|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/17/2007 10:22:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Please comment here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912113/posts
Skip to comments.Ron Paul, Democrats demand an end to Iraq war
Posted on 10/17/2007 10:00:28 AM PDT by sdnet
Texas Representative Ron Paul, along with several other Democrats, told Bush that the War in Iraq will end once enough Democrats and Republicans stop bending over backwards to every financial whim of the Bush administration over the war's continued escalation.
These words were penned in a letter to Bush this week and signed by 88 Democratic representatives, along with Ron Paul, the sole Republican on the list of endorsers.
The letter states that the signers will only support further funding on the War in Iraq for the eventual pullout of troops from the area in a safe manner before Bush's second term in office ends.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
Ron Paul sickens me.
No, Ron Paul and the Democrats just voted for Turkey to go to war against Iraq.
“Texas Representative Ron Paul, along with several other Democrats, told Bush that the War in Iraq will end once enough Democrats and Republicans stop bending over backwards to every financial whim of the Bush administration over the war’s continued escalation. “
And yet Ron Paul and the other democrats have no problem bending over for the Islamist terrorists.
Comedy Central is not a reliable for a good laugh as RP is...
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
He reminds me too much of this guy:
Since when does Paulestinian spam qualify as breaking news?
Funny how this loon and Democrats never demand Victory.
If, by some quirk of fate, Paul won the nod for the GOP in ‘08, or even ended up on the ticket, it would surely be the death roll for the GOP.
Backwards is not the way I envision them bending.
Maybe Ron Paul should bend forward put he head between his legs and kiss his political career goodbye.
And come from the same state.
Unfortunately, this gives the appearance that Ron Paul and the Dems agree on foreign policy.
However, the difference in foreign policy views between liberals and so called ‘traditional conservatives’ (jefferson, taft, buchanan, paul) could not, IMO, be more stark.
Liberals have little understanding of what make this country great, they tend to think we stole our wealth from other nations. They think the world’s problems stem from the United States, that things would be better if our sovereignty would be restrained by the ever ‘benevolent’ United Nations, that Israel is an aggressive and ‘warmongering’ nation. They kiss up to socialist dictators, and appease the rest, having a near pathological fear any violence whatsoever, are antiwar at any and all cost, and yet favor ‘humanitarian’ military interventions in backwater hell holes like Somalia, Bosnia, and Darfur. They believe a weak US military will make the world safer, and leave more $$$ for social spending and planning, that we should get weapons out of space, disarm, and discard our nukes. History has not been kind to their bankrupt ideas; they are ideologically and morally adrift.
Traditional conservative, aka noninterventionist, foreign policy, espoused nowadays by paul, buchanan, and others begin with exactly the opposite premises! They believe in the greatest and goodness of the United States, that the United States is the ‘shinning city’ on a hill. They recognize our strength comes from our liberty, from small, not large government and not from expensive and expansive foreign policy, that government intentions in foreign policy backfire just as frequently as government intentions in domestic wealth redistributions or other socialistic schemes. To hell with the UN they say, to hell with the United States as a policemen or a nation builder, to hell with the billions upon billions in humanitarian and military aid we waste on corrupt dictatorships, and on keeping our troops based all around the world, and to hell with us worrying about the stability, poverty, and democracy, of every third world rotting chunk of earth. They believe that peace in the middle east would likely exist today if Israel was not held back and had not, in effect, abdicated its sovereignty to us. They are ferocious isolationists, not reckless pacifists like those on the left, they do not favor giving up our nuclear weapons, they favor a strong defense, and a crushing response with a total declaration of war if attacked.
So, IMO, the fact that both liberals and traditional conservatives want us out of Iraq is a complete coincidence, as they are arriving at said conclusion from complete opposite reasonings and disagree on nearly every other aspect of foreign policy.
Thus, while it is certainly understandable to disagree with any and all aspects of the traditional conservative philosophy and its application, I think their views deserve respect. To lump them together with the apt described antiwar moonbat left, is fallacious.
Don’t feel bad—Ron Paul was actually born and raised about 3 or 4 miles from me here in Western PA. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.