Unlike Bush/Kerry, Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Has Correct Iraq Plan: Get Out-Now!

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

Unlike Bush/Kerry, Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka Has Correct Iraq Plan: Get Out - Now!

4/15/2004 7:01:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: John Lofton, 301-873-4612 or 410-766-8591 Web: http://www.Peroutka2004.com

LAUREL, Md., April 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following statement is from Michael Anthony Peroutka, Constitution Party Presidential candidate:

"I like President Bush personally. He is a sincere man. I respect his office. But, it is becoming painfully obvious that he has no plan to get our country out of the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush and John Kerry both favor putting more troops into Iraq. In his recent press conference, Mr. Bush said our troops would be in Iraq 'as long as necessary,' 'for a while,' until Iraq is 'a free country.' He said Iraqis would provide their own security 'eventually.' I strongly disagree. As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.

"I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.

"In 1821, John Quincy Adams said, of America: 'She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.' But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging."

[BlueLancer]

"Ahem..."

Ahem, indeed ...

And my wife was just asking me about the Constitution Party yesterday. She just couldn't understand how anyone could NOT support a group calling themselves the "Constitution Party". I showed her this ... her response was unprintable.

[Ol' Sparky]

Absolutely pathetic. The Constitution Party sounds like Pitchfork Pat Buchanan on this one or the socialists in Spain.

Bush has done a lot of things wrong. Fighting the war on terror and taking down Saddam's regime isn't one of those things.

[Moby Grape]

And the American people have the correct plan for the Constitution Party canidate: "Stick your ingorant ideas where the sun doesn't shine!"

[bsaunders]

Friends, this is great news. Bush now stands to pick up a good number of the Constitution Party member votes.

[reagan_fanatic]

The Constitution Party couldn't become more of a joke even if they were to shave their heads, don robes and pass out literature at airports.

[MrB]

Bush now stands to pick up a good number of the Constitution Party member votes

Both of them? Wow...

I do question how we can get the more conservative party back to Constitutional limits on government instead of being "socialist lite".

[LS]

The "Constitution Party" apparently doesn't approve of either Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. Jefferson engaged in a "preemptive war" against the Barbary Pirates to end Muslim terrorism WITHOUT a declaration of war; and Andrew Jackson evicted British and Indians from Florida WITHOUT a declaration of war.

No thanks. I like Pres. Bush, who understands that Iraq is key in the war on terror.

[EternalVigilance]

The CP, which has always been extremely marginal, has now done what seemed impossible: i.e. marginalized itself even further.

Their candidate could not be more wrong.

Here is my opinion on this matter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1118186/posts

[Monty22]

Well, if Bush signed the AWB, I'd have considered going for this guy. Now I won't. Or LP either.

My options are beginning to suck, so will stick with Bush I suppose even if he does it.

[Chunga]

Check out the headline: "Bush/Kerry."

Haven't you heard that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?

If not, keep reading; you will.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The C Party's VP is a real Clymer.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Have you got your "Peroutka/Clymer '04" bumper sticker yet?

[Constitution Day]

Why, no!
I'll put it right next to my "Visualize World Peace" sticker when I get it.

::rolls eyes:::

[Marathoner]

If the Constitution Party or Libertarians or any other party was serious about party building and not just indulging their personal egos, they would not be running people for President. Campaigns for national office cost money. A lot of money. Even if you don't (can't) advertise. If you want to party build, you start at the bottom and grow.

Totally agree. I've often wondered for the life of me why any/all of these 3rd parties (left or right) don't take that approach, rather than going for the top office they don't have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning.

Makes too much sense, I guess.

[AFPhys]

This stance spells the end of any possibility the Constitution party will have on the election this year.

[wjcsux]

Haven't you heard that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?
You are kidding, right?

[jmstein7]

Write a Letter Demanding that John Kerry Testify Before the 9/11 Commission

[mhking]

Or, in English: "We're gonna stick our heads in the sand and hope that AQ goes away."

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[r9etb]

The only time a 3rd party will be viable is when the liberal wing of the Republican party takes over....

I disagree. I think we've already got the conditions for a third party, and it will be started by Democrats who are tired of the hypocrisy and extremism of their "leadership."

The "third party" will form in the middle: it will start from moderate-to-conservative Democrats, and will draw in the moderate and liberal Republicans.

The conservative Republicans will keep the name; the remaining far-left Democrats will team up with the Greens; and the new party will inhabit the middle (and probably dominate).

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Of course, this approach itself has its flaws. For the life of me, I can't understand how Rudy Giuliani could get the endorsement of both the Liberal and Conservative parties in his 1997 run for mayor of New York. One of those two parties should have gone out of business after that one.

The Liberal Party almost has.