While debate continues as to whether wacky presidential candidate Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther himself, there can be no doubt that he goes down on all fours to pander to the lunatics who choose to believe it was not……

309 Diggs. Moonbat patrol in full force

No, just Paul’s “base”.

We’ve just been extraordinarily and historically patient in responding.

Once they get close to going nuclear, we have to shut down the project and keep such apocalyptic power from falling into the hands of self-declared psychopathic theocratic crapulous lamebrained lunatics*.

They’re a bad risk.

(*AKA: Mahmoud and the mad mullahs.)

Don’t lose any sleep over what Paus said.

saiga on July 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM

I won’t, as long as the “9/11 was an inside job” nutjobs who comprise his base of support don’t show up near my house protesting.

If you think I’m excusing them, you’re simply wrong. As a conservative, why do you trust in the federal government to handle foreign policy any better than it handles crime, poverty or education?

No, but neither did the founders. I figure that’s one of the reasons they set up elections.

It is campain season and the players need to stay in the news. Nothing more than that. Iran is bad, tention is there, we are mad, and we shall see what happens.

Don’t lose any sleep over what Paus said.

As a conservative, why do you trust in the federal government to handle foreign policy any better than it handles crime, poverty or education?

rho on July 13, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Gee, could it be that foreign policy is one of the unquestionably legitimate roles of the federal government, while issues like education are not? What’s the matter- you don’t read the Constitution?

Beats the crap out of counting on Obama Silk-Cankles.

fogw on July 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Bwhahaahaaha!!! Thanks, Foggy! I’m definitely stealing that one.

As a conservative, I believe people and countries are responsible for their own actions and attributing their bad behavior to our foreign policy is misguided at best.

If you think I’m excusing them, you’re simply wrong. As a conservative, why do you trust in the federal government to handle foreign policy any better than it handles crime, poverty or education?

No it’s not. The Constitution lays out very specific ways in which it may be amended, judges making them up from the bench is not one of them.

Judicial review is as firmly established as your flexible war-making powers.

That’s just patently not true. I know you are big on originalism so consider the Quasi-War with France during the administration of John Adams and the Barbary war under Jefferson

I don’t deny it. The question I’d like you to ask yourself, though, is whether it’s a good idea to allow Congress to abdicate their war-making responsibilities. Formal declarations of war are, undeniably, the wars which are quite widely supported. Authorizations of force are, undeniably, the wars which are routinely criticized and partisan.

This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.

Such as Ahmadinejad plans to set things in motion by nuking Israel. I think Jesus is coming back, too. I’m not eager to precipitate his return.

Judges interpreting the Constitution to create new rights is also defendably Constitutional.

No it’s not. The Constitution lays out very specific ways in which it may be amended, judges making them up from the bench is not one of them.

None, it’s a matter of convention.

That’s just patently not true. I know you are big on originalism so consider the Quasi-War with France during the administration of John Adams and the Barbary war under Jefferson. They were authorized by Congress (hell they even built the ships specifically for the purpose) but there was no declaration of war.

rho, you and Ron Paul are hanging onto a version of Constitutional purity that has never existed, not even when the founders themselves were in charge.

Ah. Well, that’s a compelling argument. It sounds “truthy” to me!
rho on July 13, 2007 at 2:50 PM

As a self-interested bureaucrat who has ’spun’ a number of reports myself, I recognize my own kind when I see them.

I don’t know why you’re asking that. I don’t deny that we’ve had foreign intervention in the past, nor that we’ve had interventionist presidencies. I suggest that our interventionism, especially in the last 50 years, has contributed to the state we are currently in, and doing more of it has seemingly only made things worse.

My issue is with your attempts to draw straight lines from our behavior to the actions of other countries. As a conservative, I believe people and countries are responsible for their own actions and attributing their bad behavior to our foreign policy is misguided at best.

Yes, nothing proves your case like excerpts leaked from a classified report prepared by self-interested bureaucrats.

Ah. Well, that’s a compelling argument. It sounds “truthy” to me!

Why are you so anxious to limit the debate to the past 50, or 6 years? We’re a country that has a history of interventionist foreign policy.

I don’t know why you’re asking that. I don’t deny that we’ve had foreign intervention in the past, nor that we’ve had interventionist presidencies. I suggest that our interventionism, especially in the last 50 years, has contributed to the state we are currently in, and doing more of it has seemingly only made things worse.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the form this declaration has to take or that that declaring war is the only time use of military force is okay? Can you point that out to any section and clause please?

None, it’s a matter of convention. The AUMF is defendably Constitutional, but it attempts to absolve Congress of responsibility, and they are taking advantage of that fact. I was unclear and unspecific. I suggest following the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and convention to unify the government.

Judges interpreting the Constitution to create new rights is also defendably Constitutional. It doesn’t make it right.

It was in all the papers. History books too.

Troofer kryptonite…

Ignorance is your shield eh…

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945

Iran president paves the way for arabs’ imam return
Nov 17, 2005

Persian Journal – Iran Latest News
His call for the destruction of Israel may have grabbed headlines abroad, but it is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s devotion to a mystical religious figure that is arousing greater interest inside Iran.

In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi’ite Muslims’ “hidden” 12th Imam.

According to Shi’ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi’ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

“Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

“Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society.”

“Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi’s return. We should avoid copying the West’s policies and systems,” he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.

This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.

Presidential aides have denied a popular rumor that he ordered his cabinet to write a letter to the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom where thousands of pilgrims come each week to pray and drop messages to the Imam.

But what really has tongues wagging is the possibility that Ahmadinejad’s belief in the 12th Imam’s return may be linked to the supposed growing influence of a secretive society devoted to the Mahdi which was banned in the early 1980s.

Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam’s return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.

Ahmadinejad, who is only the second non-cleric to become president since the revolution, has made clear his immense respect for Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a deeply conservative cleric with close ties to the Hojjatieh-founded Haqqani theological school in Qom.

Persian Journal – Iran Latest News
Conspiracy theorists, never in short supply in Iran, allege that many members of Ahmadinejad’s cabinet and other key appointees are Haqqani graduates and Hojjatieh followers.

“It seems that they (Hojjatieh members) have recently become more active and are spread through the government,” said a political analyst who declined to be named.

“The president has repeatedly said his government will pave the way for the Imam’s return.”

But others point out that many former government officials, perceived as moderates, graduated from Haqqani.

Haqqani’s continued links to Hojjatieh, though rumored, have not been proven and it remains one of the most prestigious theological schools in Qom.

Ahmadinejad’s emphasis on the importance of development and justice to encourage the Mahdi’s return, also suggest an important divergence from Hojjatieh thinking.

But he would be better advised to focus his speeches on practical rather than religious issues, said former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi.

“Of course, we must pray for the return of the Imam, but we must also tackle inflation and unemployment,” the reformist cleric told Reuters.

© Iranian.ws

Have we ever secured a battlefield without troops on the ground? To my recollection, Nintento-warfare has a dismal success rate.

rho on July 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

It was in all the papers. History books too.