Delavar or Webb 0n August 19th?

by lewwaters

FREEDOM ISN"T FREE

FREEDOM ISN"T FREE

With only a little over a week left before our August 19 “top two” primary votes due, we have some choices before us. Many have already decided and returned their mail-in ballots. Many others in the 3rd District are still contemplating between 4 candidates vying for one seat in the House of Representatives, now occupied by Brian Baird, seeking another term as our Representative.

Baird has been the darling of the Liberals up until he saw the light and switched his position on the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror. Once he decided the endeavor was worth finishing and announced it, the left turned on him, in spite of his being joined at the hip with the likes of Nancy Pelosi on other Liberal matters.

This move has left him facing three challengers, one anti-war Democrat, Cheryl Crist, an anti-war Libertarian running as a Republican, Michael Delavar and a strong conservative Republican, Christine Webb.

Two of these candidates will advance to the November General Election to determine who will be our Representative for the next two years.

Ms. Crist is really a long shot, so this race is in essence between Delavar and Webb to face Baird, who assuredly will win one of the top two positions in the primary and will be difficult to beat in November.

Ms. Webb has won the endorsement of the Republican Party over that of Mr. Delavar, leaving some with the impression that Delavar is a bit miffed over it. Delavar has stated he believes he missed the party endorsement over his,

opposition to keeping U.S. troops as an occupying force on Muslim soil in Iraq, his criticism of the United Nations and insistence on having the U.S. out of the U.N. and his refusal to sign a pledge of support for John McCain, the presumptive nominee for President.”

Delavar, a staunch Ron Paul supporter, presents somewhat of an enigma for Washington States 3rd District GOP. While he presents some formidable conservative ideas on government and spending, much as does Webb, he is totally misled and completely misses the boat when it comes to the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror.

I have found that he tends to contradict himself in regards to the war as well. He joins with the anti-war left in labeling our Troops as an “occupying force” in Iraq. Yet, in excerpts of a debate with Christine Webb, placed on You Tube by Delavar, he states, “they are a sovereign nation, we have given them their sovereignty.”

Ms. Webb supports fighting terrorists overseas, where they are. Delavar says he supports “the appropriate, overwhelming and vicious response to any terrorist attack against the United States.” He also says, “I support hunting down Osama bin Laden and eliminating him.”

He goes on to say, “I will not support occupation for the sake of nation-building,” adding, “Occupation is the single greatest recruiter and motivator in the jihadist’s cause. While we occupy holy Muslim land, we will always have a highly motivated, patient terrorist threat.” He apparently has missed that many terrorist attacks by extremist Jihadists occurred years before any of our Troops were placed in the Middle East and that many were against nations that have no Troops in the Middle East, some opposing the U.S. Policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also seems to have missed that several European nations that have no Troops in the Middle East have been facing a radical Jihadist threat for some time.

Totally baffling is when he says,

Our very presence on holy Muslim soil fuels the fire of jihad against the United States and unites our enemies against us. We can and should pursue terrorists with the intent of retribution, but should not occupy Muslim lands.”

Just how does he propose we accomplish that? Fly the Troops over before breakfast and have them home before dinner? Sorry, Michael, but fighting war isn’t your typical “9 to 5 job.”

Dangerously close to an anti-Semitic comment, he states,

Furthermore, if we pay attention to the declaration of war against us by al-Qaeda, we will notice that they fight us because of our continued support for regimes that oppress Muslims. We must stop giving taxpayer money in the form of aid and support to oppressive regimes.”

From the Fatwa issued by Al Qaeda in 1998, long after coalition forces ejected Iraq forces from Kuwait, at the request of Muslim governments, I might add, and before any actual forces were sent back into Iraq, we read,

they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula,”

and

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims.”

Again, missed by Delavar and Paul is that U.S. Troops were sent to the Middle East by request and permission of Muslim rulers. Also missed is that many terrorist attacks have been carried out against fellow Muslims by the radical Jihadists that demand all follow their twisted view of the Holy Qu’Ran.

When Delavar says, “We must stop giving taxpayer money in the form of aid and support to oppressive regimes,” is he falling for the anti-Semitic rhetoric from leftists that hate Israel, the only Democratic nation currently in the Middle East? I certainly hope not.

Where Delavar and Paul really miss the boat is in believing that the radical Jihadists hate us and attack us because we “occupy” their lands. Radical Islam, unlike the more moderate majority of Muslims, desire to impose their strict radical views on all “by the sword” if need be. Returning to Al Qaeda’s Fatwa, at the very beginning we read,

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-‘Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.”

Along with that opening statement, the true underlying motivations was revealed long ago and has been disrupted by our taking he fight back to them, something terrorists did not expect since Bin Laden declared American Troops were but “paper tigers.”

Delavar advocates issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, outsourcing the fight against terrorists to mercenaries, in essence.

Delavar also is against amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants and promises to “secure our borders,” but opposes the idea of building a border fence. He advocates stripping ILLEGALS of any benefits, but doesn’t seem to realize that terrorists also slip across the borders easily, if they desire. I agree with no benefits for ILLEGALS, but how do we “secure the borders” if no fences are to be built? Terrorists won’t come in to take advantage of benefits or hope for amnesty, but to do us harm. And, we can expect them to be well funded, not needing those benefits.

Michael claims to be a long time conservative Republican, but after the State Convention, his wife, Katja said, “We are trying to integrate with the Republican Party; they see it as a take-over,” lending credence to the thoughts of many Republicans that Ron Paul Libertarians are and have been plotting a takeover of the GOP since their party can’t seem to get up to speed.

The County Party has also seen this, as they state that Ron Paul Supporters have mounted 67 contests in PCO races, a volunteer position usually difficult to fill.

Lastly, at least for now, Christine Webb has clearly stated there isn’t enough scientific evidence to support the claim of manmade global warming. I am unable to find any definitive statement from Delavar addressing the notion of manmade global warming. I will be happy to amend this once the most ardent Ron Paul and Michael Delavar supporters come in to “set me straight,” again, if they would supply such a statement.

Like many of us, Delavar has opinions, some good, some not so good. He is no doubt an excellent pilot; a good father and I hear quite an accomplished ballroom dancer. That does not equal the experience Christine Webb would take with her to Congress.

Seats in the House are not equipped with training wheels.

I am afraid Delavars’ naiveté, should more Ron Paul worshippers who fell for him during the presidential primaries obtain office alongside anti-war Democrats, would result in fighting in our own streets, if not direct terrorists attacks in major cities, negating any fiscally conservative ideas.

As Michael asked me once in a personal email, “[has] the Republican party become the party of war?” No, Michael, we remain the party of liberty and freedom and see what price must be paid to have it.

My vote remains with Christine Webb.

UPDATE: Congratulations to Michael Delavar and his followers for winning the face-off with Brian Baird. Ya’ll waged an aggressive and effective campaign.

On a more personal note, Good Luck in the remaining months before November. So far you have had little real competition and pretty much an easy road. If the Dems take you serious, be prepared. You ain’t see nothin’ until you are up against the Democrat Attack Machine.

74 Responses to “Delavar or Webb 0n August 19th?”

  1. I am sorry you feel that way. May the bells of liberty ring through the streets of our Country without unnecessary wars! Good night.

    Like

  2. Poor Betsy, I really feel sorry for you, hon.

    Apparently, you, Ron Paul, Micheal Delavar and the rest haven’t realized they have been at war with us since 1979. Hiring mercenaries won’t stop what has been happening since 1979:

    September 11, 2001 – Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
    Oct. 12, 2000 – A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
    Aug. 7, 1998 – Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
    June 21, 1998 – Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
    June 25, 1996 – A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
    Nov. 13, 1995 – A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The “Tigers of the Gulf,” “Islamist Movement for Change,” and “Fighting Advocates of God” claim responsibility.
    February 1993 – A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York’s World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
    Dec. 21, 1988 – A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
    April 1986 – An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
    April 5, 1986 – A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
    December 1985– Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
    November 1985 – Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
    October 1985 – Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
    August 1985 – A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
    June 1985 – A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
    June 1985 – In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
    April 1985 – A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
    October 1983 – A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
    April 1983 – A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.
    Nov. 4, 1979 – Iran Hostage Crisis, After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release Jan. 20, 1981.

    Funny how during an “unnecessary war” there hasn’t been more of the above against us.

    As Winston Churchill once said, “It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.”

    Like

  3. Just to clarify, Michael Delavar believes in non-intervention and is not anti-war proper or a pacifist.

    Here are some links to better understand the differences

    Interventionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interventionism_(politics)
    “a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy or society”

    Non-interventionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
    “a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense”

    Anti-warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war
    “the opposition to a particular nation’s decision to start or carry on an armed conflict”

    Pacifismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
    “the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage”

    Like

  4. D Jenkins, you can play semantics all you wish, but the fact remains that he would withdraw our Troops now, as would Ron Paul. So doing would invalidate the sacrifice of over 4,000 Brave Americans and return Iraq to turmoil before they have reached the level of security where they can go it alone.

    Delavar and Paul’s penchant for using Letters of Marque and Reprisal is not only ludicrous but also suicidal. Why, when we have a Professional All Volunteer Military Force, which we did not have at the time of their last use against the Barbary Pirates, would we now decide to depend on mercenaries for our defense?

    Some comments,

    The Olympian August 10, 2008 : “And then there’s Michael Delavar, an anti-war Republican from Washougal who jumped in the race when Baird changed his mind.”

    “Since he flipped on the war, it was an opportunity to be an anti-occupation Republican against a pro-war Democrat.”

    Yet, Delavar says in the debate that “Iraq is sovereign, we gave them their sovereignty.” How can they be sovereign and occupied at the same time?

    The Chronicle Editorial Endorsements: “We find it odd that we have a Democrat incumbent that supported the troop “surge” (Baird has recently talked about troop withdrawal, as has President Bush this past week), and Republican Delavar solidly against the war effort in Iraq.”

    “And while most Republicans support the war in Iraq and the recent troop surge, Delavar is running on a main plank of getting our troops out of Iraq now. He said the federal deficit is unacceptable, and the war is a major cause.”

    “We do find that scaling back military bases overseas and maintaining a strong military defense does not make sense. You can’t have it both ways. We believe his isolationist rhetoric is not a prudent position in today’s world.”

    RonPaulForums.com: “Michael, on the other hand has the best chance of beating Brian Baird in the general election, especially given the strong anti-war sentiment that runs in the district.”

    Olympia Time Blogspot: “If someone is to knock off Baird, it will only be an anti-war righty, Michael Delavar.”

    Again, if Delavar, like Ron Paul, is a “long time Republican,” what does his wife’s comment of, “We are trying to integrate with the Republican Party; they see it as a take-over,” actually mean?

    Why would they try to “integrate” into something they are already members of?

    Sorry, but the semantics game doesn’t wash with me. Delavar’s name is associated with anti-war in just too many places. None of us like war, but I can tell you from first hand experience, what the anti-war crowd has left behind is much worse.

    I notice too, in Delavar’s many radio ads and TV spot commercials, he has carefully avoided mentioning his anti-war stance of late.

    If he or any other candidate from any party can’t see what has been developing over the past three decades and the need for us to finally face up to terrorists of all kinds, they are much too naive to represent us in Washington D.C.

    Delavar also likes to play that anti-war canard of “define Victory” based upon past fights against nations. President Bush defined Victory long ago with, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”

    Open your eyes and look, they are standing up and we are standing down, gradually. This fight will last longer than any fight we have ever been in. Like it or not, they are at war with us and we better have people with sound judgment in D.C. that realize that, or be prepared to lose the very liberties they claim to cherish and protect.

    Choose wisely, America. Your children’s future and liberty depends upon it.

    Like

  5. Apparently voters in the third congressional did choose wisely. they chose Delavar even though Ryan Hart launched a last minute email misinformation campaign saying that Delavar is a libertarian who favores legalizing drugs. Mr Hart you shall reap what you sow.

    Like

  6. Farzad, somehow I never received any last minute email from Ryan Hart. However, I give Michael credit for an agressive campaign, but he isn’t sitting in D.C. just yet, is he?

    If he isn’t a Libertarian, why then did his wife say they were trying to integrate with the Republican Party and we see it as a take over?

    Sorry, but anti-war candidates don’t always fare very well in elections. People will wake up and see that he advocates outsourcing our defense to mercenaries. That is much more important than legalizing any drugs.

    Do you honestly expect all 16,000 who voted for Webb or Crist to just jump in behind Michael?

    Like

  7. Can’t speak for Webb or Crist voters, but have reviewed the principles from the official GOP website below. I find nothing inconsistent with Delavars’s expressed views. But perhaps you can find something other than an out-of-context quote from his wife:

    GOP Principles
    From the Republican National Committee website

    I’m a Republican Because…

    I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

    I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

    I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

    I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

    I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

    I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

    I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

    I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

    FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

    Like

  8. Farzad, I have repeatedly stated that Delavar does have some sound fiscal ideas, just as does Ron Paul. That does not make them Conservative Republicans. There are even Democrats who believe in many of those ideas and they aren’t conservative Republcians, are they?

    But, why would Delavar desire to integrate into a party he questions if it is “the party of war?” And when he said to me, “What about being
    pro-life, fiscally conservative, for securing our borders without
    amnesty, and protecting our sovereignty? None of those things seem to
    be important to our supposedly “conservative” Republican party. Only
    war.”

    The advocacy of outsourcing our National Defense to mercenaries is ludicrous. There is a reason banned Letters of Marque andReprisal over a century ago, they are outdated and wrong for today when we have a professional military.

    Delavar and Paul would have us throw in the towel as we are winning, invalidating the supreme sacrifice of thousands of Americans ……… again!

    Then what? Sit back and wait until we are hit again? Turn the other cheek and they continue to hit us, hoping some mercernary puts a stop to it?

    All the principals Delavar believes in are for naught if we end up with suicide bombers and ieds on our own streets.

    And again, if, as he claims, he is the “real conservative Republican,” why did his wife say at the State convention, “we only wish to integrate with the party, they think we are trying to take over?”

    Libertarians and Conservatives share many views and in many ways are closlely aligned. But they are different parties. Since Libertarians have been unsuccessful in elevating their party to prominence, claiming to be the “true conservatives” seems to be the order of the day.

    Ain’t gonna happen, son.

    I give credit to Michael for an aggressive and effective campaign, but that is where I stop.

    What next? Demand the GOP endorsement?

    We are the “party of war,” remember? Why do that?

    Like

  9. You seem to be fixated on Delavars wifes comments. If those comments took place at the Republican state convention, the context likely was integrating the various factions of the Republican party, including Ron Paul supporters, together into one cohesive entity. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, unless it’s your position that because Ron Paul was a Libertarian 20 years ago, anyone who’s wife supported him as a Republican candidate must also be one? Does this also include all the voters in Texas who repeatedly elect Paul as a Republican congressman? I’m sure they’d be surprised to hear that you don’t think any of them are Republicans either!

    By extension doesn’t your logic also mean that anyone who ever supported Ronald Reagan as a Republican Governor or President must secretly be a Democrat, just because Reagan used to be one? I can remember when Reagans ideas where widely regarded just a radical as Pauls are now!

    Like

  10. Spare me the condescending rhetoric, Farzad.

    You seem fixated on proving that the Paulistinians are the true Republicans when we all know better. At best, ya’ll might be considered “Libertarian Republicans,” a small and lately boisterous faction of the party.

    One of your fellow Paulistinians once said, “The reality is that the GOP desperately needs new blood and new ideas.” Isn’t that what Democrats preach every election?

    To adopt Paul’s and Delavar’s views, the party would have to align itself with the likes of John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark and whole host of very Liberal Socialist Democrats who continue to turn the other cheek every time we are attacked.

    Think back to the school bullies. How best to neutralize them than to stand together, the entire class and face them down?

    In one of the PCO letters Michael sent out, he said “I am a strong Nationalist, and want to use the appropriate tools to declare war against the terrorists that attacked us on American soil. I don’t want to spend our citizen’s hard earned money in nation building efforts.”

    How does he propose declaring war on nations harboring terrorists and not rebuilding them after they are decimated? Would he and Paul simply destroy the nation and leave the people to fend for themselves afterwards? If the goal is to breed even more contempt for America, that would be the plan to follow.

    Knowing how our abandonment of Viet Nam and turning our backs on them as they were conquered by the Communists in 1975 and that the same would likely result if we abandon the current struggle, Michael said to me in an email exchange, “Yes, there are some unpleasant possibilities that might come about when we leave.”

    The wanton slaughter of millions of people and giving radical Jihadists 2 nations to base out of, with vast financial sources to be reaped from large oil reserves is just an “unpleasant possibility?”

    Your reasoning is at best circular and illogical. Paul hasn’t been reelected from his district yet, although I’ll admit he probably will be, unless a decent candidate comes forth to oppose him. You would have to discuss why they voted for him in the past with all the voters in his Texas District, but know also, many people just cast ballots for a familiar name, regardless of party identification.

    The isolationalism, mis-named “non-intervention,” advocated by Delavar and Paul failed miserably in the past, most notably World War Two and caused the U.S. to sacrifice much more blood than it should have, to join forces and fight back those forces that would enslave the world. History is replete with examples of such failures that caused a pending wear to be even bloodier and costly to a nation like America.

    Ya’ll claim to be “strict constitutionalists,” getting back to the original constitution. So tell me, since you think you are the real Republicans, what would you advocate ending, Civil Rights? Women’s Right To Vote? Child Labor Laws? Reinstate Slavery? Just what all would you end that has been built to make America greater?

    And, the ridiculous notion of fighting our enemies with letters of Marque and Reprisal? What do you do about our signing on to the Geneva Conventions, which bars the use of mercenaries in warfare? Do we withdraw from that too?

    While they may have worked well 2 centuries ago, warfare and weaponry has advanced to a technological level that requires a professional Military Service to maintain them.

    In case you haven’t noticed, millions of dollars is offered for information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, with no takers. Why? Because we dealing with misled religious zealots who have been brainwashed into believing God has granted them world domination. All they have to do is conquer it and people like the anti-war left and Ron Paul makes that easier for them.

    We don’t like “open-ended wars.” But guess what? Our enemies do and they are waging one, have been for decades. Better wake up, if you expect any of Ron Paul’s or Michael Delavar’s sound fiscal ideas to ever work. They won’t work if we are embroiled in warfare on our own streets.

    Since you like mentioning Ronald Reagan and Paul loved showing a photo of him and Reagan to prove Reagan would support him, forgetting millions of similar photos were taken with millions of people, what was Reagan’s simple notion in regards to our enemies?

    We Win, They Lose.”

    It is no coincidence that for three decades we were attacked, first abroad then twice on our own soil every couple years. And since taking the fight back to them, have not been attacked once!

    Delavar and Paul would have us return to attacks every couple years and upon our own soil again. No Thanks!

    Like

  11. I get that you dont agree with Delevar on foreign policy. You also surely dont seem to have much regard for Texas voters intelligence. But the question was whether soemone who runs as a Republican, openly states his positions, and wins the majority of the Republican votes in every county of the third congressional district, really is a Republican. Your hyperbole about hanoi jane, etc notwithstanding, I believe the answer is Yes.
    And of course the state GOP should back him now that he’s won. Anything else would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. We need every Republican we can get in Congress, from all parts of the GOP spectrum.

    Like

  12. Whether or not the party endorses him now, I have no idea. Then again I’m not beholding or controlled by the party.

    The rest of your rhetoric aside, we have quite a dilemma. Vote for a Liberal whose over all policies we disagree with, but who supports fending off terrorists before they hit our shores again.

    Or, vote for someone with fiscally sound ideas, but who would allow terrorism to gain a foothold within our country and advocates outsourcing National Defense to mercenaries.

    That dilemma is why I supported Christine Webb.

    Not much of a choice in my estimation.

    Incidentally, just having an “R” behind the name carries little weight here. I am conservative by nature and that includes a strong America willing to defend freedom and liberty worldwide.

    As a Viet Nam Veteran, it is next to impossible for me to align myself with anyone who would align themselves with the likes of Hanoi Jane or Kerry.

    Like

  13. I wish the coward who published this article would show his face and name.

    Like

  14. Well, Cody, so much for your idea of a friendly discussion, huh?

    My name is prominently attached.

    Like

  15. Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. His stance on non intervention goes hand in hand of what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams have taught. He has never voted for a tax increase. He got an “A” grade from the NRA. He is pro life. He voted NO on the Bailouts twice!! He is as conservative as you can get and anyone who says he isn’t, hasn’t spent the time to study his positions. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Just because Ron Paul supporters do not support the war does not make them liberal. As a matter of fact the republican party has a tradition of getting elected to end wars(example: korea and Vietnam) we are trillions of dollars in debt! how are we going to fight wars? We need to put our house in order and cut spending. Ron Paul is one of the few talking about these things and america made a mistake not electing him. Delavar for congress!

    Like

  16. Delavar and Paul have some sound fiscal ideas, but they will be worthless once we end up fighting suicide bombers and dodging ied’s on our own streets.

    It’s past time for America to wake up to the ever increasing attacks upon us and realize this is an all out war against the west by radical Jihadists.

    It’s time America got serious and made the sacrifices necessary to preserve our way of life.

    Playing word games doesn’t change the fact that both Paul and Delavar haven’t a clue about fighting terrorists. It is ridiculous to think Letters of Marque and Reprisal will end terror. If one did manage to get Bin Laden, another zealot steps in to take his place. While it would be a great morale booster for us, terror continues until the cancer of terror is eleminated.

    Those “letters” are tantamount to outsourcing our National Defense to Mercenaries, banned by the same Geneva Conventions Paul cries are violated at Guantanamo.

    They also amount to putting out a bounty on Bin laden and in case you forgot, we are currently offering a $50,000,000 bounty for him now, with no takers in 7 years.

    Nearly 20 attacks against us since 1979, each greater than the last, can no longer be tolerated. While the borders need sealed, there is no such thing as 100% security. Barriers may be breeched and then what? Cry?

    Better to keep them away from our shores while we secure the borders best we can.

    Neither Paul nor Delavar are prepared to make that choice and would end up bringing the war to our streets.

    Baird will help keep America safe, but his liberal ideas following Pelosi prevents me from voting for him.

    I guess I’ll just write in Elmer Fudd and hope for the best.

    Like

  17. I really have a hard time believing that the policies of Paul/Delavar will bring the war to our streets. If anything the policies of the current administration have caused what the CIA calls blowback, or the unintended consequences of military intervention. One person to consult with on this issue is Micheal Scheuer, who was the chief of the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden Unit at the counterterrorist center in the late 1990’s. Scheuer is a conservative and pro life voter who has never voted for a democrat. He refuses to buy the line that the attacks on America have nothing to do with what our government does in the islamic world. “In fact,” he says those attacks have “everything to do with what we do.” He isn’t blaming America for the attacks, on the contrary he wants to hunt down the radical terrorists who do us harm, but we need to understand what fuels these people. His point is that people will eventually grow resentful, if your government bombs them, supports police states and imposes sanctions that literally starve the people. who thinks this wont cause hate and resentment? I know if a country placed sanctions on me that would prevent me from feeding my kids, I would do something about it. I know that the Neo conservatives don’t want to cause harm but they don’t think of the unintended consequences.

    Like

  18. Of course you have a hard time beliving it, you don’t want to.

    By themselves, neither Paul nor Delavar could bringterror to our streets. But why add votes to those anti-war Democrats who would?

    History of radical Jihadism greatly pre-dates this administration, so the cry of “blowback” or “unintended consequences of military intervention” are fairly baseless, even from someone I admire as much as Scheuer. He is but one.

    Sad thing is, for all the cries of “why didn’t Bush do something to prevent 9/11,” if he had grounded all aircraft the evening of September 10, how much hell would have been raised over him doing so and no “proof” of any imminent attack pending?

    Like it or not, this is a religious war brought on by those few radical Jiahdists that have highjacked Islam. As long as all you naysayers whine about it, the enemy grows and our guys fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

    Paul is dead wrong that we caused this, it has been going on long before most of us were even born, just not at this high of a level of fighting.

    You are wasting your time and energy trying to argue with me. Stick with your Ron Paul cult and don’t worry, you’ll be protected by those who you hate the most.

    To occupy yourself, download and read this free report, What was it all about after all? The causes of the Iraq war

    Like

  19. We aren’t adding votes to anti war democrats. Thats why I am voting for Delavar…a Republican. If you aren’t supporting Delavar, you are supporting Democrats.

    Yes radical jihadism has existed for a long time but they didn’t start coming over to America until we put bases over there. Scheuer knows alot because he has years of experience. “Blowback” is pretty much a proven fact. Most national security experts know about it, but the media never talks about it.

    I don’t think Bush could have done much to prevent 9/11. The seeds against america had been sown long before he was president. I think we agree on this.

    why did we go to Iraq?. If we really wanted to stop terror then why didnt we go to Iran? why not Saudi arabia? thats where many terrorists are from, even Osama bin ladin and most of the hijackers…..heck why not pakistan now, they are supporting some of the terrorists. Iraq didn’t even have ties to the Taliban or Osama Bin Ladin. Now I oppose war with all of those countries but our foriegn policy of invade first, ask questions later is out of control. The founders would be ashamed. This is un-American. We shouldn’t go to war for U.N resolutions. I dont care what the U.N does!

    Ron Paul isn’t insisting” we the people” started this…he is implying our neoconservative leaders did. Along with some powerful special interest groups with connections to Oil. This isn’t a liberal point of view.(even liberals like Joe Biden and barack Obama support Nation building, Biden supported our intervention is Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq) we are trillions of dollars in debt, how can we pay for all this war? we need to live with in our means, live a conservative life.

    You are equally wasting your time to convince me the founding fathers are wrong. The constitution says we need to declare war and we did no such thing with the Iraq war. The same could be said for our current economic crises. Just follow the Constitution!

    I don’t really think being called a member of a cult was necessary. I didn’t want to get personal. I wouldn’t what to retaliate through “blowback”. You are lucky I am not a terrorist.

    Like

  20. Don’t you have anything except the same tired old anti-war talking points?

    I have yet to ever see a cult member like being told they are in a cult.

    Personally, I wouldn’t care if you were a terrorist. Veiled threats don’t phase me. Of course, I can supply you with .357 reasons to think differently.

    Try serving your country for a while, then come back.

    Like

  21. lets talk about something else then. How bout that bailout that John McCain and George Bush supported. Most Democrats supported them. Most House Republicans didn’t like it. I was glad to see Dalavar is against the Bailout, I don’t really think you can call yourself a conservative if you voted for it. But you can call yourself a socialist.

    Like

  22. Poor Dustin, you just don’t know when to quit, do you?

    How about we talk about something really pressing? And, from Ron Paul supporters and forums?

    Want to let us know where the Ron Paul people got their information about Chinese Police entering the US to “protect their assets” and “to evict homeowners in the US?”

    Funny, it’s only Ron Paul people I see discussing this currently. Did this come from Paul?

    Like

  23. I am kind of puzzled how you attack me and you don’t want to talk about the issues. You would make a great politician Lew(since we are now great friends and are on a first name basis) Lets have an honest open debate. Every group has it’s wackos. lets be respectful. Those website links above are from independent websites and is not an actual website of the Ron Paul campaign. While it is an Ron Paul site it does not mean Ron Paul or his supporters agree with everything on that site. watch this video about the bailout.

    Like

  24. Now who is skirting, Dustin? I never said those were from Ron Paul, but from his supporters. I merely asked if they came from Paul.

    As for the bailout, I disagree with both Democrats and Republicans who support it.

    Like I have repeatedly said, Delavar and Paul both have some sound fiscally conservatives ideas, but they will be for naught should we end up fighting suicide bombers and skirting IED’s on our own streets.

    Of utmost importance to me is keeping America safe and keeping terrorists away from our shores. While sealing the borders is a necissity, any barrier can be gotten around.

    Back to the Chinese Police stories, you don’t think reports as those goes hand in hand with fearmongering over the bailout? As I said, I disagree with the bailout, but why try to whip up more hysteria over a bad situation?

    Incidentally, as I’m sure you know, not all Libertarians agree with Paul either and no, Paul’s supporters will not succeed in highjacking the Republican party.

    Allow me to pre-warn you. If you think you may sway my thinking, you are dead wrong. You haven’t come up with anything that I haven’t dealt with months ago, other than the bail out, which I already disagree with.

    If you think that will sway my vote to a write in for Ron Paul, ain’t gonna happen.

    Like

  25. Nope they didn’t come from Ron Paul as far as I know. How are we going to fight terrorism if we have no money? My goal is not to convert you to my ideas. it is to help you understand of where we come from. I am tired of being ignored and called anti American because of my beliefs.( no you haven’t said those things, but others have) Of course I would be more than happy to see you endorse Ron Paul. He is no longer a candidate. He has endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the constitution party. lets face it, at this point there isn’t much we can do. Unless something crazy happens Barack Obama will be the next President. We need to come togethere in future elections and this one as conservatives and vote out the socialist that have infiltrated the government. This should be our focus.

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

    Like

  26. I agree with Dustin. If we keep to ourselves and run our own country other countries will have no reason to hate us, bomb, or attack us. We should be the pinnacle of all nations throughout time, and we have been for the most part historically. Lately I don’t like the Roman and British path our country has taken in trying to police the world and enforce our ways upon others. It’s wrong and will not benefit us or them. Just ask the Koreans and the Vietnamese. World War 2 was the last time we declared war as a nation and it was because we had been attacked. Of course not all attacks can be prevented but preemptive warfare is what will unite the countries against us and give them reason to come to our shores and attack us. Iraq was not a threat. Their military was a joke. As for the bailout, again, when the government attempts to control the currency all hell breaks loose because they create the problem and then they create the solution that will give them the power they want. The less government control in the markets the better, just ask history. Both issues can be seen historically as a bad pattern to follow. Just ask the starving nations of Europe in the early 20th century. I am a man of evidence, I see no evidence of preemptive war having ever served a beneficial purpose or of government control of currency. That is exactly why the Constitution was written, because our Founding Fathers had seen the damage that kind of government had caused and they got themselves out of it and to America.

    Like

  27. Kelly, of course you agree with Dustin, I never had any doubts that you would. But, your notion of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is not only incredibly naïve it is dangerous as well.

    I know Paul and his followers have become convinced that America causes the troubles in the world, but that is also wrong. Enemies don’t attack other countries because they have grown too strong. The weak are always prey for those who think they have a right to take from others.

    You say that you see no evidence that a “preemptive war” has served a beneficial service. Of course you haven’t. That lack of evidence is proof of how it benefited us all. Since 1979 terrorists have attacked us approximately every two years, sometimes more often. Since we took the fight back to the terrorists we haven’t been attacked at all.

    Actually, this wasn’t a preemptive war at all but a return hostilities due to Saddam not living up to he terms of he cease fire he agreed to after the first Gulf War over the past 12 years.

    Better luck next time.

    Dustin, we need to go on war footing, I agree. The country, like it or not, must realize that if we don’t defeat this latest batch of Jihadists, the fight will just be postponed until my grandchildren have to fight a much stronger enemy. Yes, citizens need to begin making sacrifices. Don’t forget, we weren’t out of the Great Depression when we entered WW2. Our Military then was training with sticks because they didn’t have the weapons needed to train, much less fight.

    While it may leave you overjoyed to see me endorse Paul, ain’t gonna happen. Not even for Baldwin, who has shown me nothing, Barr, who drank the Paul koolaid or Paul’s other candidate he endorsed, Cynthia McKinney, for obvious reasons.

    McCain isn’t my first choice, but Obama is even scarier. Like it or not, one of those two will win and I must once again, hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

    If you don’t want Obama, you have to hold your nose and get behind the only other viable candidate and hope a better one comes along in 2012. Even if one doesn’t, holding McCain’s feet to the fire will be easier than Obama’s.

    Like

  28. Washington state’s 11 votes will go to Obama, I think we all know that. So it doesn’t really matter who I vote for, just as long as it isn’t Obama. As much as I hate to say it, Obama will win unless something crazy happens. So we are in for some tough years ahead.
    Good point about the military and WW2. I would just like to fight the terrorist at our best strength but it looks like it won’t happen now. I read somewhere the military is already taking budget cuts due to the economic crises. We have been spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on our military. This wont happen anymore. We will be forced to live within our means. The Iraqi governmemnt has a surplus, yet we spend all this money on them. What about the Poor people here? Our economy is in shambles and our leaders our giving our money away to other countries. Now we wont be able to help anyone because we are in so much in debt.
    The Iraq war was a pre-emptive strike, even the Bush administration has admitted that. That’s what the Bush doctrine is.

    Like

  29. Dustin, why bother voting at all with that sort of thought? Deaftism brings nothing but defeat.

    Iraq’s surplus was a result of the oil price going sky high when it did, catching even them by surprise. As for where the money is allocated and used, IMF Helps Monitor Iraq Oil Money. And, the cost of the Iraq theater of the War on Terror, Iraq War Costs Less Than 1% of US GDP.

    Our National Debt has been around since our country was founded and the real wasteful spending is the actual cause, not fighting for freedom and keeping terrorists away from our shores. I agree it needs to be brought down, but the number one expense of government is entitlements, not defense.

    I also advocate a change in our tax structure to a flat tax on everyone, regardless of how much or how little one makes. Business taxes fall in a different category, naturally, but there too, when business have to pay increased taxes, they just pass it along to consumers.

    Wasteful and unnecessary spending for ridiculous causes and studies and even grants need to be severely trimmed or eleminated. That is the out of control spending that is killing the economy, not fighting for freedom.

    Like

  30. Well you have a good point, why bother voting? I guess one reason I could vote is to vote against the two party system. Thats’s about the only reason I can think of, because I do not like Obama or McCain. They both support the bailout, they both believe in intervention(in foriegn policy and in the markets) there may be some minor diffrences in taxes. But can I really trust McCain, a guy who voted agaisnt the Bush Tax cuts and then won the nomination and all of a sudden changed his mind? I guess I could vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin but come on,( we both know McCain chose here because he was desperate and he wanted people like you and me to vote for him.) by the way Palin called Ron paul “cool”
    The flat Tax seems like it could be a good idea. Its a whole lot better then the current plan.
    Yeah our government spends too much money and now we are paying the price. The bailout is a perfect example of wasteful spending. The one’s who truly care about our country voted No. It was the biggest move towards communism/socialsm ever. We should vote out everyone of those clowns who voted yes. (including Obama, McCain, Frank, Pelosi, Reid and Bush)
    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/351293/palin_on_ron_paul_right_on_

    Like

  31. Dustin, if this election weren’t so important, I’d be tempted to vote a write in as well. In fact, I was planning on doing just that until more and more of Obama’s background and Marxist leanings came to light.

    McCain is not my favorite and truth be told, he was the last on my list. Adding Sarah Palin has made my voting for him more palatable.

    Currently, voting a protest vote against the two party system won’t result in anything more than maybe making the voter feel like they stood on principle, but most likely putting Obama into office.

    Still, each person must vote their conscience and we have to live with the results.

    I’d like to see a strong third party come up. One thing the Ron Paul followers are missing with their plans on taking over the GOP (not that they will succeed) is that it won’t accomplish a strong third party but continue to current two party system. Granted, they feel they could then push their agenda forward, but by dividing the GOP, they just hand more power to the Dems who will block even the Libertarians in their quest for Socialism.

    Interesting that you seem to think Sarah Palin saying Paul is “cool” back in February gives him some credence. While they may agree on many issues, they are far apart on their views on War on Terror and I don’t find Palin sharing Paul’s disdain for Jews and Blacks.

    I don’t feel McCain chose her out of desperation. Many of us have been calling for her getting the nomination for months. Once Obama threw Hillary under the bus, it was a very wise move by a poor presidential candidate.

    Truth be known, Paul never stood a chance. In spite of all the online polls being deluged with Ron Paul supporters and all the claims of his beating everyone else in those same polls, actual polls always showed different as did the primary votes where he only gained some 35 or less delegates.

    Another thing that hurt him was not repudiating the support thrown his way by well known Klansman, David Duke, accepting and keeping a donation from White Supremacist Don Black, thinking that an American free market will end genocide worldwide (Jihadists and others oppressing many and slaughtering those they disagree with in third world countries aren’t interested in joining Wall Street), and so much more.

    Many Libertarians disagreed with Paul on his weak kneed approach to the War on Terror.

    As I have said, I too disagree with the “Bail Out,” but rest assured, Bush isn’t running for another term. Then again, for all his opposition to the “Bail Out,” Paul didn’t seem to mind as he sought and gained $400 Million in earmarks.

    Another thing that did not set well with me was his not correcting many supporters that falsely labeled him a “Viet Nam Veteran.” I contacted his campaign personally inquiring about his Veteran status and the bogus claims and in spite of being told someone would get back to me and clarify. No one ever did. Ron Paul and His Lack of Candor.

    Sorry, but I do believe you will find the so-called ‘Ron Paul Revolution” fizzles out soon.

    Like

  32. Just for the record More african american’s supported Ron Paul more then any other republican presidential candidate. http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-polling-african-americans.html
    Trying to play the race card won’t work.
    More military personal donated money to Ron Paul than all the other republican candidates COMBINED!
    As far as Isreal we would like to be friends with them, we believe they deserve the same treatment we give to all other nations. Peace, commerce and honest friendship as Jefferson would say. What we do not support is funding Saudi Arabia and other enemies of isreal as we currently do. So I think many jews would like the fact that we not fund their enemies(another example Pakistan.)
    Our message speakes for itself. Liberty is powerful. The Revolution will go on. You can not stop it. Ron Paul isn’t perfect, no one is. Most people love him or hate him. Many more are realizing he was right all along, The media is finally coming around to cover him a bit more. We will see how it goes. statements like the “revolution will fizzle” only gives us more motivation, so I thank you for that sir.

    Like

  33. Dustin, you reply like a true cultist, deep in denial. Every point you make about Paul’s popularity was disproved long ago. It’s bad enough to cook and manipulate statistics to gain followers, but when you come to believe them yourself, you got a problem.

    It is not playing the race card to present facts and Paul’s own words.

    The country rejected both Paul and his message for a reason, not because you aren’t Republicans. Should you succeed in highjacking the GOP, they will just continue to reject it, ot all of a sudden embrace it. That is how your “Revolution” will fizzle out.

    While you may succeed in highjacking some county level parties, you will not go any further.

    As much as I personally like Michael, he is in for a huge surprise, I hope he is ready.

    The country isn’t as naive or as dumb as you all think.

    Like

  34. you are right, every point I make is wrong. The revolution will die and Ron Paul will soon be fizzle away.
    John McCain and his Neoconervative ideas will continue to win elections. The constitution does not matter. I think we should bomb, bomb bomb Iran. I think we should look at Nation building as a common military practice . I think we should keep Bailing out the banks to “unfreeze credit” I think we should not regulate the federal reserve bank since it has done such a great job of keeping inflation down. We should make the Patriot act permanent because if you vote against it you are not a patriot. We should continue to aid Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries and Israel too, even though they are enemies. We should pay for everything Iraq does, no matter how much debt we are in.
    Even though Ron Paul broke the record for most money earned in one day, I refuse he has a chance at ever winning, even in congress. Since Fox news holds him out of debates, he must not be important.
    Since he was given an “A” rating from the NRA he is to too far to the right. Since he is voted “the tax payers best friend” does not mean much either.
    Now that he is out of the election I must Hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Evil is worth voting for. Principle does not matter. Even though John McCain is down in many key states and falling farther behind each day. (He even pulled out of Michigan) I refuse to give up, I must stand up for John McCain and vote for him(Even though he has about a 5% chance of winning our states 11 electoral votes.) Now to conclude repeat the words of a wise man:

    Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

    I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

    Like

  35. Dustin, realistically, there are only two choices, McCain or Obama. Barr, McKiney and Baldwin don’t stand a chance and you know it. Paul never did.

    All the snide comments in the world won’t change that!

    I too advocate a third party, but you won’t get it by trying to highjack one of the dominant parties. You end up with the same two party system with mostly the same people and news one coming in that end up corrupted. That is also why I advocate term limits, which would have taken Paul out long ago, by the way.

    You don’t want Obama, obviously, so how do you think throwing your vote away for any of the third party candidates will block that? You claim, “John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.” Who else is even close enough?

    Ya’ll would do better trying to build your party into a strong party rather than trying to highjack the GOP.

    Like

  36. Even if John McCain won the general election (which is very much in doubt) He still will not win in Washington State. I think everyone knows that. All 11 votes will go to Barack Obama. Therefore since Obama will win Washington state, I should vote for the best choice available, Not the lesser of two Evils. McCain and Baldwin have about the same chance of winning Washington state ….none…ok, maybe a 3% chance. Thats the truth can you deny this?
    I really do not want Barack Obama to be president but I do not vote to block other people to become president. I vote for the candidate I agree with on the issues. NO matter what you or I do, Barack Obama will win Washington state.
    One race that is close and our votes will decide the outcome is that of Rossi vs Gregoire. Its going to be a very close race once again. Rossi proved last time he can win. (he did win actually…we know the story)
    I agree with you that political parties become corrupt, I don’t rally care if a third party takes over, I just want A Party to get things right. No more liberal republicans running for president, they turn conservatives off. The republicans will lose because they nominated a liberal republican. I would have liked to see Paul, but even Romney or Huckabee would have been better. At least they have somewhat of a conservative record. (but you know things are bad when Al Gore’s former running mate gives one of the key note speeches at the Convention. What has happend to the Republican Party? We need to rethink our strategy’s because we are losing elections.

    Like

  37. “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”

    Republican president and War hero Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Like

  38. Dustin, what you fail to see is that the Iraq Theater is little more than a resumption of hostilities from the left undone First Gulf war, after Saddam Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions over 12 years.

    But, given that virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMD’s, which was but one reason given, I guess you and Paul are right. We should have waited until they were used against us and thousands more of our citizens were slaughtered.

    I’m sure that would have made you and Paul eleated, right?

    By the way, don’t confuse “Preventive” with “Preemptive.” They are not the same.

    I suggest you look into Eisenhowers role and reasoning behind establishing the Strategic Air Command, which flew nuclear armed B-52’s over head for decades, until shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Some day, I hope you Paulistinians wake up to the fact that we are not dealing with a reasonable enemy, like we were the Soviets. Listening to you all, we will have millions dead before we strike back, if we still have the capabilities.

    Better luck next time. Try researching your quotes before you post, please. You can find the actual context of the quote at Eisenhower’s News Conference of August 11, 1954

    Like

  39. We shouldn’t follow U.N resolutions. We should follow the constitution. We should declare war.
    The truth is we were lied to about Iraq and the blame starts at the top with the President. unintended consequences have already happend. Like Al-Qaida in Iraq and diffrent groups not getting along, and the Iraqi people wanting us out.

    I never said preventive war and preemptive war were the same. My quote from Eisenhower is a warning to those who think we should launch a preventive war over nukes against Iran.

    I know my history and I know what Eisenhower said.

    “I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.”

    Eisenhower

    That sounds alot like the Iraq war right now. Since our troops are acting as policeman in Iraq now. I do not see how his words were taken out of context. lets keep debating about what past presidents and leaders have said about intervention and preventive war. I warmly welcome the debate.

    Like

  40. Sorry, Dustin, but Iraq is and was a United Nations effort, even if led by the U.S. Like it or not, they have a hand in it.

    Before you brag about your knowledge of Eisenhower and history, you really should read the context of the partial quotes you give. No one has ever said the return to hostilities with Iraq as “preventive,” but “preemptive.” Totally different.

    You and Paul can try and and twist it all you want, but it isn’t going to work. Bush did take all the necessary steps required before re-invading Iraq and even gave Saddam time to leave, which was also long enough for WMD’s to be taken out of the country, as some have claimed they did.

    You also did not answer the reason Eisenhower had the Strategic Air Command set up.

    You also neglect to include the next sentence from the 1954 Press Conference that your quote is lifted from. He also said, “A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn’t preventive war; that is war.”

    If you were alive and aware in 1954, the big scare was nuclear warfare, not limited skirmishes like we have had. Eisenhower was speaking in terms of nuclear war, entirely different that what we are doing in the War on Terror.

    Before you join the Pacifists in their new found love of Eisenhower, may I suggest you take a gander at The Real Eisenhower.

    Your offer to debate is hollow as we are not fighting a Preventive War. You and Paul and even Delavar can try to twist it to that, but that is only manipulation to structure a false argument to justify your view.

    While you are entirely free to have any view you wish, trying to use Eisenhower as if he supports Pacifism is just false!

    Like

  41. ‘I never said the Iraq war wasn’t a UN War, I said we should follow the constitution and not the UN. The very reason we went to war in Iraq was for UN resolutions. The UN is run by a bunch of anti gun socialist…if you haven’t figured it out yet.

    Bush Most definitly did not follow the correct steps to war. We must follow the constitution and declare war. There has been no such declaration. congress gave him authority but no such declaration has ever been submitted.

    The claim that Saddam took WMD’s out of the country is baseless as no WMD’s have ever been FOUND! Even President Bush has admitted that they did not have the WMD’s they thought they had. Show me the WMD’s and I will believe you. Even if there were WMD’s, it doesn’t mean we should rush to war.

    I never claimed Eisenhower was a pacifist. He actually ran against Robert Taft who advocated non intervention. Just because I quote the man once doesn’t mean he endorses all my ideas. I just agree with his quote on Hitler and war. Now as you have pointed out he also says preventive war is War. I agree with him on that too. I dont know much bout the strategic command setup but I never claimed I did. It is irrelevent as I never claimed Eisenhower was a pacifist.

    You also claim the Iraqi war was is not a preventive war? Didn’t we go to war in Iraq to prevent them from using their supposed WMD’s? I think the war was both Preventive and preemptive.

    for more info on preventive war visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventative_war#Iraq_War_.282003-present.29

    Like

  42. Poor Dustin, still resorting to spin over facts?

    Who do we declare war on, Dustin? In neither country are we fighting the country, but liberating them. This is all a new type of war fought in some old ways and in some new ways. This is an enemy we have not had to face. By that I mean they are not a uniformed military of a specific nation, but terrorists spread out in many nations.

    Bush followed the constitution by going before both the House and Senate. He further followed UN mandates by appearing before them and received UN Resolution 1441. As much as I dislike the UN, we are a member and agreed to their bylaws.

    If you are not claiming Eisenhower as a Pacifist, just what are you claiming by showing partial and out of context quotes of his to indicate he is against all war? Frankly, I’m surprised you haven’t tried the so-called “Military Industrial Complex” quotes as well.

    Congress could have withdrawn all authorization for the war under the War Powers Act of 1973, but hasn’t. Democrats have had Congressional power for two years to do just that and hasn’t. Instead, they continue to fund and authorize our engagement.

    That Paul doesn’t care for the War Powers Act, something shared by many, including every president since its passage, is irrelevant. Until such time that it is either repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it remains the law and has to be followed.

    Since you wish only to address WMD’s, like any anti-war leftist does (no, I am not saying you are a leftist, just parroting their claims), where did they go? How is it possible that one tyrant could mislead the entire world’s intelligence agencies so easily? How is it they ceased to exist after Bush got into office, as did Saddam’s connection to Saddam Hussein, claimed by Democrats and 60 Minutes throughout the 1990’s?

    While WMD’s were given as a reason to re-invade, they were but one reason. Even if they were the sole reason, with the world’s intelligence agencies claiming they existed, it would have been a dereliction to ignore them and the possibility of them falling into terrorists hands after Bush inherited intelligence from the previous administration claiming they existed and Saddam’s refusal to account for them.

    Bush took some six months after he received authorization from Congress before he ordered the reinvasion, giving Saddam every chance to account for the WMD’s and step down.

    Since they were not found, actually not found in the quantities believed to exist, what happened to them during that six-month period? You might try reading Iraq Survey Group Final Report.

    As far as your claim their being moved is “baseless,” may I suggest you read, Iraqi WMD Mystery Solved.

    Spare me juvenile attempts at “Preventive” over “Preemptive” war. Even the link you provided states, “Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war.” The concern over the presumed presence of WMD’s, Saddam known links to terror groups, Saddam’s financial support of terror groups, his harboring known terrorists, his oppression of his own people and more constitutes such a threat after the heinous attack we suffered on September 11, 2001.

    Unnoticed by so many is that we have not suffered another major terrorist attack since 9/11, after we took the fight back to them, unlike the previous three decades.

    Hardly a coincidence, in my estimation.

    Like it or not, Congress legally and with reason rejected Ron Paul’s cry. It is long past time to stop undermining our brave warriors and get over it.

    For further reading and education, The Duelfer report’s case for war in Iraq, What was it all about after all? The causes of the Iraq war, Iraq Resolution

    Like

  43. undermining our brave warriors? I have a good friend in Iraq and he supports Dr Paul, so don’t think just because I do not agree with some policies of the Neo-cons,makes me undermine our troops. As a matter of fact the military donated more to Ron Paul than all other candidates. Are they then undermining themeselves? I don’t think so.

    I asked you to show me evidence of WMD’s? Still haven’t seen them. If Saddam got rid of them then we shouldn’t have invaded….duh.

    I still don’t care about UN resolutions. The UN has nothing to do with the constitutional process of going to war.

    I never said preventive war and preemptive war were the same, you keep accusing me of things i never said.

    Neoconservatism is the cancer of the republican party and the neo con agenda has infiltrated the party and ruined our chance of stoping Barack Obama. Neo conservatism has left wing roots.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    Some would say we are “unamerican” for not supporting the war in Iraq. Rather I think that category of people would fall under those who think UN resolutions must be enforced, in front of American constitutional law.

    Like

  44. Dustin, there are Liberals in the Army and in Iraq that support Obama. So, what’s your point?

    And yes, I said “undermining our warriors.” I vividly recall hearing much of the same crap Paul spews while I was still in Viet Nam and regardless of what the person you know says, it does demoralize and undermine our Troops by emboldening the enemy.

    You wish to continue with that canard of more Military donated to Paul than anyone else and I laugh. Like I said before that was disproved long ago, just as your continual out of balance and over the top polls online for Paul didn’t gain him the nomination.

    Once again, I will state that the only thing worse than spinning statistics to suit your agenda is when you start believing your own spin.

    The Fantasy of Ron Paul’s Military Support

    Unspinning the Latest Ron Paul Spin

    Some Ron Paul Supporters Still Desperate To Claim Military Support

    Vets Find Republicans More Favorable But Paul Who?

    You asked for WMD evidence and I gave it to you. If you didn’t see it, you either failed to visit the sites I linked to or are in denial.

    Whether or not you care about UN Resolutions is irrelevant. We are still a member of that dismal anti-American organization and agreed to their bylaws, like it or not.

    If Saddam had actually gotten rid of the WMD’s, he was given every chance to show it and avoid the resumption of hostilities. He chose otherwise. Yet another for you to ignore: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

    Shortly before he turned rabid anti-American, even Hans Blix was saying, “If they exist they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented,” and “In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply.”

    Saddam did not!

    For such staunch constitutionalists, ya’ll sure don’t seem to realize that even acts and laws passed after the adoption of the constitution must be followed too. Never mind the UN Resolutions, Bush acted as mandated by law under the War Powers Act of 1973. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

    Congress, the same one that Paul sits in, has had the authority all along to withdraw their support, as they did to us in Viet Nam, and have chosen not to. The majority did not agree with Paul and that is how our government works, majority rule.

    Paul needs to stop being such a little titty baby and grow up. The majority disagreed with him and denied his recommendations.

    Our involvement is prefectly legal and proper, in spite of all the pacifist cries otherwise.

    Ya’ll love throwing out that “neo-conservatism” claim as if it is slur. Doesn’t work on me. Perhaps you should read your own link under the heading Antisemitism to see how the use of the term is linked to those who despise Israel and Jews in general. Sort of fits in with many claims of Paul’s own antisemitism.

    As a Viet Nam Veteran, I can tell you that it doesn’t make one feel appreciated to be fighting for a country where people crouch their support in your defeat. Joining with the Liberals and Pacifists to make our Troops into victims instead of honoring their dedication and sacrifice doesn’t exactly endear us to those groups.

    If you think it is showing your Patriotism to treat them as such, don’t be too surprised that many don’t embrace you later on.

    Veterans, Warriors and Heroes, not Victims

    Lastly, please learn about amendments and acts passed after our constitution was adopted before you try to speak like a constitutional expert. No President is a dictator, at least not yet, and must act with what Congress grants. Unfortunately, Paul is not the majority of Congress and Bush did act legally, by our constitution and yes, even that damned UN.

    Like


  45. Lets see who really does get the most money from the military. Even the Media had to admit it this time. Even for Fox news your neo con ran news station. better luck next time.

    The articles’s you posted were from Neo-conservative websites including one from the the weekly standard which is run by the father of Neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol. The Neo con’s lied to us about the war so I do not trust them. So Lew where are those WMD’s? Maybe some video evidence? a picture? anything. The truth is you won’t find it. Has it ever crossed your mind we were lied too? As I have said before even the president has admitted to his mistakes and even arrogantly joked about them.

    The blame is on the administration, not on the troops. Please understand I have nothing but respect for them and their bravery.I pray for them and their safety often. I respect you for your service and even though we disagree I respect you very much. If I have offended you at all I apologize.

    However I must point out that their are many veterans that support my positions, including Darrell Castle the VP nominee for the constitution party. He spent time in Vietnam and came home a diffrent person, as did many.
    http://baldwin08.com/Darrell-Castle.cfm

    Like

  46. sorry i made a error, Irving kristol wasn’t the founder of the weeekly standard. His son, William was.

    “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

    Like

  47. That’s why they put erasers on pencils, Dustin. 😉

    Like

  48. Dustin, no doubt there are veterans who support your position, we are as varied as anyone. But, that doesn’t prove the Military supports Paul over the rest.

    You object to my “biased” sites and present your own “biased” sites as proof?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    A handful doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

    Funny how you all still cling to the notion that the majority supported that loser Ron Paul and yet, he could not muster more than 35 delegates.

    Like I said, the only thing worse than spinning statistics to support your position is believing your own spin.

    Along those lines, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is placing your bets on one.

    Does it escape you all that our Troops voluntarily reenlist to return to finish this mission that Paul wishes to withdraw from? That alone shows me the majority do not support him.

    Wishful dreaming does not accomplish anything. Ron Paul was rejected by the nation and all the spin will not change that.

    Like

  49. I have never claimed that Ron Paul received the most votes from the military. I claimed He raised the most money among the military, according to CNN and Fox News. It isn’t wishful dreaming but rather, it is fact.

    Anyway I went and saw the movie Eagle Eye in theatres the other night and I thought it was a decent movie, kind of cheesy and boring at parts but I thought it showed the effects of blowback, and the Patriot act. All we need is an Obama administration with the power to listen to our phone calls, search our homes and other unconstitutional measures. I am scared that Obama will have that power under the patriot act. Another example of unintended consequences by the Bush administration.

    Like

  50. And like I showed, Dustin, many “claiming” Army affiliations were in fact civilians working for the Military and few of them.

    I haven’t seen “Eagle Eye” and probably won’t. I try to base my views more on reality and less on movies designed to sway my thinking.

    Last I heard, the Patriot Act was passed by both party’s, so why saddle it solely on Bush?

    For all the cries of “what if’s,” “maybes” and “could” spewed against the Patriot Act, relatively few mistakes have been made and like any other law, once discovered, are rectified.

    Much more spying on citizens was actually done under the Clinton administration and I don’t recall Paul whining about that.

    If you think the Patriot Act could be an imposition, you should have seen the security we had in Viet Nam and in Germany after the 1972 Olympics Terrorist attacks and rise of the Baeder/Meinhoff gang.

    During times as this we do need increased seciruty and please don’t bother coming back with that out of context Ben Franklin quote on giving up liberty for security. I researched that one long ago and amazingly, found he was actually speaking the exact opposite of how it is used today.

    If you desire, you may see what I discovered at Right in a Left World: “Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security”

    Like

  51. Eagle Eye isn’t that good anyway. Don’t go see it, you won’t like it. I just thought it accurately portrayed blowback.
    Yes both parties passed it so the blame goes to some Democrats too, Thanks for pointing that out. All I know is that government is getting bigger and Obama will have more power thanks to the Patriot act.
    I disagree with your analysis on Franklin. The founding fathers were quite clear on their positions of big government and expansion of power during times of war. Another person I could quote is Thomas Jefferson, To claim that the founding fathers would agree with The patriot act and allow people to search homes without warrants is flat out a lie. These men would roll over in their graves. They wrote the constitution to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people.

    Like

  52. Actually, Dustin, my point on Frnaklin wasn’t so much that he would agree with the Patriot act, although I feel, given the situation, he might. But, I do feel he was pointing out that trying to buy, or appease, our way to safety is the wrong way to do it, given that we have the right to defend ourselves.

    True, they did not support big government, I’ll agree with that. But, that is why we have the fourth arm of government, ‘We The People.” We just need to wake them up to what is going on and get involved in more solid conservatives.

    I haven’t heard of any homes being searched without warrants, unless there is appropriate probable cause as described by other laws. Often, the nature of evidence discovery doesn’t give one much chance to chase down a judge and prove there is the need, given a judge agrees. Of course, this applies more to electronic eavesdropping that often requires immediate action.

    Can they be wrong? Of course. But if they are right and no action is taken?

    It is a delicate situation, of course. But, given what has been going on for three decades, something we may need to put up with temporarily, as described by constitutional suspension of Habeus Corpus.

    If you have a better way to catch domestic terrroists before they strike, I’m willing to listen.

    Like

  53. I agree with parts of your last post, I guess my beef with the Patriot is every time you start mentioning wiretaping and other things there is going to be controversy because it gives alot of power to the wrong people. What if this power falls into the wrong hands? The next President may be a man who has past connections with terrorists, now people under him will have this power. With great power comes great responsibility. I do want to stop terrorists and I understand why people want the Patriot act. I myself do not completely oppose the patriot act, but I do think certain things need to be changed. I guess my fear is that this gives to much power to the wrong people and we do not see the unintended consequences we can not see yet.
    So we have two options. 1 is we keep the patriot act and put our trust in Obama to not abuse this power or 2.we let terrorists have the ability to roam freely without censorship we would have with the patriot act. Either solution scares me. It all goes back to what caused the war on terror. Do they hate us because we are free or do they hate us because we were over there? or do they just hate us? Its a complicated issue, with alot of history and controversy. Years ago Donald rumsfeld was shaking hands with saddam, during the cold war we helped the taliban fight the soviets. It just all seems fishy to me. Honestly how can we trust our these guys?

    Like

  54. It isn’t trust in whoever is the president so much as trust in those under him who actually monitor things. All too often they are career people who stay on regardless of administrations.

    As for the Patriot Act, it does have safeguards built into it that rarely are mentioned.

    An older article, but still relevant, Before attacking the Patriot Act, try reading it.

    The Patriot Act Abuse Myth

    Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the early 1980’s isn’t actually relevant. Ever administration has photos of shaking hands with those who end up opposing us. In Afghanistan we supported the Mujahadeen, not the Taliban. The Taliban were actually a splinter group that broke away from the Mujahadeen and ended up fighting them.

    But, by the same regard, how can you place so much trust in Ron Paul? He too has been in Congress for a very long time and hasn’t always been the most honest. True he speaks out against some things today, but his early on history w ith his newsletters leaves me very suspect of him.

    Like

  55. Rumsfeld shaking hands with a terrorist isn’t relevent? Not every adminstration has photos with terrorists, but most do, which proves my point that our foreign policy is flawed, just this week we had an incident in Syria. Be prepared for blowback. Actually the blowback has already started with Russia and Iran condemning the attack. We better be prepared.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_us_raid

    Like

  56. Yes, Dustin, Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983 is irrelevant. That is, unless you are prepared to say that Madeline Albright toasting North Korea’s Kim Jung Il and Wesley Clark exchanging hats with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic and nearly every other Ambassador and leader that meets indicates support of them.

    Rumsfeld, at Reagan’s direction, was sent to Iraq in an effort to normalize relations with Iraq, who was at war with Iran, approved by former president Jimmy Carter. It was felt that Saddam could help quell much unrest in the Middle East and apparently, his aspirations were much more in regards to taking over the Middle East.

    Such meetings are not uncommon, regardless of who is in office or what party.

    Then again, isn’t it Barack Obama who said he would meet with despotic leaders “without preconditions?”

    Much has been tried to make that photo show support for Saddam and granting him weapons of mass destruction. But, Caspar Weinberger, Sec of Defense under Reagan said, “our role was primarily to ensure that neither one won and that it would be essentially a stalemate. And that’s essentially what happened. In the final weeks Iraq decided it couldn’t win and then they sued for peace and kind of an uneasy peace settled down. But we didn’t treat them to weapons or anything of that kind. Some of our companies tried to do that. Some of them probably violated our export control rules. But we in the government certainly did not. And we certainly tried our best to prevent them from getting any weapons on either side.”

    So no, that photo doesn’t show what the anti-war left wants it to.

    How is our foreign policy flawed when efforts are made to bring despots into the world and treat their people better? Isn’t diplomacy what is always recommended?

    Blowback occurs mostly because we have given the world the view that we are weak and will no fight back, nor will support our allies, as we have abandoned them at the Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq after the first Gulf War and now calls to do it again.

    Even bin Laden was once quoted as saying, in regards our fleeing from Somalia, “You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

    That is what “cut and run” brings.

    As for the Syrian raid, show me an action we have taken in defense that hasn’t been condemned by Russia and Iran.

    Like

  57. I agree with you totally that both parties are to blame on foreign policy blunders. You stole the words right out of my mouth. A classic example of blowback on the Democratic side is when Albright said in an interview that the “sanctions put on Iraq were worth it even though it resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqi Children.” This interview was played over and over again in the middle east for Anti American propaganda Purposes. Those remarks inspired many terrorists. Did she mean to do that? of course not but when you say things like “killing children is worth it” we should prepare for the worst. That’s what blowback is or the unintended consequences of military intervention. This is not a leftist Idea. I am a conservative and you won’t be hearing this from Obama/Biden who have a history of supporting intervention, in places like Bosnia. As a matter of fact Blowback was an idea not coined by Political parties but by the CIA itself.
    The Syrian raid is another example. While we may have killed terrorists, some reports say woman and children were killed. The terrorists will use this as propaganda saying will killed innocent Syrians. Did we mean to kill innocent syrians? no but thats how they will see it, and you can count on retaliation, so this is why this war is called a never ending war, we have and we will see this cycle again. This war wont end with some treaty, the more intervention we create in places like syria, the more propoganda the terrorists have and the stronger they become, we are falling right into Al-queda’s plan. This is exactly what they want, they want to spread us out.

    Like

  58. That’s not exactly what I said, Dustin. It doesn’t matter what we do, some despots twist it to their advantage, even if a total lie, as the KGB fed the anti-war left during the Viet Nam War.

    I was there for the official invasion of Cambodia and many were outraged, but we knew it was necessary as the Commmunists were using the Cambodian Border to run and hide.

    I feel that people who desire freedom and liberty deserve help. Don’t forget, we did not gain our independence from Britain alone. Without Foreign help, we would not have succeeded.

    For the most part, Russia and Iran will spew their nonsense, the hate Americans UN will speak of outrage and then they will line up for our monies.

    America is not disliked because we entered Iraq. It was 1958 the book, The Ugly American was published. During WW2, the English, one of our closest allies, had the saying of our Troops amassing there for D-Day, “they are oversexed, over paid and over here.”

    Paul is dead wrong!

    Now, if you want an example of Foreign interference, read The American people should prepare for bloodshed between the 5th of November 2008 and 20th of January 2009. “Do not say you were not warned

    Like

  59. I think people of other countries deserve help too, but bombing their country isn’t the way to do it. Alot of time we give money to corrupt countries, and their corrupt leaders use that money to gain power of the people. I lived in South America for a couple years and saw this happen first hand.
    In the American revolution we had to fight that war for many years on our own, and when a country wants to help us thats fine, after all England was in our country. England and France had been enemies for years and what they decided to do was their choice, it just happened to help us out. I do not oppose all war, I will admit war is necessary when you are attacked. WW2 for example we were directly attacked by japan then Germany declared war on us. So we had to defend ourselves. Iraq never did anything to us, neither did Korea or Vietnam, wars which I oppose. I supported military action in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, I thought Iraq would be a distraction from the real enemy and thats what al qaida wants. They want the war to spread and prolong itself and thats exactly what has happened, they are trying now to suck us in to Syria and and we need to stay out of it. We cant afford another war. We need to rethink our strategy, it is not working. lets focus on getting rid of them first in Afghanistan. Looks like our foreign policy is flipflopping once again as we are now considering negotiating with terrorists.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081028/pl_afp/usafghanistanunresttalkstaliban_081028103502

    Like

  60. Dustin, you’re just a little bit off on the American Revolution. France entered the fracas two years after we declared Independence, soon followed by Spain and the Dutch Republic. We also had help from the American Indians.

    I agree with you on corrupt leaders around the world. But is that really the government’s fault? Not all are despotic regimes, either, but many are. Bombing comes only after much diplomacy, in Saddam’s case, 12 years.

    Apparently you knowledge of our bombing campaigns is lacking. We have not carpet bombed in a very long time and I know for a fact that we make every effort at avoiding innocents. However, it does happen, but a much smaller scale than those slaughtered by the despotic regimes we have engaged.

    Often too, terrorists and corrupt leaders use those innocent civilians as shields unbeknownst to our Troops. Even in Viet Nam we had “Rules of Engagement” which cautioned us against returning fire when fired upon unless we were absolutely certain there were no “friendlies” in the area.

    Are you so sure Japan “attacked US?” I say that because Hawaii was not a state at the time. Just playing Devil’s Advocate here, but by today’s call by many, we should have showed “restraint” after Pearl Harbor.

    Still, you forget all the reasons to reengage Saddam’s leadership in Iraq. But, let’s just keep on the assumed WMD’s. Since the world’s Intelligence Agencies all said they were there, would it have been smart to just ignore all those reports after September 11, the terrorists having shown the lengths they would go to? Should we have just waited and hoped for the best?

    In case you have missed it, Iraq is very stable today compared to what it once was. No, it isn’t over, but conditions have improved immensely on the ground.

    But, I also have to ask, what is the main difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? Afghanistan did not attack us either. Yes, they were harboring known terrorists, but so was Saddam in Iraq. The Taliban did not even have WMD’s or even suspected WMD’s.

    Since you think Iraq was a mere distraction to Al Qaeda, which by the way is but one terrorist group, how do you explain their numbers being decimated there? Bin Laden once stated he would make Baghdad the capital of the Caliphate he intended to set up and even he called in the Central Front in the war, before his terrorists were decimated.

    If you recall, Bush was pressured to include NATO in Afghanistan and since then they have dropped the ball. Now, we have to return more of our Troops and clean it up again.

    Yes, we need to increase our Military numbers, but how do we accomplish that with the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Paul and many others telling the public what suckers they are to serve their country?

    Bin Laden was banking on our running away again, just like we have continually done for decades and even he was surprised when Bush sent the Troops against him.

    Personally, I think our current strategy is the right one. We kill those who can’t be turned and who desire world domination under their perverted view of the Qu’Ran while showing potentials that we have a better way. It won’t work in Afghanistan exactly the way it did in Iraq, but by adapting to the people and terrain, they will see that we are not going to abandon them, as they were told we would do.

    This isn’t an easy war and not even the type of war we have been used to, but do we have a choice? As I told Michael when he tried to pigeonhole me during a conversation with “are you prepared for a Religious war,” do we really have a choice?

    They have been coming after us for decades. Isn’t it about time we stood up and fought back, wherever they are?

    If western civilization is to survive, we must face the terrorists and fight them and rid ourselves of the PC crap that has infected our nation.

    In closing I’ll say, I understand you disagree with the Iraq theater of the War on Terror, but with an All Volunteer Military, you needn’t worry about fighting in it. Just stay out of the way of those who do volunteer and do desire to defend America, even in Iraq.

    BTW, since you last mentioned all the outrage about the raid into Syria, Britains Sky News is reporting that it was conducted with the knowledge and help of the Syrians. Syria ‘Gave Green Light For Raid’

    Like

  61. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081029/wl_mideast_afp/syriaunrestusiraq_081029184643

    It seems there may be some conflicting reports in the media about Syria.
    I think we should of invaded Afghanistan because thats where the terrorists were. Iraq had none or very few Al Qaida terrorists before the Iraq war, if you haven’t noticed, one of the main reasons President Bush’s and congress approval rating is in the mid 20’s is because of the mess in Iraq and failure in foreign policy.

    No its not an easy war, and it ain’t ending anytime soon, especially when we cross other countries borders. I am convinced actions like this cause more problems than we had in the first place. For example, yeah we killed a couple of terrorists in Syria but now Syria is mad and Al Qaida is stll at war, so now instead of just fighting Alqaida we are now fighting syria(no we aren’t fighting syria yet but actions like this make it very possible) and Al qaida. I can just see al qaida laughing at our strategy. We are falling for their traps.
    This war will not end with a treaty, its just not that kind of a war. We must be smart.

    Like

  62. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523872418278233.html

    6 days away, lets send Delavar to congress. We can not let the Democrats have the majority!

    Like

  63. Dustin, the Democrats already have the majority. It needs to be taken away from them.

    However, troubling to me is that Delavar would join with the far left Democrats, like Kucinich and others in undermining our Troops. I know ya’ll don’t think it is that, but believe me, that is what was done to us in Viet Nam and we know it.

    They too still try to tell us it was all for the better. Millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians would disagree, if they were still alive to.

    I told Michael good luck before and that still stands. But, I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for either candidate in this race.

    Like

  64. Dustin, of course there is going to be disagreeing in public over the Syrian Raid. Saving face means a lot. But, the fact that our Troops entered Syrian airspace in helicopters, unopposed by Syria’s impressive military forces and anti-aircraft capabilities, in the daylight, speaks for itself.

    The fallacy of your argument hinges on you see this as a War on Al Qaeda only, when it is War on Terror. Al Qaeda is but one group of many radical Jihadists responsible for committing acts of terror worldwide. It is much deeper than mere retribution for September 11, 2001.

    Thinking Iraq harbored no terrorists before we re-invaded just isn’t true. Saddam harbored several, more than just Al Qaeda. Report: Saddam Harbored Terrorists Who Killed Americans. Additionally, he supplied financial aid to families of suicide bombers and other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

    More can be seen at Saddam’s Philanthropy of Terror (pdf).

    Given that Congressional approval reached single digits, the lowest in history and the heavy anti-Bush lean of the lamestream media, it doesn’t surprise me that ratings remain low. Of course, too many don’t make the effort to find the actual truth about the what and why, they just instead accept the ear tickling they receive.

    The same thing was done to us in Viet Nam and today, most still don’t know the truth about that and when we try to tell them they refuse to listen, falling back on false stereotypes and fallacious books written by the anti-war leftists, often.

    But, you are correct in that it isn’t an easy war Bush never said it was going to be. Even during the infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush said in part, “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”

    “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort.”

    “Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we.”

    “The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate.”

    I fail to see how Al Qaeda is laughing with their numbers being decimated in Iraq and Afghanistan being reengaged by us.

    I agree, we will not be able to sign a treaty with anyone in this war. That is because, contrary to what many believe, we are not at war with a nation, but terrorists spread throughout many nations. What we can accomplish is showing those oppressed by radical Jihadists that we have a better way for them, while honoring their religion and exterminating those who perpetrate terror on innocent people.

    Isolationalism will not prevent terror and if it can be minimized over there, then there is less chance it will have to be fought here. It would be suicide to wait until they are strong enough to increase their numbers here.

    If you haven’t learned anything else the last three decades, notice that they continue to come after us and our interests. Be it now or later, when they are much stronger, we have to fight them and eleminate the threat.

    Like

  65. Pulling our troops out of harms way is not undermining them, its saving their life. There is a huge distinction between Isolationism and Non intervention. Isolationist are those who do not talk with other nations and impose sanctions on already poor countries, Sound familiar?
    Non interventionist believe we should talk with other nations and trade with them and be good friends to all just as Jefferson advocated. I think we disagree on our strategy. You think we can fight all of the terrorist through nation building and policing the middle east. Not gonna happen. its been 8 years and its gonna be many more unless we change our strategy. It is my opionion that this war will never end, we are fighting a tactic,(terror) not a nation. As the great Dr. Paul has said, “You cant fight a war against a tactic.” We should declare war on specific enemies, not tactics.
    Delavar is for low taxes, pro life, pro second amendment, and is very conservative. I think to compare him to the far left just because he disagrees with you on one issue: Foreign policy, is wrong. You shouldn’t base your vote on one or two issues. This is what the RNC did with Joe Lieberman, Lieberman spoke at the RNC convention and he does not agree with republicans on almost anything but he speaks at the convention? That strategy really brought the party togethere!

    Like

  66. Dustin, I couldn’t disagree with you more. As I recall, and I apologize if I am wrong, you didn’t serve in the Military. As you know, I did and served in Viet Nam and vividly recall my feelings as the anti-war crowd back then was telling me they opposed the war, and me basically for my own safety.

    You may feel like you are supporting the Troops, but it doesn’t work that way. You say you are for fighting in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Paying the ultimate sacrifice is no different in either theater.

    By your line of reasoning, we should restrict the Police from capturing criminals and stop firemen from entering burning buildings as they too might pay the ultimate sacrifice. What too many don’t understand about our Troops is that they volunteer for the very thing they are doing. They feel a profound sense of duty and honor in defending America.

    You might check out a post I did last year on my other blogsite, Right in a Left World: Veterans, Warriors and Heroes, not Victims.

    Also, a definition of Veterans by I don’t know who is applicable: Veteran Definition

    A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’

    I think Ben Franklin adequately addressed the notion of “talking with other nations and trade with them and be good friends to all” in his dressing down of the Freemen I sent you to before.

    We are friends to all, but many are not friendly to us. What you and Paul don’t understand is that this enemy isn’t a “reasonable” enemy. They desire total power and inflicting their perverted view of the Qu’Ran on all. There is no reasoning with them, only subjugation.

    Neville Chamberlain tried the appeasement approach before and millions were killed as the world was plunged into the bloodiest war it had ever seen.

    As I told you before, there are stands made by Delavar and Paul I agree with. But, the most important issue, in my mind, is stopping terror as much as possible and not letting our streets turn to a battlefield. All of the sound conservatives ideas in the world will be for naught should we have to fight terrorists within our own malls and streets.

    I base my vote on what I deem important, regardless of how many issues it covers. I cannot and will not, in any good conscience, cast a vote for someone I feel will not protect America first. That’s my grandchildren that will end up fighting terrorists within our own country should Kucinich, Delavar and Paul get their way on throwing in the towel once again when we are winning and abandoning yet another struggling ally.

    It’s way past time to wake up and realize that thirty years of attacks against our interests and twice on our own soil mean something. It isn’t because we are there or because we deserved it. It is because they are a gruesome, despotic bloodthirsty group that desires world domination.

    Like

  67. 4 days from the election and the race may tighten so that the media can get more coverage election night.

    I think its clear we disagree, we seem to be making circles on our arguments, Happy Halloween Lew.

    Like

  68. Dustin, that often happens when two muleheads discuss things 😉

    I am curious about this election, though. The Pennsylvania Attorney who brought charges against Obama in Federal Court over his birth certificate, which was also dismissed, has filed with the Supreme Court seeking an injunction to postpone the election until Obama produces the birth certificate.

    I doubt they will grant his request.

    Zogby had McCain up by one point over Obama in a one day poll and practically a dead heat over the past three days, so yes, it is tightening up. I’d be curious to see how lesser races are going, but we rarely hear of them.

    This is not only the sleaziest campaign I can recall, it is also the weirdest.

    Hope your Halloween was enjoyable and don’t eat all the candy at once.

    Like

  69. Yes it seems the media this time around is only talking about the presidential election, and ignoring the other races for the most part. I don’t really like that, and I agree with you that this campaign has gone to a new level, for the worst.
    I have also heard about the Obama Birth certificate ordeal and it may have some valid points but we both know the media wont cover it or bring it up, except for maybe Fox news. Of course there is the argument that McCain was born in Panama, but atleast it was on a military base. I agree with you that they will not grant the request to bring the case to the supreme court. None of the leaders in D.C or the Judges really follow the Constitution much anyway.
    I am looking forward to election night, I think our best chance of winning is the governors race, I really like Dino Rossi. I would like to see McCain beat Obama but I just don’t see it happening, I hope I am wrong. I hope the Zogby poll is right.

    Like

  70. No arguments on this, Dustin.

    I met and talked with the Columbian’s Jeff Mize this morning at the Dino Rossi rally and he said that McCain might have an “outside chance” at winning Tuesday. I told him I see it more as a “reasonable chance” due to cooking the polls in over polling Democrats.

    But face it, the lamestream media is in the tank for Obama. We’ll know Wednesday if the American people are.

    I also shook Dino’s hand after listening to his inspiring talk. I, like you, really want to see Dino in office and Gregoire out.

    On Obama’s Birth Certificate, I see that as a losing issue and a waste of time to pursue. But, Berg is a Democrat, so let him. We have much more severe matters to oppose Obama on, mostly his heavy Marxist leanings.

    But, like I said, we’ll see Wednesday. Crossing my fingers here.

    Like

  71. I have also met Dino and like his positions on Taxes. Hope He Wins. Deeply troubled today as the mainstream Media ignored Obama’s comment on coal. If this would have been released earlier, Obama would be toast. Maybe. He has gotten a free pass on everything else.

    Like

  72. If we can keep King County from “discovering” lost, misplaced and needed ballots for Gregoire again, I think Dino will be our next Governor.

    If you haven’t guessed yet, Dustin, the lamestream media is wholly in the tank for Obamessiah. I just heard a radio announcer discussing the election and he said, “McCain seems to be waiting until after the votes are counted before issuing his concession speech.”

    Nice, huh?

    I think we are set for another “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment.

    Like

  73. oh yeah, the media has been in the bag for Obama from day 1. I don’t see Obama doing anything to fix our current problems, so in 4 years, we should have a good chance to win again.

    Like

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: