Yes, that statement was in 2004.
I agreed with him then, we all did. We didn’t want to hurt the sitting Republican President. But, now that we’re in much worse shape financially than before, and we aren’t talking about Bush, but a policy, which is now Obamas policy, we’re talking about changed circumstances. When the circumstances are changed, it’s just being smart to rethink the policies in light of the new situation.
What game are you talking about, the one where you can’t explain the difference between an occupation and a liberation?
By the way, please do. Because if you don’t explain the difference between “liberation” and “occupation”, I don’t see how Ron Paul could be called kooky for using different words than you. Basically, what you’re saying, unless you can explain differently, is that Ron Paul is kooky because he uses the word “occupy” instead of “liberate” and “occupation” instead of “liberation”. How those words are different exactly is unclear, but not using one of those words makes you kooky.
Note also that I haven’t said what my own foreign policy position is. It’s not about that. I’m just trying to determine what exactly makes that a kooky statement.
You could start at the top, and try again, because it seems awfully hard to tell the difference between occupying and liberating.
Leave pop culture behind and join the adult world.
Which is the best world outcome? The Bush Doctrine of free muslim Republics that hold elections or Muslim countries under sharia law?.
You aren't even worth debating as you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep your Boob Tube politics and pop culture mentality off of FR. They don't work.
I will not respond to you again.