial auto loan, all of which were financed with debt.
- Obama takes office and the Democrats now have a super majority in both the House and Senate.
- to combat the economic downturn, the stimulus which was deficit financed, along with expansion of welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps, along with a huge expansion in discretionary spending, all deficit financed.
- Congress passes Obamacare, which the Democrats claim will reduce healthcare costs and based on the data presented to the CBO will reduce the deficit.
Everyone knows that is nonsense, and in reality the goal is to collapse the private insurance market leading to a single payer health care system administered and run by the Federal Government, creating another huge unfunded liability.
In the meantime, while all this is going on the Federal Reserve expands its balance sheet in an effort to facilitate the sale of Bear Stearns, after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, keep the wholesale financial market going including AIG, which included a huge expansion of the monetary base, and then despite Bernanke saying no, printing money to help finance the deficit spending of the Federal Government, etc., etc., etc.
Then end result?
- From 2000 to date, between the Bush and Obama administrations, the Federal Government has run up about 10 trillion dollars in debt, with the Obama administration running up the debt at a rate of about three times faster than the Bush administration. Add on top of that the unfunded liability created with the Medicare expansion, Obamacare and ....
- In an effort to start stemming the tide, Congress passed a debt ceiling limit extension proposal last summer which lead to S&P downgrading the U.S. credit rate. Egan Jones recently downgrade the US credit rating again. Fitch and Moody's still rate U.S. credit as triple A. However, that will change within the next 12 months, if Congress and the Executive Branch are not able to come forward with a realistic plan to balance the budget in the very near term and start paying down the debt. If Fitch and Moody's down grade the US credit rating, we will see a run on the US dollar and ....
So, the question becomes, what realistic proposal is required to balance the budget and start paying down the debt so that we can avoid a run on the dollar?
Paul says end drastically cut discretionary spending and our overseas military involvements, while adopting a policy of non-intervention.
This will allow us to balance the budget in three years, while maintaining our existing military strength at home, so that we can protect ourselves, without having to increase taxes, etc., etc.
At the same we need to get rid of Obamacare and discuss what we are going to do with Medicare and Social Security.
That is certainly one approach.
He also wants to tackle the Federal Reserve.
I happen to agree the time frame is about right, although it is possible the credit rating agencies and the bond markets might accept five to seven years, rather than three years.
The existing Republican proposal of balancing the budget in thirty years, which also talks about reforms to medicare, etc ... right, please.
As to the Obama administration, they have no proposal on table.
I suspect the administration has a plan, but will not reveal it until after Obama is re-elected and then will start to push it as the lame duck session of Congress comes to grips with the expiration of the existing tax rates, the spending cuts under the last debt limit agreement and the need to extend the debt ceiling again.
How that plays out is an open question. A couple of questions:
Is the Obama administration serious about balancing the budget?
Nothing indicates Obama is serious, and if the administration is not serious, that leads to the next possibility.
Will there be an economic collapse due to a run on the dollar, because no agreement is reached between Congress and the Executive Branch, which leads to civil unrest and possibly open conflict between the Federal Government and the public?
If that happens, we can kiss the Republic good bye.
- Bottom line:
We need to defeat Obama because he can't be trusted to do what is in the best interests of the Republic given his ideology and his financial backers.
We need to elect more conservatives to the House and especially to the Senate, so that we control the House and the Senate.
We need to come up with a realistic and credible proposal that balances the Federal Budget within at least three years and at the latest seven years, and thereafter we start to pay down the national debt.
We do not have a lot of time.
'We think war is going to be a tremendous threat to the region... We think that, especially if it doesn't come through the United Nations' authority, that it would be a dangerous thing to do"
"There has never been in the history of the world a country in which a regime change happened at the bayonets of guns that has led to stability."
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal
you mean wmd's biological or chemical weapons right? because after Israel destroyed their nuclear reactor (which by the way was overwhelming condemned by both U.S parties w/the exemption of Paul who supported Israels right to defend themselves) the intel was that Iraq had made no significant advances towards to aquisition of nuclear capabilities since.
please look into that a little more... In colin powell's auto biography he recounts numerous meetings while sec of state, with the saudi royal family telling us that we have handed over iraq to the Persians....I believe that is the source and there are thousands more, but even if there wasnt and your statement above is 100 % correct. There is no way it can be cited as justification for the lives and treasure lost.... Iran, by the way offered to let us use their airspace to attack al qaedas network in afghanistan following 9/11, so obviously we responded by putting them in infamous "axis of evil". please look into those statements.... I don't know much about lybias wmd so, Ill do the same.
I think we are both missing the big picture, and that is can we really afford to maintain and even expand our military posture around the globe which has been current policy of both parties.... all in the name of hoping to deter other countries from seeking wmds. I cant support that policy. The real threat to our national security is not be able to afford weapons systems that give us air superiority, unquestioned dominion of the seas. Our credit rating is the lowest it has ever been, and unemployment at all time highs, and is being trumphed in priority by the desperate campaign for war against Iran. I am happy to see with cnn ratings down 50 percent and fox down we know that something isnt right here.
until my last combat deployment to Iraq I felt the same way that you did about the best ways to protect America. I assumed that flooding our strategic interests around the world with military assets would ensure economic and domestic security. However, this last time 09-10 there were less missions/patrols, and more time to do some critical thinking. First of all, there is know way in hell we spent four trillion dollars and shifted our entire ground forces from PACOM to CENTCOM for ten years if this war was about radical islam. The Gop establishment doesnt even make the argument (if we left there would be a vaccume of power filled by Iran/Turkey or as energy continues to get more and more scarce, having military bases in the countries with the 1 and 2 largest oil reserves is the only way to preserve the American standard of living. No, they continue to tell us that we are in danger of having a abbysaid caliphate spread across the face of the earth. Bottom line I cant think of any argument that justifies another preemptive war in the region. The waste over there is simply mind blowing!! The chairman of the joint chiefs stated that the largest national security threat to America is our sovereign debt. seriously, how are we going cancel the development of the f35 which would ensure our air superiority for decades to come but continue to station 2-3 carrier groups, rebuild entire countries, and maintain tens of thousands of combat troops for QRF... all the while having the majority of our already exhausted light infantry units in a perpetual stale mate with the pashtuns one of the worlds largest ethnic tribes. who bye the way, defeated 500,000 soviets, defied alexander the great, carry an AK from the time they can walk. They cant shoot worth a shit but tactically you would think they had gone to ranger school. Why are we there? Turn off hannity and oreilly for a week. Our foreign policy, economy, and attacks on our liberties are intrinsically linked man...
FWIIW, IMV the Obama administration's foreign and domestic economic policies, along with the continued degradation of our civil liberties in the pursuit of those policies are worse than those of the Bush administration.
Thanks for the link on the 2001 vote frank, and I stand corrected about exactly what it was He voted for. I think this is what he means when he talks about the need to have a clear objective coinciding w/ overwhelming force and come home. We cant afford to have a perpetual military presence in every place congress votes to take action in.
I don't support the war in Afghanistan as we are dong it. It is rapidly becoming a boondoggle.
But, I also don't pretend that Ron Paul is the only one pointing this out.
By the way. Ron Paul voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I guess that "Declaring War" thing only goes so far for a strict Constitutionalists like Ron Paul.
The point being.....Declare war, fight to win, get out. Do not rebuild the country. Do not stay and spend my tax dollars when they are needed in the US.
His vote was to give the pres. authorization to hunt down and kill those responsible for the murdering thousands of Americans. Tragically, the Bush administration completely dropped the ball in tora boro, and decided to invade Iraq... Paul pauls argues consistently that when apply military force, it must be done with a clear objective and with overwhelming force. For instance, when asked what he would do if a south American country seized the panama cannal. "I would take a look at the intel, get a declaration of war from congress win it and come home" . I don't know if his solutions the absolute best, but right now we are following the same pattern we used before the iraq invasion. encirclement, economic sanctions, convince the american people. Oooorr just wait until we are all real pissed off about something again.
Let's read the resolution which Congress (including Representative Paul) voted in favor off:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001. "
That resolution is extremely broad and very open ended.
People are unhappy with how the Bush and Obama administrations have exercised that authority, along with the appropriations authorized by Congress and the laws passed in furtherance of that authorization.
... Ultimately, that is why we have elections.
We've already won, I know you've heard that before but, Rule 11b says Romney cannot be the nominee from any state the RNC helped him in, Rule 15b takes away the winner take all results in Fla and AZ, and then there's this ruling by the RNC itself in 2008. http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound And if younow want you can go to youtube and find video evidence of how Mitt became the "presumptuous nominee" and a lot of other things the media never told you
As for Obama 'losing' to Ron Paul...why hasn't Ron Paul won one state vs Romney then? Makes no sense.
Because less then 1 in 7 Republicans vote in the primary and they are mostly older folks that get their news from the TV. Paul won 2 to 3 times the independents then Romney. Paul also appeals to some democrats because of his civil liberties positions. Paul also pulls in the young people, blacks, and Hispanics, many of whom are not registered Republican. Romney's support is about an inch deep! Up to May 8th he was averaging 41% of primary voters WITH the media constantly droning on about how he was the chosen one. On May 8th, when the media made like there was no one else, he only reached the mid 60's! Mitt's rallies have more police and reporters than supporters, while Paul can draw 6000+ with little notice. In a stagnating economy with high unemployment, who would Obama rather run against? The aloof, impersonal, millionaire with ZERO enthusiasm behind him, or the guy with THRONGS of young supporters and a dedicated grass roots army the likes of which has never before existed in the history of the WORLD? Look at the conventions, that takes lots of dedicated people to start at the precinct through to the county, districts, and then to the state level. Lots of dedicated supporters WINS elections. The establishment is beginning to see that Paul wins, Romney loses, and they want to WIN!
You mean in the rigged straw polls?
Why is he picking up so many delegates, the real measure of support?
Nope. Just people that figured out how to play the system. Plus, Mitt is either too stupid or too weak to say anything or do anything about it.
LOL. I presume you are being sarcastic.
It is best not to attack the intelligence of any voter in online discussions.
(Of course, sometimes online discussions can become heated, and people will write things they would not say in face to face conversations.)
The only people Romney gets are the brain washed and those whose careers depend on him being the nominee.
That is not correct and besides it is not a winning argument. It is always a mistake to attack the intelligence of the voter.
By "playing the system" do you mean follow the rules that were established in order for our government to run as a Republic and not a tyranny of the majority democracy? These have been the rules for ages because it promotes people who really care about the process to get involved and make informed decisions, rather than just taking 10 minutes to intelligently pull a level for someone because they recognize their name. The rules were not hidden, and anyone can participate. Mitt Romney cannot win delegates because no one likes him and when they learn of his real positions, they can't vote for him. The only people Romney gets are the brain washed and those whose careers depend on him being the nominee. They have no interested in fighting for our freedom or preserving our Blessed Republic.