Dec-07
09
Honor or life?
By
Tһеrе аrе those moments іח tһе presidential fisticuffs wһеrе tһе proverbial rubber meets tһе road. Tһе interchange between Mike Huckabee аחԁ Ron Paul wаѕ one such clash. Tһіѕ particular exchange illustrates fοr mе two distinct worldviews. Regardless whose side уου аrе οח, уουr blood boils; supporters οf еіtһеr man саח claim victory. Or саח tһеу? Yου ԁесіԁе…
Iח tһіѕ next video, уου wіƖƖ see іח many respects ѕοmе οf tһе core reasons wһу Ron Paul һаѕ engendered ѕο much support amongst disenfranchised (former) members οf tһе GOP, independents, аחԁ ѕοmе democrats wһіƖе causing serious consternation amongst tһе card carrying (сοοƖ-aid) side οf tһе GOP.
Discussion tο bе continued..
No related posts.
In my eyes, Ron Paul has sealed his own demise of ever being a viable President of the United States through use of his own words.
.
Ron Paul seems to be suffering from the same memory lapse as those of the Democrats. He forgets that Congress did vote – the People were represented and it was an overwhelming “Yea” vote.
.
Now, Ron Paul is old enough to remember WWII. What I’d like to know is – had he been president back during June of 1944 when the D-Day invasion took place would he have said, “That’s enough! We’re done fighting. Bring our boys home. All we’re doing is saving face. After all, Germany didn’t attack us – let those other countries work it out themselves. Our Constitution says non-intervention.”
.
What I find a bit puzzling is how much so many on this blog embrace Ron Paul believing he carries the mantra most closely of this country’s founders. I couldn’t disagree more.
.
This post is titled “Honor or Life”. How do you suppose Ron Paul would have voted after hearing these words in 1775:
I think his words given in the debate said it all. His stance on foreign policy will be an end not just to our freedom, but to everyone’s liberty and freedom throughout the world if we are expected to stand idle and not have our words backed with action.
Ron Paul may have two first names just like one of our founding fathers – but he certainly is no Patrick Henry.
This issue of trying to smear Ron Paul by alluding to WWII is a total canard plus, as it turns out, Congressman Paul was absolutely correct in 2003 as regards Iraq. Talk about a memory lapse, good grief.
Ron Paul argues very convincingly that Iraq was not, in 2003, is not today, and never will or would have been the equivalent of Nazi Germany – not even close in any possible way. To make such an argument is an absolute misunderstanding of history. Again, in hindsight, I agree with Paul. Iraq had no Army, no Navy, and no weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, Adolf Hitler started the war, the Japanese bombed Pearl, and then the Congress of the United States made a formal declaration of war as proscribed in The Constitution and we were off to the races. We fought with every ounce of effort we had and engaged in destruction and humiliation. Such was not the case with Iraq. Bush has fought a war of self-sacrifice. Imagine what that would have resulted in during WWII under this premise…
This Iraq invasion turns out to have been based upon false pretenses – this no one can now argue with. With the facts and the evidence now clearly in front of us, we all have a duty to be intellectually honest about it. I stand corrected, where others stand on this matter I do not know; it is a dishonest rhetorical balancing act which ignores reality and puts more American lives at risk in the cause of nation-building while simultaneously engaging in the very acts which created the animosity towards us in the first place.
I admit I was wrong regarding the invasion of Iraq. I was totally fooled by the Bush administration insofar as the justifications for going in. I have learned from that experience, and I will never be so malleable again. As I look back on it, with hindsight, I know where I was wrong and I do not apologize for now admitting it. Others may view it differently but they operate not on the facts, but on faith and self immolation. Our foreign policy is now one of absolute interventionism, nation-building, and self-sacrifice. On this, you simply cannot argue. It is what it is. The current plan is to have upwards of fourteen military bases over there, a naval base, and an embassy — we have a permanent plan to stay there. This will do nothing to help us in the long run and will bankrupt us in the short run (we are already financing this via the Chinese – how long do you think they will go along with this before allowing the Juan to float?).
This not a sacrifice FOR AMERICANS. It is a sacrifice OF AMERICANS – both in lives and in sums of money that we simply do not have and it may very well engender more hatred towards us down the road.
Regarding Patrick Henry – please, Henry’s speech was the absolute antithesis of what we have in our midst with President Bush and the NeoCons interventionist foreign policy premise. Henry was arguing in opposition to the largest military power on earth engaging in interventionism here- into the colonies and engaging in taxation without representation and a host of other concerns (you might want to re-read The Declaration). It was Not the other way round. The founders, especially Patrick Henry, would have had none of this interventionism which is so much the status quo for Bush, et al. Henry was an anti-federalist at heart and were he alive today would almost certainly take Ron Paul over George Bush.
I can’t believe what I am reading. Has flashy fallen into the same pit as the rest believing everything wrong in this world is the fault of the Bush administration? Why is it that if the nation’s debt goes up it’s Bush’s fault even though he hasn’t the power to write one check? You claim it’s Bush’s fault for this war, but won’t acknowledge the vote taken in Congress to go to war with Iraq by the House and the Senate. You state my misunderstanding of history, but it is you who has forgotten the steps how we have arrived where we are today. Maybe a quick recap would help your memory.
.
First we had the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait which caused the first Gulf War in 1991. Then came the refusal by Saddam to abide by the conditions of the cease fire agreement of the Gulf War and to allow weapons inspectors access. What came next was the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
From here I’ll quote from the Wikipedia page:
I suppose some will say Clinton’s signing of this Act was somehow Bush’s fault. But Clinton never had to deal with what happened on September 11, 2001. He never was put in the barrel of having to make the decision on what to do next AFTER an enemy has not only made the threat, but also landed the first homeland blow. Did you forget that Congress then passed Public law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and it was signed into law on September 18, 2001. It passed in the House by a vote of 420-1. Ron Paul voted in favor of this law. The summary of this law was:
Now isn’t this convenient – Ron Paul votes in favor of a law authorizing the president to use all force necessary to fight terrorists and those who harbor them, but then campaigns now saying Bush was wrong for going into Iraq. Dr. Paul can’t have it both ways. Yet, he seems to then talk out both sides of his mouth when he later voted against Public Law 107-243, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which passed the House 296-133 and the Senate by 77-23. It would seem to me that both the House and the Senate gave President Bush the green light to go into Iraq. I’m also willing to bet that had he NOT gone in, the Democrats would have screamed for impeachment, as would 90% of the rest of the population.
You say my comparing Ron Paul’s stance on Iraq to WWII as being a canard. I, however, when reviewing the actions of Saddam Hussein, will stand by my comparison and believe it fits quite well. You believe Patrick Henry would’ve stood by Ron Paul – I on the other hand believe President Bush is far more like Henry than Ron Paul could ever be. The reason being is, just like Henry when speaking of the British, Bush saw the threat at our border and chose to fight it rather than take the “non-intervention” approach that was tried and failed prior to WWII. What’s more, after reading these Public Laws passed by the Congress, I don’t believe President Bush had much choice.
Sorry there flashy, but history is leading me to a very different conclusion than the one you’re trying to sell me on. There is a reason Ron Paul’s poll numbers are so low and much of it is due to his wrong policy on foreign affairs. You say this is a sacrifice “OF AMERICANS”, I say there isn’t one American over there that didn’t sign up to be a part of this fight. And in the words of your beloved Patrick Henry – “I repeat it, sir, we must fight!”
Part I – Iraq:
Kilo,
.. you’re the one who contends that Ron Paul’s positions are, at best, misquided…
Also, I don’t think I ever stated that everything wrong in the world was at the foot of Mr. Bush.. Of course, credit should be given where it is due and there can be no doubt that this Administration (particularly the NeoCons within) impelled us into the Iraq invasion. You can go about believing that it was the Congress which initiated the invasion of Iraq if you like, but you’ll be in slim company on that. But please, had we known then what we know now (about WMD) the Iraq resolution (not a declaration of war, by the way) vote would have been totally different. To ignore this reality is stunning, to combine the two resolutions as if they fit hand in glove is nonsense.
You’re confusing the immediate retaliation against those whom we identified as being responsible for 9/11 (Bin Laden and his supporters/training camps in Afghanistan) with Iraq. Nobody seriously argues that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 anymore. That theory has been debunked, and the fact is there are more Al Queda in Iraq today than there ever were prior to 9/11. This idea that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 was merely a convenient add-on in the midst of revelations that there were no WMD in Iraq.
Ron Paul is on record in support of going into Afghanistan to extract justice – the very same position I have taken. I also stated previously that if there were no WMD in Iraq then there is going to have to be some serious “splainin” to do. Well….? The problem was that we did not finish the job in Afghanistan (what about Bin Ladin????), but used it as a rallying point to invade Iraq – we are paying the consequences of this, and that IS one of Mr. Bush’s legacies.
Bush talks about justice, Huckabee talks about honor, and I find both lacking with such rhetoric. Justice and honor demanded we relentlessly pursue Bin Laden and bring his severed head back to the United States for display in downtown New York. Justice and honor demanded we do whatever was necessary to get him. But what does Mr. Bush tell us? He says one man is not important. Not important? He is wrong when he says Bin Laden doesn’t matter – it is an insult to every American and particularly to every family member who lost a loved one on 9/11.
To transpose the guilt from Bin Laden to Sadaam, and act as if by having Sadaam toppled was somehow extracting justice for 9/11 is simply and totally irrational and wrongheaded. Do I think Sadaam was a tyrant and a dispicable character – YES. But, he was not and never did threaten the United States directly. I see no compelling reason now of the need to have one American die for an Iraqi’s shot at whatever convoluted government arises over there – none.
The real debate is now that we know we went in there under false pretenses, what is the correct action? You seem to ignore this totally..but that is precisely where Ron Paul begins his assessment, and it is utterly consistent with his view back in 2000, 2002 and 2003. Huckabee’s “if you break it you buy it” foreign policy prescription is inane. Under this morality, we all pay for the irrational actions of individuals. No one in particular is held accountable, only society. This is assuming the appearance of something when it is something else – collectivism masqarading as legitimate foreign policy. I will have none of it, gomer is, again, a joke in a cloak.
The president, on the other hand, campaigned with a jaundiced eye towards nation-building in specific and, notably, interventionism stating in 2000, “we can’t be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions but we can’t put our troops all around the world.”
He went on to say, ” . . . I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. We can help. And maybe it’s just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way . . . I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you.”
And then this (regarding Somalia): “Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either. . . . I’m worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I’m not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.”
I’ll never forget an evening on the top floor of the Maritim Hotel in Munich where I sat in the sauna with a Yemenese character… rather interesting chat we had. I discounted this cat’s rhetoric at the time, but you know what he told me? It was our troops on Islamic holy land that was engendering hatred. Yes, there was another component to it, an Islamic world-view, but the reasons Bin Laden gave are fully consistent with this… This is now supported by the 9/11 commission report, Wolfowitz, and the CIA. Ron Paul is absolutely correct on it, and Guiliani had to eat crow – notice he has not raised that issue ever again in the debates.
As far as Kuwait is concerned, what direct national security threat did this pose to us? Do you think oil would have become more expensive than it is today? In 2000 the price for a barrel of oil was under $30. I was all for Desert Storm at the time, but I have reconsidered the whole matter since and I find Ron Paul’s position on that rather compelling. That was a border dispute and American forces were engaging in a matter that should have ultimately been resolved by either the Saudis or Isreal – or both. Do you really think for a moment that Isreal is not capable of defending itself. Every time they attempt to do so it is US who restrain them. We did not have to intervene, the countries in that region would have ultimately taken care of the tyrant on their own as they should. This premise that the people of the world are incapable of solving their own conflicts is no different, fundamentally, than a government school system telling you they know better what is in your child’s best interest. Such hubris is truly stunning in these matters.
Part II -
As for the national debt, you know as well as I do that the President doesn’t directly spend the taxpayers money but it was his political party which has spent this country much much further into debt, which has required massive debt financed by outsiders (China, and others). Bush had a veto pen, but unless there was something in the congress’s spending and earmarking that offended is faith, he was all for it as demonstrated by virtually no vetos.
How many times have you heard Bush exclaim, almost as if he were Santa himself, that tax reductions are good because they increase revenue to the government! Good grief, under this standard there will be no more states in this union in the not too distant future, but perhaps you see this as a good thing. Lowered taxes are good, but more revenue to the federal government is not – a distinction which Bush does not make and I am not one who thinks he’s too stupid to understand that subtlety.
This massive deficit spending brought to all of us by both the Clinton and, especially, the big spending GOP congress has resulted in unprecendented levels of monetary intervention – the result is a worldwide, sustained, devaluation of the dollar which is a direct transfer of wealth out of America and is a far greater threat to our national security than Sadaam Hussein ever was! I lay this debacle directly at the feet of Mr. Bush, absolutely. Just as I lay at his feet ZERO effort on protecting our southern border – he has been absolutely AWOL on meaningful border security. And you talk about a threat to our border? The first act that Bush should have taken on 9/12 was sealing the border. Yet, Mr. Bush sees nothing wrong with keeping 30,000 troops in Korea, troops in Germany and elsewhere around the world which is costing us stunningly huge amounts of money and is bankrupting us (along with our domestic spending and unprecedented unfunded liabilities).
Then we have his seemingly dispassionate and totally limp action-plan on reforming social security – he basically gave up. The president supported and signed the Farm Bill and the Medicare boondoggle reform package. The president acquiesced on suspending Davis Bacon on the heels of Katrina and on and on I could go… ending, stunningly, with him actually suggesting we (America) need to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels as if CO2 were indeed the direct cause of whatever global warming is out there (note that there has been zero warming over the last nine years).
Believe as you will, but the proof of his support for massive spending by this federal government is simply not in dispute. He believes in the power of the federal government as a tool to engage in what he perceives as moral acts to support his evangelical religiosity. The profound opposite view of the intellectuals who crafted the unique idea of America.
Ditto times 2.