Well, of course it was a long shot. Congressional incumbents still win well over 90 percent of the time. Maybe Peden at least made Paul THINK about his district, rather than his ego (which is what his presidential run is all about).

On the other hand, I’m still not convinced that much of his District knows what a goofball he truly is. That may have been where Peden failed.

Has anyone paid attention to Congressman Ron Paul asking a question? His question turns into a lecture. I could not imagine voting for this man. He’s grossly out of touch.

I am off the topic, but in reference to Dan Patrick, if his message does not change, could be the next Governor of TX. The “Republican Obama” - now that would be a real refreshing change.

I hope Peden gets his butt handed to him on a silver platter.

We know DJ, we know.

And I hope that Ron Paul is shown the door.

But in the long run it is only what the voters of the district want that counts.

Stranger things have happened that Peden pulling an upset.The initial election and subsequent re-elections of the honorable Dr Paul, for instance. But then again, he’s delivered over 4,000 babies. That has to count for something….dosen’t it?

Seems odd that Mr. Peden was singing the Praises of Dr. Paul not too long ago. But, now, one would think that Peden caught The Plague from him!

Peden is an opportunistic, low-life, Democrat-wannabe and should-be!

ANYONE that, like him and Senator John McLame, believes that this nation should stay at war in the Middle East, or all across the globe, for the next hundred years (or longer) has no clue about the true origins of this nation!

Dr. Paul may not be this nation’s next president - even though he Should Be…. but Peden has NO BUSINESS in any elected office.

Go RON!
…or go home . ..

Alabamawildman:Your name says it all. Take your meds and chill out.

Go Ru-Paul!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul

Congrats to the LST. This is the first piece that I personally have seen in a couple months that hasn’t been heavy duty anti-Paul. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I’m glad not all of those opinion’s have to be in someones face.

From what I’ve read on a couple of the other LST articles I will believe some of the locals in their opinion that Peden is a good enough guy, maybe if he keeps plugging he can get into office and represent Texans in a good way sometime in the future. I’m still pulling for Paul in this one though, he has a long track record of saying things that piss off those in the drivers seats of the “Party Firsters”.

#8

Ron Paul has not accomplished a damn thing in the congress, would have been a disaster as President.

If the choice was Go Ron or Go Home, Well I guess I would just Go Home.

As Dr Paul is my congressman, his complete lack of interest in my community as he’s chosen to run for President (again) I am ready for Mr Peden and welcome him. He got my vote - as for the poll, i didn’t recieve a call and have voted in last two republican primaries. However, what worries me is the line that formed on democratic counter and the fast- short line was republican.

To answer the question/title, “Can Chris Peden beat Ron Paul?” I’d have to say it’s doubtful at this point. Until today, the only polling data we’ve seen was from the campaigns. Both claimed to lead.

I’m skeptical about the size of 33 point gap for several reasons, but it’s still pretty bad news for the Peden. (I could never vote for him, but other than that, he seems like a decent dude.)

But… It ain’t over till it’s over. So I figure I’ll spend another Saturday morning meeting a few of my neighbors in CD14.

also, read the letters in galveston daily news, most of the Doc’s supporters are not in state.

They want him? The can have him. Maybe they can work out a “transfer” deal, offer him a home and reinbursement for moving expenses.

I’m tired of him putting stuff into bills and the voting against the bill’s. I want a straight shooter - not another pol blowin’ smoke….

10. FourAlarm

10. FourAlarm (sorry for the premature posting)

LOL. If Peden would have shown that around the District, he’d probably won!

#11 - I agree. Still, the “Herr Doktor” reference is a cheap shot.

“Herr Doktor” is letting him off easily.

Campaign 2008 conclusively exposed Paul as a morally bankrupt snake-oil salesman who spent years making money and building a donor contact list by pandering to racist freaks and conspiracy-minded nutjobs.

He may not lose on Tuesday… but he is certainly a loser.

The cause of limited-government and individual liberty deserves much, much better.

I really doubt that Ron Paul’s presidential run was about his ego. He knew it was a long shot from the beginning, and it took several years worth of persuasion from many of his supporters to talk him into it. I’m sure he didn’t want the newsletter business dredged up again for a national audience.

He’s a dedicated ideologue, and repeatedly says that his campaign is about the freedom message, not about Ron Paul speaking to adoring crowds. Frankly, he has been shocked at how many people have turned out to support him and how enthusiastically they have done it.

I understand that many hardcore conservatives couldn’t support Ron Paul for president due to his foreign policy views, but it’s ridiculous that they would try to unseat one of the most reliably consistent conservatives on Congress over an honest difference of opinion on whether invading and occupying Iraq was necessary or not.

Ron Paul is pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-free market, pro-smaller government, anti-tax, pro-Second Amendment, and anti-amnesty, yet many conservatives treated him like he was the one outside the Republican mainstream, while endorsing candidates who had much more fundamental diversions from the party line — McCain on immigration, Giuliani on abortion, Romney on health care, Huckabee on spending, etc.

20.

He takes money from known Nazis, feeds whackjob 9/11 conspiracy theorists, makes idiotic statements such as mall security guards are doing a better job than the troops in Iraq.

Plus, his spending amounts to more than one million dollars per delegate. That sounds like ego to me. He gets six percent of the vote, has to spend over a million dollars just to pick up one delegate, is now all but ignored, and keeps spending people’s money. You don’t see ego in that?

And, at the end of the day, he will have had exactly ZERO effect on the Presidential race.

Tell me, again, what was the point of him being in the race (other than great fun for bloggers)?

Mitt Romney’s message appealed to many millions more than Herr Doktor’s, but he could at least read the handwriting on the wall. Did it ever occur to the Paulbots that the vast majority of us may be right: He’s a kook?

David, you make it difficult to stay on the high road, but I’ll continue to try.

Campaign 2008 conclusively exposed Paul as a morally bankrupt snake-oil salesman who spent years making money and building a donor contact list by pandering to racist freaks and conspiracy-minded nutjobs.

Get over it dude.

Perhaps since he wants to surrender in Iraq, we should call him Mssr. de Paul (no offense to Catholics or anybody else who attended de Paul).

Sorry Bob42; I don’t “get over” bigotry.

#24. David, you should have no problem getting over Peden’s likely defeat. Despite a substantial and coordinated efforts, your attempts to paint Ron Paul as a truther/racisct/NAZI/liar/nutjob/bigot have failed to reach a critical mass of would-be dupes.

Nice try though.

25. bob

RP did a pretty good job of painting himself. Notice how he caught on with the GOP Presidential voters, as evidenced by his vote totals.

However, it is comforting to see that over 90% of the GOP voters know a kook when they see one.

It makes me laugh that some people on this site believe all the neo-conservative propaganda they hear about Ron Paul.

Snake Oil salesman? hahahaha! That is hilarious! You neo-cons are all the same. “Do as I say, not as I do.” Conservatives used to want to save money. They USED to want a humble foreign policy because it all came down to free trade and the economy. Now because GWB has made you all afraid of the boogeyman (”terrorists”), you are willing to send more people to die for the wrong reasons.

Ron Paul has a zealous supporter base who has funded him to this point. His campaign is a perfect reflection of the TRUE free-market he promotes. “I will stay in the race as long as my supporters want me to”. In other words, as long as the “demand” is there he will “supply” the product his supporters are asking for.

So what if “he can’t win”. God forbid anyone voted with any integrity anymore. If you want to vote for McCain, or Peden, fine. Just have a legitimate reason, not because you read a blog claiming that Ron Paul supporters are all truthers. That is complete BS.

Then some of you complain that he adds things to bills and then votes against them. He is manipulating the system in your favor! He knows the bill will pass, so he puts in spending for your district. He is disagreeing with the federal government by his vote, but it still manipulating the system to give you people some of your money back. Obviously the logic has blown way over your small brains.

It is funny to go on these sites and read what you brainwashed people have to say.

Regardless… because of Bush’s stupid policies any republican running this year is being set up for the slaughter. Enjoy your high taxes and 7 hour ER waits. Due to the common conception that people can no longer take care of themselves, government feels they need to take away more liberty and give us a further tax burden.

I’m hoping that darwinism wipes some of the idiots out of the gene pool.

27. LC

I’m hoping that darwinism wipes some of the idiots out of the gene pool.

Well, we’re getting there - we’ve narrowed the Paulbots down to 5% to 8%. So, we’re close.

It is amusing that the Dishonorable Dr. Paul was always hopping to debate the GOP Presidential candidates (including the serious ones, unlike himself), but would not submit to a debate in his Congressional race. Great courage, Dr. Earmarks.

What a phony.

I don’t know who’s more arrogant - Paul or his supporters.

I’ve never claimed or tried to “paint” Ron Paul as a “truther/racist/NAZI/nutjob/or bigot” (I’m still open to “liar”.)

All we did here was point at irrefutable facts.

Fact: Ron Paul has spent years building up a voter and donor contact list by publishing newsletters that pander to racist freaks and conspiracy-minded nutjobs.

Fact: When the extent of this activity was exposed, he refused to forthrightly take responsibility, ask for forgiveness, and distance himself from the close associates he empowered to write that crap.

Fact: So insistent was Paul on not alienating the bigoted and reactionary faction of his base, he was even–on a national stage, during a presidential campaign, while receiving significant new support–unwilling to reject campaign contributions from infamous neo-Nazis and to write White Supremacists out of his coalition.

At best, morally blind and politically stupid.

Like I said… Paul may not lose on Tuesday… but he is certainly a loser.

And the cause of limited-government and individual liberty deserves much, much better.

Let’s see. 95% of GOP voters rejected Ron Paul. 63% of Germans voted against Hitler.

Ron Paul has a zealous supporter base. Hitler had a zealous supporter base.

Ron Paul’s supporters think those who oppose Ron Paul were stupid. Hitler’s supporters the same.

Ron Paul supporters want to wipe idiots out of the gene pool. Hitler the same.

I think I have it now. Thanks.

He is disagreeing with the federal government by his vote, but it still manipulating the system to give you people some of your money back.

So he manipulates the system to take my money and give it to shrimp farmers.

What’s the principle there, exactly?

I like RP as my congressman, I have had nothing but good experiences with he and his staff. I am not a registered Republican, so I am out of the primary debate. If Peden gets the nod, I will vote for him, but I like RP. Peden has actually lost a little respect in my book from the actions of his supporters in this congressional contest, but I will still pull the lever if he is the man.

31. Big45Iron

I’ll be retired having an umbrella drink with you on the beach by the time the Paulbots get your post.

LOL

Rick Mail.

The fact that Paul does not “accomplish” anything in Congress simply speaks to the nearly hopeless state of affairs within our political system. The fact that he has authored more than 300 bills and only a handful have made it out of committee and none of them have passed speaks to the utter disregard that Congress, in general, has for the Constitution and limited government.

I am elated that Congressman Paul has been involved in the presidential race. His involvement woke me and many others like me up from our sleeping apathy. I and others like me are now fighting at the grassroots level to “take over” the Republican Party and restore it to it’s more conservative form. I and others like me are running for office now, participating in the conventions, attending our local republican club meetings and generally being active in the party we nearly left out of sheer frustration.

I would say that Dr. Paul has “accomplished” a great deal as a 10 term congressman. It is his record of principled leadership and absolute dedication to the Constitution which had such an effect on me and others like me.

Chris Peden is a neo-con stooge who is only running at the behest of the GOP leadership who saw this as a great opportunity to distract Congressman Paul from the presidential race. Peden will be rolled over like gravel in the primary and we won’t even remember his name three weeks from now.

#23 Response. Let’s see…I think Dr. Paul says it best, “The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.”

Hard for you to fight logic, right? That’s why you resort to name calling

Yeah, man, I don’t like Ron Paul too. Have you saw his advertisements? He is too much against Mexicans. He is a racist. I hope he lose but I guess there isn’t no hope. America is too racist against us.

Attention fellow Paul-Bots

Don’t waste your breath here. Join us in CD14 tomorrow and volunteer to help turn out the vote on March 4th.

There’s a meet-up group near you that will be happy to provide details.

RickG,

That’s funny man. No really, it is. Whatever your opinion of Ron Paul, you can’t deny the fact that he has a very simplistic stance. The Constitution.

Obviously you believe in high taxation. You believe in giving up your freedoms because of the imperialistic policies of elected leaders past.

I bet you are the type of guy who likes to argue with a liberal like a 1st grader in a sandbox. I challenge anyone on this thread to make an intelligent argument against Ron Paul’s policies, and not any conceived opinion you may have about the man.

And comparing Paul supporters to Nazis… Wow. Pathetic and lame. Bush has indirectly been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, yet many here seem to condone his behaviors as needed and justified.

Peden will be rolled over like gravel in the primary and we won’t even remember his name three weeks from now.

Let me see if I can get this right. Ron Paul can defeat the all-powerful neocon cabal when they handpick their candidate. But he can’t beat them when he tries to pass any legislation?

I challenge anyone on this thread to make an intelligent argument against Ron Paul’s policies

I disagree with his stance on earmarks. He’s happy to insert them into fait accompli spending bills, thereby keeping his constituents and donors happy. Then he votes against the bills so he can keep his status as Dr. No.

That’s fundamentally dishonest.

LC, last I checked the Constitution said that war must be declared by Congress. Outside of a declared war, the President has leeway on troop actions. Congress decided to not declare war, but to approve the troop action. Seems that there is no Constitutional crisis there. RPs interpretation of the Constitution is good in many areas, however, he is loony as a bird on many others.

Come on man. Don’t be so dense. Paul never named himself Dr. No, his colleagues did.

Listen to his interview on Meet the Press. He described the mindset. He said that he knows the bill will pass, so he throws in an earmark for his district, but then he will vote against it because fundamentally he disagrees with federal government spending. It is the best of all worlds. He can’t change the way that 434 other people will vote in the house, so why not throw some back to his district?

Just look at his vote for the Rosa Parks medal. He voted against it because he doesn’t believe in spending federal government money on such frivolous items. He offered $100 of his own money to help fund the project and encouraged others to do so. No one did.

Herr Doktor implies historic National Socialism or the modern socialism that contaminates Germany.

Ron Paul epitomizes the absolute opposite thereof. “Zany” individual freedom, economic freedom, political freedom, etc.

The implication would far better fit Herr J. vonKain or his aspirant Herr Peden.

Chuck George
Fairhope, Alabama

#30 I agree.

And the cause of limited-government and individual liberty deserves much, much better.

So how is it that the best offering the republican establishment has is John McCain?

One thing that Mr. Peden and like minded folks really need to understand is that the very concept of limited-government and individual liberty are fundamentally at odds with our current approach to the threat of terrorism. (Not to mention the War On Drugs that Chris Peden, for some inexplicable reason still thinks we can win.)

You can have a limited government that spends responsibly and respects the constitution, or you can perpetuate the Bush Doctrine, sacrifice liberty, and tax your grandchildren to pay for your false sense of security.

If you think you can have your cake and eat it too, you may be a latent democrat.

duhmoose,

Congress voted to give the power to go to war to one person, Bush. The congress did not declare war, as is stated in the constitution That is where the breech of the constitution took place. That is Ron Paul’s stance. He voted against giving the president this power.

See “Authorized Use of force”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

Ambiguous interpretations of the constitution is what gets this country in trouble in a lot of cases.

Listen to his interview on Meet the Press. He described the mindset. He said that he knows the bill will pass, so he throws in an earmark for his district, but then he will vote against it because fundamentally he disagrees with federal government spending.

In other words, he’s trying to have the best of both worlds — he wants credit for being a small-government libertarian, and he wants credit for bringing pork back to his district.

LOL LC #41. Pres. Bush is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq? That’s like saying FDR is responsible for the murder of millions by Nazis.

And comparing Ron Paul to the Founding Fathers is a joke. The Founding Fathers did not have to deal with jet aircrat, short, medium, and long range missiles, thermonuclear weapons, anthrax, ricin, mustard gas, nerve gases, and a host of other chemical and biological weapons. The possibility of the Barbary Pirates attacking and invading Boston was pretty remote. So please, don’t make that comparison. It’s totally without merit since 1945. Seems to me I recalled we declared our freedom from England, but we never declared war. In the history of the United States, we’ve made 5 declarations of war: 1812, 1845, 1898, 1916, and 1941. Now if I read the base of the Marine Corps Memorial in Arlington correctly, we have been involved in dozens of military actions over the last 221 years since the Constitution was made. Jefferson was a founding father. He never declared war on the Barbary Pirates in 1805. But the USA paid them off from 1784 to 1801. Then it took 4 years of conflict and attacking and invading several N. African countries over the next 4 years to bring about a peace. That was during Jefferson.

Our Presidents have the authority by statue to protect the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution the prevents them from using this authority without declaring war.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War;” however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a “Declaration of War” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President. And contrary to the popular opinion that the framers of the Constitution intended that the President cannot engage in war without an act of Congress, in fact the framers chose the final wording with the intent of “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks” without the explicit approval of Congress. 9/11 was a sudden attack by terrorists. We are attacking and repelling terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist, and he supported terrorists. It’s not a war on Saddam. It’s not a war on bin Ladin. It’s a war on terror. It’s worldwide. It’s not limited to a country or a group. They don’t wear uniforms. There is not a recognized chain of command.

So please, don’t even go there. Ron Paul has as much relationship to the founding fathers as Hitler has to Martin Luther.

Matt,

What would you rather he do then? His constituents like a return of their tax investment, but they like his strong voice of integrity in the House. He is doing both those things. The situation is flawed. He KNOWS the bill will pass, so why not get some back for his voters?

He doesn’t think it is the governments money in the first place. Remember he wants to abolish the income tax. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

I like fresh seafood as much as anyone else, but I’m beginning to think that Matt has developed some kind of weird shrimp fixation.

Ron Paul is a fool and you know what they say about a fool …………… a fool and his political office will soon be parted

40. LC

I had multiple comments. You’ll have to tell me which one you are referring to. Unlike the omniscient Dr. Paul, I don’t read minds. Especially the minds of Paulbots. Those tin foil hats and all.

50. Big

Outstanding, Big. That’s what some would call a “smackdown.”

45,

You are arguing the point of limited government and personal responsibility. Why are all of the things you mentioned such a threat? Because the US can’t keep its nose out of everyone else’s business. We have too many interests.

Ron Paul never said we should have a weak national defense, he is all for having a well stacked and funded army. He doesn’t want to fight all these battles in everyone else’s backyard. That is his point. Why should people’s liberties be taken away from them because of the meglomanic policies of our federal government?

Just saying, “Well, times have changed.” is completely failing to take any blame for our foreign policy whatsoever. It is reactionary and immoral. It is BS. Saddam was a terrorist, sure, but there was no proof at all of WMDs, which was the reason congress voted to give Bush authority.

I suppose from that paragraph you are going to assume that I hate America and I am “invested in defeat” a typical neo-con argument.

Do you understand economics at all? Wars and our military are bankrupting this country. The terrorists are winning, why? Because this country is going broke. Do I want them to win? Of course not. I would fight for this country if I was called, but ignoring our policies for 50+ years is a pretty silly approach to our current situation. We need to think proactively and not reactively.

I meant Big45…

Tell me again what Saddam had to do with 911….nothing. Or is the current policy to label everyone who doesn’t agree with the US foreign policy a terrorist?

Maybe you could read the 911 Commission report.

Also, don’t forget who gave Saddam those weapons to gas his own people. ‘On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline, “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into” the power it became, and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.” Wikipedia - U.S. support for Iraq

37. dekker

I have my pocket Constitution right here. Please point out where it said the President cannot direct military action of any sort without a declaration of war. I’ve looked through and through and can’t find it.

Reagan bombed Quadafi without a declaration of war. Bush I saved Kuwait without a declaration of war. Clinton did his own bombing without a declaration of war.

Now Ron Paul may say all that was unconstitutional, but, guess what? Nobody says so except Ron Paul. And he has nothing to back it up. “Congress has the power to declare war” does not equate to “the military can take no action without a declaration of war.” So his argument is as empty as his views on Osama bin Laden.

Under your goofy theory, if we were invaded by armed forces of another country, our military could not strike back until Congress was convened and formally declared war. Doesn’t that sound silly?

I guess a “smackdown” is an argument based on
loose interpretations of the “facts”.

It is also a professional wrestling show if I am not mistaken, which would fit the mold in this case as well…

The USSR lost the cold war because their flawed economic policies could not keep up with the massive fiscal demands their flawed foreign policies.

If your a rah-rah fan of our foreign policy, would you kindly explain to me how you plan to pay for it?

46.

Yet Herr Doktor seems to be very fond of their money. Hmmm.

60.

Yes, when the Paulbots visit, this often turns into a circus.

Hmmm…that eerily echos our government policy in Pakistan….

Rick,

Paul voted to go to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. He believed him to be a very bad person responsible for 9-11. I think his argument is in line with th eopinions of many.

You are once again missing the point though…

I like your “Nobody says so except Ron Paul”. Do you always do what everyone else is doing? If so I am not surprised by your arguments here.

So LC, let me ask you. What is Ron Paul’s plan for stopping international terrorism? How will he stop them from using the airlines, ocean vessels, etc? I gather Ron Paul would not interfere with Iran producing nuclear weapons, missiles, and putting these into the hands of international terrorists. And what if Ron Paul were to find out Iran had a nuclear equiped missile on a ship 1000 miles from our shore? Would he attack first, or would he seek a declaration of war first?

A strong national defense won’t do you a bit of good if you fail to use it to eliminate the threat of a missile and a nuclear warhead from detonating on our country when launched half a world away. We are not dealing with sane and rational people in Iran. Neville Chamberlain’s dealings with a tyrant nearly destroyed liberty around the world. In a nuclear age, this kind of foolishness can be the death of millions in a matter of hours from a country that never shot at our planes, invaded our soil, sunk our ships. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ignition is all it takes. THAT is what you have deal with.

Couple more things about Saddam. It was not up to us to prove Saddam had WMDs. It was up to Saddam to prove he DID NOT have WMDs. He failed to prove it. He also violated the first cease fire several times by firing on our planes. Last time I checked, if you violate a cease fire, the war is back on. Couple that with the corruption of the UN’s oil for food program, Saddam was rebuilding his military and palaces will millions were being starved, denied any medical care, and hundreds of thousands were being executed. Saddam himself was a WMD. He supported, funded, and trained international terrorists. Ron Paul is more than willing to ignore this type of behavior. In the 21st century, that will get you killed. And one helluva lot more of us too.

RickG - try out the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, the federal government ONLY has the powers granted to it in the constitution; it does not have every power that is not expressly forbidden.

Deck 58, we sold Saddam a fertilizer factory. He used it to make chemical weapons. If I sell you a car and you use it to rob a bank, am I responsible for that? Again you continue time after time to miss the point. It’s a WAR ON TERROR. Not a war on bin Ladin, not a war on Saddam. WAR ON TERROR. Terrorists. Around the world. Everywhere.

Don’t forget too because of our invasion of Iraq, Khadafy gave up his nuclear program. We didn’t even know he was less than a year from completing his capability to produces nukes. Now wouldn’t you just have enjoyed Khadafy having nukes to give to terrorists? That would have been fun, wouldn’t it. And if he had, what would you have done after a nuke detonated in an American city without being able to point a finger at who put it there?

What would you rather he do then? His constituents like a return of their tax investment, but they like his strong voice of integrity in the House. He is doing both those things.

No, he’s only doing the first. Every earmark increases the size of government. He’s taking a spending bill that he doesn’t like, and increasing the size of it in order to curry favor with certain interests in his district.

Congressional districts don’t pay taxes; people do. You seem to think that it’s fair if he takes his constituents’ tax payments and redirects part of them to interests in his district.

Right 66 - so if you hear a rumor that your neighbor is going to rob your house, you believe you have the right to go kill him first. Sounds illogical to me.

How did Ron Paul vote to go into Afghanistan without a declaration of war? Shouldn’t Ron Paul have said we must leave the Taliban alone, and just go after al Queda and bin Ladin?

Not to mention that US foreign policy encourages third world countries to get nuclear technology. If they don’t have it, we blow them up. If they do, we subsidize them with billions of those little green dollars.

We need to look at the root causes of these things and change them or they will continue to occur.

Iron,

Doesn’t anyone believe in diplomacy anymore? You believe all the propaganda from the radical right, there is no doubt about that.

We are responsible for the hatred we are feeling from Iran. Example, 1953 when we put the shah in power. In the 80’s when we funded Iraq in their war against Iran. We have been kicking the beehive for a long time. There is no doubt about the presence of phychos in the world, but how many of those psychos are a result of this country’s actions? Not you, or me, but the policy. Our policy perpetuates the problem.

It wasn’t as big a deal when less countries had nukes, but now at least 7 countries do. They are a deterrant for more wars. Look at the cold war. The more nukes the USSR and US had, the less likely we were to wipe eachother off the map. Russia is selling nuclear material to Iran. How does that make you feel? The US is running out of allies. I think the saber rattling and prick waving has gotten us into enough trouble so far.

You have to look at the bigger picture. I don’t constantly live in fear that a small sect of terrorists are going to blow me up. I’m more worried they are going to defeat us by making us go bankrupt.

65.

So it’s okay to invade Afghanastan without a declaration of war. But it is not okay to invade Iraq wihtout a declaration of war.

At least we agree that no declaration of war is necessary to engage the military in foreign conflict.

No, I don’t always do what everyone else is doing. But when 99% are doing something different, I will ask myself why.

Deck, no HE SAW his neighbor’s house being burglarized. It wasn’t a rumor. It was a fact. He had no idea if they had killed his neighbor. He had no idea if they had killed other people. He was them in the commission of a felony. BANG. Justice delivered, and great savings to the tax payer.

72.

Ah, the old blOWBACK principle. Very good. Thanks.

Recap…

We invaded Afghanistan cuz the Taliban wouldn’t cough up Bin Laden. He’s gone, but we’re still there. Why?

We toss thousands of drug users in jail every year, but despite our occupation, Afghanistan still supplies about 90% of the world’s demand for opium.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan and we send them millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars in hopes that doing so might keep them from nuking another country, while at the same time we send more millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to Israel, in hopes that they won’t nuke their neighbors.

BTW, Our invasion of Iraq in no way fits any reasonable definition of “repelling an attack” but I don’t blame the Bush doctrine for that. I blame CONGRESS for willingly disregarding their sworn responsibilities and cheerfully handing over powers of war to the executive branch, just so they could claim no responsibility for the outcome. They are (with limited exception) cowards in the worst sense of the term.

Not to mention that US foreign policy encourages third world countries to get nuclear technology. If they don’t have it, we blow them up.

What on earth are you blathering about?

Diplomacy when dealing with a tyrant makes as much sense as pi$$ing into a fan when it’s blowing your way. Appears you did not learn anything from Neville Chamberlain after all.

Iron,

K-A-D-A-F-I

B-I-N L-A D-E-N…

I can’t take your arguments seriously if you don’t spell their names right.

Nice debating with the neo-cons today. Take care.

Matt, and the Paulette’s wonder why we question their sanity, LOL.

After reading some of these posts I’m thinking about siging up for the service so I can go kill me some A-rabs.

I have been looking at things incorrectly all along!

In fairness to Ron Paul, he WAS named one of the “50 Most Effective Members of Congress” by Congressional Quarterly.

67/

First of all, nice antiquated theory there. Even Scalia says we’ll never go back to those days. We knew RP was living in the 1800s, but I didn’t know all his followers were.

Let’s see. Congress regulates interstate trucking, radio licenses/airwaves, TV licenses/airwaves, mail, telephone service, beef production, corn prodcution (etc.), prescription drug sales, weapons sales, stock sales, pension funds, insurance, automobile design, toy design, ad nauseum.

Maybe my pocket consitution is the Reader’s Digest version. Can you point me out where these are mentioned? Thanks.

According to the liberal Boston Globe who would support your position, it’s Khadafy.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/09/04/us_khadafy_form_an_unlikely_alliance/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+World+News

I don’t care if you have an e or an i in bin Ladin, bin Laden. Only thing important is that he gets a bullet in him someday. Oh, and Clinton couldn’t even find the Atlanta Olympics bomber right here in the USA for 4 years.

77. bob

Now you’re talking (mostly) policy and I can agree with some of what you say. But that’s different than some here (not you) saying this is unconsitutional, that is unconstituional, etc. Things may certainly be bad policy, as you point out, but that’s a different matter.

LC, you mean to tell me you never served? That explains alot.

Rick, Congress does not regulate those things directly. They take the money from the lobbyists and surrender regulatory power to the administration to avoid being blamed for the results.

This pretty much explains why average folks are so often screwed by out of control government regulation.

80 LC

Oops. Better go lecture the BBC:

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_lectures/mazrui_lect.shtml

Does this make YOU wrong?

88. bob

Rick, Congress does not regulate those things directly.

Oh, really? Would you like me to cite you some statutes passed by . . . Congress??

Agencies may pass regulations and may enforce the law, but Congress regulates plenty directly.

88. bob

However, I will agree with you that average folks - and that includes me! - are often screwed by governement, whether in the form of Congress or an agency like IRS.

excuse me matt, you’re right. WE ‘threaten’ to blow them up. Or maybe we drop bombs, overthrow democratically elected leaders…(Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and on and on)

92.

You forgot Cuba in your list of great democratic leadership we tried to overthrow.

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

Arming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].” [5]

July, 1992. “The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.” Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States’ sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

References:

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq’s History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Persian Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20. Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. http://www.gendercide.com

I think we should just stay the course. The course of not connecting dots. The course of bad intel and go to war. Stay the course with a wot and open borders. How about supporting radical Islam in the Kosovo?

The real snake oils salesmen/nut jobs are exposed.

Can I have another sip of monkey peee um er koolaid?

Oh boy…there goes Bigs again.

LC, you mean to tell me you never served? That explains alot.

That comment explains it all.