Skip to comments.The Antiwar Right Brings the Republicans Home (Ron Paul)
Posted on 05/20/2007 6:19:09 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
he idea that the party of Eisen-hower or Goldwater would have suspended habeas corpus indefinitely, as Bush has done for enemy combatants, would be unthinkable. The idea that they would have tried to occupy and rebuild an entire country in the Middle East is unimaginable. They were ferociously anticommunist, but also wary of direct engagement in foreign countries and deeply suspicious of all wars.
This kind of prudence and caution was once the hallmark of the middle of the country and its Midwestern American values. Paul reminded Americans of this past. He told them that the Republicans opposed the second world war, ended the Korean war and ended the Vietnam war. Why not the Iraq war? Why not indeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Brings Republicans home? ROFL. More projection from the rabid left in the UK.
Bring the Republicans to the Libertarian views?
Isn’t “Anti-war Right” an oximoron?
Live long and prosper.
Did someone forget that?
Well....Ike wasn’t consistent but then he wasn’t dumb enough to get us ensnared in a land war to “build democracy” in the Middle East, was he?
How about Operation Keelhaul?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Sounds like Andrew’s gone heels-over-head for Ron.
The Arabs have made sure that decision resulted in almost constant war since that time.
Looks like Ron “Whites of Their Eyes” Paul wants to take us back to the pre-Monroe Doctrine days when we fought all of our wars on our soil.
“I recall how Eisenhower got us deeply involved in Iran.”
Going into the 1950’s, the GOP was thought to be the “isolationist” party. They intentionally picked Ike to break out of that image, in an effort to convince voters that the GOP could better handle the Cold War and Korea.
If modern history would repeat itself, the Dems would be picking a candidate that would be thought to handle Iraq and the WOT better than Dubya. In that scenario, the Dems would certainly have the upper hand for the next election. For whatever reasons, they’ve chosen to portray themselves as the party that refuses to handle the situation, or will simply run away in defeat.
He says the starvation stuff was strictly British as was most of the repatriation to Eastern Europe and East Germany.
Over the course of the next few years he escaped several times to the West only to be caught by West German local authorities (as that country began to put itself together) and get sent back East ~ probably to keep him from costing them money to send him to college.
Eventually he got accepted in the West, emigrated from Germany to the US and got a doctorate in Tokyo.
This is, undoubtedly the life he would have spent whether Germany lost the war or won the war.
We’ll have to fight this fight at some point and simply passing it off on the next generation is simply cowardly and irresponsible.
Churchill warned that this fight was coming but the world had had enough in his day.
Don't remember him. I do remember an Eisenhower who called out the army to enforce supreme court edicts against American citizens. Maybe that's not the same as investigating subversive foreign terrorist organizations. Of course I wouldn't expect Ron Paul to know the difference.
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I don't necessarily agree with or endorse...yada...yada.
But here's a 2003 article suggesting Wolfowitz agrees with Paul (or vice versa) about the grievances of al queda. And remember those hijackers were saudis. Here Wolfie says the idea was to get our forces out of saudi arabia by ousting saddam. The plan seems to be working so well... :-/ If the article is true, and we had just left saudi arabia well before 9/11/2001, isn't it possible that the WTC would still be standing, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation? Or do you think they would have carried out 911 regardless?
Didn't President Lincoln, practically the father of the GOP, suspend habaes corpus for a time during the Civil War?
Since when did “habeus corpus” apply to alien terrorists? I thought it applied to citizens: Brits in the UK, Americans in the US.
Traditionally, enemies who do not wear proper uniforms or fight as part of a national army have no rights under the Geneva Convention either.
I don’t know why on earth the administration fails to point out these elementary facts, so flakes like Sullivan can’t keep making these ridiculous arguments.
Ron Paul is not stupid.
Ike didn’t particularly support the Israelis in the Suez Crisis (he was more on Nasser’s side) even though, as I said, he wasn’t dumb enough to send in American troops to get involved in the fighting. A later president would do that.
Could you point me to the Spanish and Australian troops that were stationed on Saudi soil? I missed that part of recent history.
I was about 75% sure I was voting for Tom Tancredo. But now I’m about 60-40 split between Tancredo and Paul, with Tancredo still my personal favorite. That’s because of how amazing Ron Paul was in the republican debates. It’s nice to see someone actually have the guts to talk about getting rid of those expensive departments, namely the department of education, the department of homeland security (which really is just another high-cost bureaucracy, don’t let your support for the war on terror fool you on this) and the department of energy.
Does it make me a member of the 'war fighting' wing of the Republican Party if I support the policy of killing Al Qaeda on Iraqi soil rather than on American soil?
Lincoln also had a bunch of state legislators arrested in Maryland so they couldn’t vote on something. He did a lot of things not in line with the Constitution. Doesn’t make it right just because history smiles on him.
Eisenhower then "activated" the NG putting them under federal command.
Shortly the whole basis of that Supreme Court decision will turn to ashes as a new group replaces the entire African-American population as the focus of political interest.
This makes the history at Little Rock concerning the School Desegregation issue totally meaningless for those of us living in this modern time.
Eisenhower's decision to order troops into Lebanon will, of course, continue to haunt us.
That, BTW, was done in an effort to keep Lebanon out of the orbit of the Ba'athist takeover in Iraq.
Many Americans have no idea what it would be like to have a constitutional, real American president - one hasn't existed in so many, many years.
A president like Ron Paul could repair the damage that has been done to our country by the Bush administration and the two administrations before him. They were all birds of a feather, and America is feeling the pain now.
The guy is a dolt. Suspending Habeas for enemy combatants? What planet does Sullivan live on these days?
why would anyone post anything by Andrew Sullivan?
If you find yourself aligning with Andrew Sullivan, chances are you are in a very bad place.
One that is working very well, no less.
I only posted the article because it quoted Wolfowitz as having said in 2003 what Paul said the other night. It might matter since everyone thinks Paul is making it up. I'm just the messenger...what you make of the article is up to you.
That sort of Utopian idiocy used to be the property of the far left. It still is, I suppose, but some of those idiots now pretend to be 'conservative'.
Sullivan was for the war before he was against it. He may have a crush on Ron Paul. And, as a Libertarian, Ron might reciprocate.
Kealhaul was under Truman.
He sure did, and Washington hung traitors.
Ron Paul - birdbrain on foreign policy.
He must have slept through world history.
Yeah, you’re in a bad place, especially if he’s behind you.
Sullivan thinks Moslem terrorists should enjoy the rights under our constitution that tax-paying US citizens enjoy. Who let him in, by the way?
What “deep involvement” are you claiming? Is sponsoring the Shah’s coup against Mossadegh “deep involvement”?
The joint effort with Stalin to occupy Iran that you mention was an Anglo-Soviet affair, and Eisenhower was an American last time anyone checked. Maybe no one “forgot” anything, you simply have a muddled idea of history.
Yes, but Eisenhower was the man who carried it out. The old “I was only following orders” line didn’t work for soldiers on the “other side”.
Not exactly. Both parties had subscribed to liberal internationalism since the days of Wilkie and Vandenberg, which means the early 40s. Robert Taft is often tagged as an isolationist, but in the 1952 primary he claimed Douglas McArthur for his running mate.
Eisenhower was picked to put an end to the liberal Truman administration's highly unpopular Korean War, and that's what Ike did. He wasn't as interventionist as the Democrats.
That sounds like you are being more than a messenger. As far as the reference to the Spaniards and Australians is concerned, they didn't have troops stationed on Saudi soil but they got hit anyway in Madrid and Bali.
I mean, who cares what this narcissistic faggie thinks?
Thank you Ron Paul for joining in with the demonrats as they continue to try and demoralize our dedicated military............