Video: Paul vs Newt on Osama bin Laden

posted at 9:15 am on January 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Ron Paul isn’t ever a model of eloquence, but the exchange between Paul, Bret Baier, and Newt Gingrich may have set a new record for incoherence in a presidential debate.  Paul starts off badly in this colloquy by attempting to reverse a statement he made in Iowa about the illegality of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden as a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, and by the time Gingrich gets involved, Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein — who was captured after a full-scale military invasion that hardly worried about Iraq’s national sovereignty, in a war that Paul opposed then and opposes now.

Lucky for Newt that he got the follow-up, and he made the most of it (via Greg Hengler):

Gingrich won the debate last night thanks to this moment and the exchange with Juan Williams.  No one should be surprised to see Gingrich’s mastery at the podium at this late stage; he’s put on a tour de force all through the primaries.  He should get a small bump in polling, but Rick Santorum also had a fairly strong showing, taking on Mitt Romney more directly and more effectively than Gingrich did last night.  Rick Perry also had another good-but-not-great performance, and he scored a couple of points, especially when he interjected on behalf of states’ rights in the question of former felon voting.

Unfortunately for all three, that plays into Mitt Romney’s hands at this stage of the debate.  Romney also did well, at least well enough to deflect the attacks without making any mistakes.  If only Gingrich had performed effectively, voters might have had a reason to consolidate behind Newt, and the same could be said for Santorum.  By having everyone do well, their voters have no reason to migrate to a single alternative to Romney, which means that Romney will still face a fractured conservative field on Saturday — unless he stumbles badly this week, which would be the first time all campaign long he would have done so.

Here’s a question to ponder when considering who actually ended up benefiting most from this debate.  Who talked the most about health care and entitlements?  Surprisingly, it was Mitt Romney, whose competitors never bothered to attack him on the one program that most animates his opposition.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

And on Oct. 10, 2001, he introduced the 2001 Bill of Marque and Reprisal that authorized the president to capture or kill bin laden, al qaeda, and any other conspirators by any reasonable means.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Then, what’s his problem with what we did? Did we not kill bin laden? Did we not use ANY reasonable means?

Does RonPaul even remember that he introduced that bill?

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

We can do our best to protect ourselves here at home.

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

We could – but since we can’t even protect our own borders from illegal immigrants and drug runners, we would have a tough time stopping terrorists from coming in the same way. And even if we brought ALL of our troops home and put them on the borders, it violates posse comitatus and other laws to use the military for law enforcement activities – which is how Paul defines anti-terrorism. These battles are better fought as away games, otherwise our homeland becomes the main battlefield – as Israel is dealing with.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Incoherent.

hawkdriver on January 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

The problem with you Libertarians is that Closing Bases overseas is just the beginning. You will hit the local bases as well because The US military does not fit into the Libertarian World view of the Non Aggression Axiom at the core of your believes. Anywhere where any Authority exists Libertarians will be there to tear it down. That is not democracy, constitutionalism, conservatism, Objectivism, nor capitalism. It’s easy for allot of younger folks to fall for this cult in frustration with what they see happening around them but Libertarian are not a moral philosophical ideology, It’s an Anarchist political doctrine with no teeth. You share allot more with the ideas of the Left than anyone on the right.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Libertarian, with a capital L, is a political party; libertarianism, lowercase l, is a philosophy.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Newt is the Classical Liberal.

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

ha haha hahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*GASP* AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

thirtyandseven on January 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Yeah…meant the ability to protect from a distance, not our borders (but yes) but other borders as well. I mean they’re always close by.

All I’m saying is at this point in time, we need to stop staggering around like a drunk about to fall over and get back on our feet again as an economic superpower. There’s a reason why our kids calculators don’t go to a trillion. None of the candidates running for President, and especially Obama, have a clue as to right this sinking economic ship. Lets work on a strong national defense, secure our borders for now and stop the staggering.

Cheers!

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Last I read, Revelations is in the New Testament and it is indeed very clear on what Jesus will do when he returns.

I suppose however He will adhere to the Herr Doktor rules on foreign policy and send a harshly worded memo to the anti-Christ?

My point is that you are (failing at) making the case that the Bible is against war when it clearly is not. War is sometimes necessary. The Lord himself commanded it. Jesus himself will engage in it upon his return.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Too true.

And well said.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

(Paul) wants other countries to take care of themselves and us to take care of ourselves because we can’t afford any longer to do it all. Switzerland, Australia, Candada, do well with that philosophy.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Switzerland, Australia, Canada all do well on international security because of the Pax Americana. And I think we’re all better off with the US playing that role rather than totalitarian China and/or Russia doing the honors.

And then there’s the impending Iranian nuclear age, which they’ve promised won’t be pretty, and which Dr. Paul has said he has no problem with…

And really, all this is a distraction from the other pertinent issues. Ron Paul, like it or not, has this racist and antisemitic back story. The media will not (should not) allow him the office. Beyond blaming American first, he cannot explain or sell his foreign policy. He himself has said he really doesn’t expect to get elected. He himself has said he’s too old and tired for the campaign.

So I find him psychologically unsuited for the constitutional duty of commander-in-chief, unrealistic on foreign policy, and physically unable. Too condescending to rally the nation to his cause. Too plagued by newsletter issues which he refuses to clearly and finally own and then reject.

Just my opinion.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed.

It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism.

I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

…Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Atlas Shrugged author, Ayn Rand

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Simply pointing out what the Bible actually says.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Why didn’t we work with their security services to pick him up, like we did… say… with Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
But no. We would prefer to conduct a military operation in their country that, were another country to do so in this country, we would consider to be an act of war.
As close to the definition of “warmongering” as I have actually seen.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

So they helped with a minor operative -several years ago. All the indicators are that someone in the Pakistani military/government was hiding and protecting UBL. Seriously – his compound was a mile from their main military university in a military town. That does NOT sound like a cooperative friendly government.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Then, what’s his problem with what we did? Did we not kill bin laden? Did we not use ANY reasonable means?

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

His problem with it is that we violated the sovereign territory of what is an important nation in the region with a military operation that, were another country to do the same in this nation, we would consider to be an act of war.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

We could – but since we can’t even protect our own borders from illegal immigrants and drug runners, we would have a tough time stopping terrorists from coming in the same way…

Mainly because our Border Patrol is an underfunded, understaffed JOKE, while we spend millions playing “Whack-A-Jihadi”.

and even if we brought ALL of our troops home and put them on the borders, it violates posse comitatus and other laws to use the military for law enforcement activities

Bullshit. Posse comitatus is what the wicked witch Janet Reno did. One of the most basic functions of a nation’s military is to keep out people you don’t want coming in – be they outright terrorists or people who don’t want to wait in line at the immigration station.

These battles are better fought as away games,

Here’s a little news for you: We. Can’t. Afford. Away games. They’ve been going on for longer than it took to defeat the freaking Nazis, with no end in sight.

otherwise our homeland becomes the main battlefield

Our homeland is already a near-battlefield with precious few sentries. And it’s going to be a battlefield anyway when the welfare checks run out.

as Israel is dealing with.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Israel is dealing with the consequences of carving a nation out of land that’s been occupied by religious fanatics for over a millennium.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

So they helped with a minor operative -several years ago.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM

KSM… a minor operative?

Go to bed, son. You’ve been at this too long.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Ridiculously horrible logic.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

No its right. You may not like it but its true and the sooner people come to gribs with it the better we will be.

Vote for Paul = Vote for Paul.
A vote for Mitt = a vote for Mitt.
A vote for Obama = A vote for Obama.

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM
FTFY, you dipstick.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

And a vote for Ross Perot was a vote for Ross Perot.
And a vote for John McCain was a vote for John McCain.
And a vote for Fred Thompson (SC, 2008) was a vote for Fred.
And a vote for John Huntsman in NH was a vote for John Huntsman.
And a vote for Obama was for HOPE AND CHANGE.
And a vote for Obama was a vote for Bev Purdue(in NC, Horrible)
And a vote for Perry is not a vote for Mitt(right) IF and I MEAN IF, Mitt wins, I wonder what position Perry is going to get?

If you are in SC or Fl, and don’t want Mitt, you have to vote for Newt, Sant, or perry(no) not Paul.

Done deal folks, don’t care if you don’t like it or agree, I’M RIGHT!

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Done deal folks, don’t care if you don’t like it or agree, I’M RIGHT!

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Well, since you didn’t equate voting for someone to magically voting for someone else, yes.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.

As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a decleration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?

What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?

The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle.

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I took it that Ron Paul opposed the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty rather than OBL’s killing per se. He pointed out that we were able to negotiate for KSM’s extradition with the same government. He was probably flustered at the question, which was rather leading…

He pointed out that he voted for the initial resolution to go after bin Ladin and his terrorist group, and that, after 10 years, perhaps capturing OBL and seeing if he knew anything might have been a better plan than sending a navy seal team into a sovereign nation, killing the target, and dumping the target’s body in the ocean post-haste.

Now, one could disagree with Paul, and say, “No, I think that the way we did it was probably the best we could do at the time; the Pakistani gov’t, though it did hand over KSM, was for reason “X” not willing to do so with OBL, so in order to get the guy behind 9/ll, it was necessary to go ahead and kill him.”

But that’s not the primary argument against Paul; the “argument” against Paul boils down to the accusation that he is a “terrorist sympathizer”, or something equivalent, which is not really a refutation of Paul’s position at all.

cavalier973 on January 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Libertarian, with a capital L, is a political party; libertarianism, lowercase l, is a philosophy.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Thanks for the grammar lesson on the use of capital letters on a debate about… ideas and philosophy occurring web forum. . … How about that philosophy though? Objectivism is not Liberalism, nor Conservatism, nor Capitalism and has more in common with Guy Fawkes than with Thomas Jefferson.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Done deal folks, don’t care if you don’t like it or agree, I’M RIGHT!

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Well, since you didn’t equate voting for someone to magically voting for someone else, yes.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM

you know what it means. if you don’t, then please stay home and do not vote.

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM

So you ignore Romans 12:19-21 and substitute Revelation 19:21

- but yours and mine interpretation of the latter may differ. His are an oral rod and oral sword..The words of reprimand and rebuke are the rod.

I’ll take the entire New Testament and Jesus words over this end of times view any day…but that’s just me…I don’t worry about what’s to come…and I won’t hurry it either.

Peace…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Mainly because our Border Patrol is an underfunded, understaffed JOKE, while we spend millions playing “Whack-A-Jihadi”.

The problem is the Dems are not willing to allow the border patrol to do their jobs. And the low level of spending on border patrol is not because of what we spend on the military.

Bullshit. Posse comitatus is what the wicked witch Janet Reno did. One of the most basic functions of a nation’s military is to keep out people you don’t want coming in – be they outright terrorists or people who don’t want to wait in line at the immigration station.

I agree with you on what our military SHOULD be able to do, but the rest of your comment is BS. You don’t appear to understand what posse comitatus says – or the Constitution for that matter – or how the Dems and Paul types interpret it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.

Reno’s Waco debacle was executed by the FBI and ATF – no federal military involved – therefore no relevance to posse comitatus.
Obummer and the Dems have fought every effort by Republicans and the border states to put actual active duty military personnel on the border with the authority to do whatever is necessary to stop the intrusions. The fundamental problem is the Dems want open borders which means we can’t stop anything – even with the military. And Paul and the Dems have stated many times that they interpret terrorism as a law enforcement problem NOT a military problem.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM

KSM… a minor operative?

Go to bed, son. You’ve been at this too long.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Compared to UBL – yes.
You need to wake up.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Then, what’s his problem with what we did? Did we not kill bin laden? Did we not use ANY reasonable means?

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

That it wasn’t a constitutional action, for one, and that it was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. At this point, bin Laden was isolated and ineffective.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

His problem with it is that we violated the sovereign territory of what is an important nation in the region with a military operation that, were another country to do the same in this nation, we would consider to be an act of war.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

So then, RP’s bill would have authorized the president to kill or capture bin laden, unless he was ensconced in a sovereign nation?
Any idea where those might be?

You bots just keep running around in circles, saying the same things over and over and hoping that somebody, somewhere, will accept repetition as explanation.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I think you are only speaking for yourself. The Majority of Libertarians Paul Supporters don’t see it that way. Wrong on the assumption I’m a GOP or blind Republican Supporter. I support the Tea Party and limited government as well.

You are speaking of Constitutionalism, of course many conservatives will agree with you. Again, being an economic power will by default allow the US to grow a strong Defense. The entitlements are regulatory are also out of hand.

Here is where Libertarians disagree with Conservatives and Tea Partiers. The majority of Paul Supporters are Anti government, conspiracy nuts, anti-Zionists, pro legalization of drugs, indifferent on abortion, hostile to Christians but tolerant to Islamists, Multi-cultural supporters, condescending, sympathize with the Occupy Movement, and race baiting as demonstrated by the Paulian Collective posting here in the last several years.

So when a rational person such as yourself tries to argue on the behalf of hostile anarchist hippie halfwits collective you can loose a little credibility with your arguments. I would advise dropping the “Ideology” and just stick with Constitutionalism. Libertarians are much better than the Left when it comes to economics and Capitalism but don’t fall to far from the Leftist tree on Social and Moral issues. Ron Paul ain’t the guy. Selling him is selling all of his ideas, not just his constitutional or economic views. In that case Ron Paul will run Third party and split the vote more he’s done it before and will do it again. What he will do is split the party and allow a Romney and then finally an Obama victory for 2012.

I will fight tooth and nail against Paul’s naive lunacy but If he is the nominee by some chance. I will support him. Until then. Not a prayer.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

And then there’s the impending Iranian nuclear age, which they’ve promised won’t be pretty, and which Dr. Paul has said he has no problem with…

I do not want Iran to get Nuclear weapons, I would like to see less Nuclear weapons in the world, I am for talking with countries and for trying to find common ground with countries so we can trade with countries and get along. The UN and the IAEA say Iran does not have nukes but even if they did during the cold war the soviets had over 30,000 nukes and we talked with them and we found common ground and we worked it out, we did not just start a war even when they had nukes.” – Ron Paul

And really, all this is a distraction from the other pertinent issues. Ron Paul, like it or not, has this racist and antisemitic back story. The media will not (should not) allow him the office. Beyond blaming American first, he cannot explain or sell his foreign policy. He himself has said he really doesn’t expect to get elected. He himself has said he’s too old and tired for the campaign.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

More lies and smears. Paul is neither racist nor antisemitic. But congratulations on falling in with a tried and true tactic of the left.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

The racist newsletter issues have been cleared up by Fox News Reality Check. Did he handle it perfect? No. But to connect him to racism when he’s on the side of blacks and getting them out of prison by being against prohibition is a stretch.

Regarding the Iran nuclear age, Saudi Arabia has also announced their plans. We have been at this for decades with Iran yet Saudi Arabia, home to the most radical group of Muslims on earth, the Wahhabi’s goes without comment from the neo-conservatives? Really?

It’s not a “blame America first” policy he has. Do we blame America first when we supported Saddam Hussein against Iraq or when we attacked him later? Do we blame America first when we supported the mujahideen and bin Laden in Afghanistan or when we went to Afghanistan to get rid of him? I’m confused. Not really. But just my opinion too, like yours.

The truth is, I went through this 4 years ago on Hot Air and we got stuck with McCain. The Republicans used to get us out of wars (Vietnam and Korea) and now get us into wars. This is not the party of my youth nor that of my parents. Obama and the dems love war too, and I’m fed up with it.

http://bit.ly/RonPaulConservatives

http://bit.ly/Christiansandwar

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Thanks for the grammar lesson on the use of capital letters on a debate about… ideas and philosophy occurring web forum. . … How about that philosophy though? Objectivism is not Liberalism, nor Conservatism, nor Capitalism and has more in common with Guy Fawkes than with Thomas Jefferson.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM

It wasn’t a grammar lesson.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Israel is dealing with the consequences of carving a nation out of land that’s been occupied by religious fanatics for over a millennium.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

This is so unbelievably stupid, and evil.

tom daschle concerned on January 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

More lies and smears. Paul is neither racist nor antisemitic. But congratulations on falling in with a tried and true tactic of the left.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Quietly supporting those that do in his new letters and never dissolving, publicly, his followers sure makes him share ideas. In all fairness, Ron Paul is a moderate Libertarian in comparison to the rest of them. Paul is a Libertarian. This is not in dispute. He has said many times that the Libertarian agenda and not the party is more important which is why he actually went back to the GOP.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM

FYI…

Ben Swan from Fox is up for a Shorty Award for his activism reporting including the following on Ron Paul’s alleged racist newsletters and Paul’s views on Israel:

Reality Check: The name of a ‘Mystery Writer’ of one of Ron Paul’s ‘Racist’ newsletters http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

Reality Check: Are Ron Paul’s views on Israel “misguided and extreme?”

http://www.fox19.com/story/16327085/reality-check-are-ron-pauls-views-on-israel-misguided-and-extreme

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“The UN and the IAEA say Iran does not have nukes but even if they did during the cold war the soviets had over 30,000 nukes and we talked with them and we found common ground and we worked it out, we did not just start a war even when they had nukes.” – Ron Paul
Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

That quote shows Paul’s (and your) lack of understanding of history and how unrealistic he is. The Cold War was a standoff (ever heard of MAD?) where we both had enough nukes to wipe out the entire planet. We played diplomatic games for decades just reducing the numbers of warheads a few at a time – but it had nothing to do with common ground (other than neither side was suicidal) and all about keeping parity with each other and trying to limit budgets. The USSR didn’t really want to destroy anyone – they wanted total control of everyone. Iran and North Korea are entirely different animals who have regularly called for and threatened the very existence of other countries (more so Iran than NK). Actually the Korea situation is more like the Cold War in that respect, as fundamentally NK wants to re-unify Korea under their control. They don’t really want to destroy the south – they want to own it.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

So then, RP’s bill would have authorized the president to kill or capture bin laden, unless he was ensconced in a sovereign nation?
Any idea where those might be?

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Letters of Marque carry the assumption that sovereign governments will respect them as diplomatic documents. No such documents were provided to the Pakistani authorities. We jut went in there and did it.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I am not a huge Ron Paul supporter nor was my intent to argue for or against Ron Paul. While I support much of his consitutionalist views, especially on domestic policy, I am not convinced he is presidential as a personality. He would not be my choice to represent libertarian ideals. However, my other choices are… let’s see… big government moderate, big government reaganite, big government theocrat, and medium government dunno-what-cuz-he-can’t-articulate-a-thought…

I was merely arguing against the consistent smearing of libertarianism and Constitutionalism that I see regularly here. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all hippy OWS supporters who just like libertarian ideals because maybe we’ll get to smoke some pot legally. I’m sick of people smearing every libertarian with that paint brush, as I am sure most GOPers are sick of being painted with the rednecks and religious nuts brush. And it bothers me that many seemingly Republicans argue here for small government, until it’s an issue on which they think their particular morality should be imposed on everyone, at which time large government becomes ok with them. It’s hypocritical (not that I know you well enough to say you do that, Efgrow, so please dont take that as a personal attack).

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Q: How can you tell when Ron Paul has had a stroke?
A: When he starts to make sense.

Pcoop on January 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Here’s a little news for you: We. Can’t. Afford. Away games. They’ve been going on for longer than it took to defeat the freaking Nazis, with no end in sight.

Here’s some news for you – we can’t afford a home game. If we try to fight this on US soil, the suicide bombs will be going off in our malls and office buildings. We CAN afford to use the military in a smarter way to fight these battles away from home.

Our homeland is already a near-battlefield with precious few sentries. And it’s going to be a battlefield anyway when the welfare checks run out.

There’s a big difference between near-battlefield and actual battlefield. How many innocent civilians have been killed by the drug gangs in Mexico and the terrorists in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others vs how many killed in the US? Are you ready for that to change?

Israel is dealing with the consequences of carving a nation out of land that’s been occupied by religious fanatics for over a millennium.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

First – Israel didn’t carve it up – the UN did. Second, the Israelis/Hebrews are the major population that has been in that area for over a millenium – along with the Arabs. Historically, genetically, nationality-wise there is technically no such thing as a Palestinian – that “race” or “nationality” was created as an excuse by the Arabs in the region to take back Israel. The “Palestinians” all originated from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Letters of Marque carry the assumption that sovereign governments will respect them as diplomatic documents. No such documents were provided to the Pakistani authorities. We jut went in there and did it.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You’re saying, then, that you don’t actually know what a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is or what it allows.
There is acsolutely nothing “diplomatic” about a Letter of Marque. All it does is authorize a private group (Privateers, if you will) to attack and destroy foreign targets (originally, ships belonging to, or flying the flag of, a foreign nation with whom we had a disagreement). Today, that would mean that the job would fall to “contractors” (or mercenaries, if you like) – but would most assuredly NOT involve diplomatic contact or niceties with whatever country in which they were to operate.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

libertarianlunatic on January 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM

And your solution? Elect a congress man that has been working there for 20+ years and not accomplished one dang thing?

Sure thing there champ! That’s gonna solve the problem.

uhangtight on January 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I’ll take the entire New Testament and Jesus words over this end of times view any day…but that’s just me…I don’t worry about what’s to come…and I won’t hurry it either.

Peace…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Except you don’t. Revelations is in the New Testament. It isn’t a ‘view’ as you put it. Its in the Bible.

Isn’t the Old Testament part of the Bible? Even the King James version?

I’ve got no issue with you believing what you want. My problem is your cherry picking your verse.

The Bible says many things about war – both for and against, not simply one viewpoint.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

His problem with it is that we violated the sovereign territory of what is an important nation in the region with a military operation that, were another country to do the same in this nation, we would consider to be an act of war.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I get what you’re saying man. It’s kind of like if my neighbor’s dog comes over and kills one of my chickens. If I shoot the dog while it’s still in my yard, that would be ok, but I can’t go over into his yard and shoot him, because that just wouldn’t be cool.

Hey, let’s do a bong hit and then come back here and say more cool stuff like that.

Norky on January 17, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Except you don’t. Revelations is in the New Testament. It isn’t a ‘view’ as you put it. Its in the Bible.

Isn’t the Old Testament part of the Bible? Even the King James version?

I’ve got no issue with you believing what you want. My problem is your cherry picking your verse.

The Bible says many things about war – both for and against, not simply one viewpoint.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

catmman, you would agree that the Bible is open to interpretation correct? You would agree that Jesus fought no wars on behalf of Israel in the New Testament correct?

Here’s your original statement in disagreement with what I wrote in my article on U.S. foreign policy;

You’re not making any case about how Christians should be against war. The Bible is very clear that war – though not the ideal – is sometimes necessary.

The Lord himself commanded it and Jesus himself will engage in it upon his return.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

You made assumptions that my point of view is wrong about war because I provided multiple New Testament Bible verses in my article about Jesus not using war to accentuate his point of view. You then extrapolate from this that Revelations and Jesus second coming are proof one needs to allow for war by Christians today? Is this your belief? You then bring up the Old Testament, which I did not.

As I mentioned before, here or in another reply, when Israel was with God (Old Testament), they won the wars. When they were against God, they lost the wars. I am not for fighting wars willy nilly today and am for heeding the words of Jesus, the Prince of Peace while on earth, “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” Matt 5:9

I also accept Christian Just War Theory (unlike Sean Hannity) which Ron Paul has spoken about (have any of the other conservative candidates addressed this? ever?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc

When He comes again (Revelations) I’ll let him be the judge of my interpretations of His word. You are entitled to your interpretation. “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” John 14:27

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Explain to me the Founding Fathers intent with Article 1 Sec. 8 and the declaration of war. Thank you.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Congress did indeed issue a declaration of war through the use of the authorization of force. Many like you seem to get hung up because you think that the Constitution also DEFINES the wording to be used in a declaration of war…

If you, being a self-appointed Constitutional scholar, can find that exact wording, please post the Article, Section and Clause that defines that wording.

dominigan on January 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

That quote shows Paul’s (and your) lack of understanding of history and how unrealistic he is. The Cold War was a standoff (ever heard of MAD?) where we both had enough nukes to wipe out the entire planet. We played diplomatic games for decades just reducing the numbers of warheads a few at a time – but it had nothing to do with common ground (other than neither side was suicidal) and all about keeping parity with each other and trying to limit budgets. The USSR didn’t really want to destroy anyone – they wanted total control of everyone. Iran and North Korea are entirely different animals who have regularly called for and threatened the very existence of other countries (more so Iran than NK). Actually the Korea situation is more like the Cold War in that respect, as fundamentally NK wants to re-unify Korea under their control. They don’t really want to destroy the south – they want to own it.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Nice selective quoting, but there’s your trouble with honesty popping up again. My post was in response to someone saying Paul wants an nuclear-armed Iran. I responded with a quote from Paul that refutes that lie. Of course, you chopped that part of the quote off.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

In the article linked to your page, you are attempting to make the case that Bible believing Christians must follow the way of Herr Doktor, the implication being that if you don’t, you’re not a true Christian.

Either the Bible is clear on this, or the U.S. leaders are. As Christians, we have to make up our own minds who to follow.

You then quote several bible verses to bolster your point, again the implication being that the bible verifies your opinion.

My point was that yours is simply an opinion and I quoted a few bible verses which speak about war directly. I also stated that the Lord himself commanded his followers to war from time to time.

You continue to quote the “Blessed are the Peacemakers” verse. The implication being that peace can be achieved only through non-violent action, or no war in this context. History – not to mention the bible itself – contradict this very belief.

You then continue to say you follow the words of Jesus, who didn’t use violence (barring his throwing the tax collectors from the Temple). I countered that Jesus himself will engage in a very destructive war according to the last book of the New Testament to overthrow the anti-Christ (Satan) on Earth.

I agree that the bible is open to interpretation, of course it is. But as with most things from the supporters of Herr Doktor, it seems the only ‘interpretation’ you will allow is your own.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 3:50 PM

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I am not “attempting,” I am “making” the case per what Jesus words were. You read further than that because you put your own onus on it. You then try and reach to a conclusion that something that hasn’t happened yet refutes Jesus view on war. You’re reaching bud…

Your calling Paul “Herr Doktor” shows your bias. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Blessed are the Peacemakers. You prefer to slander rather than discuss Paul’s point of view. Take a look at the video again and point me to another candidate that understands just war theory. Pick one. The Bible is clear in what Jesus states about peace. Feel better now?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Nice selective quoting, but there’s your trouble with honesty popping up again. My post was in response to someone saying Paul wants an nuclear-armed Iran. I responded with a quote from Paul that refutes that lie. Of course, you chopped that part of the quote off.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Typical libtard hypocrisy, denial and selective justification Froma. If you don’t understand what’s being said, maybe you shouldn’t use the quote. Anyone can say they don’t want a nuclear Iran, or they don’t want war, or “all I want is world peace, lalalala” (EVERY miss America contestant). But is it just throwing out PC talking points or do you have a real clue HOW to do something about it? You’ve shown it’s the former. Regardless of how he started the quote, the rest of the quote that YOU included shows clearly that he doesn’t understand history or how to actually prevent a nuclear Iran – so his “I don’t want a nuclear Iran” is nothing but fluff.

Here’s a quote you really need to consider:
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” —Mark Twain

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Congress did indeed issue a declaration of war through the use of the authorization of force.

dominigan on January 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Nonsense. http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM

We could – but since we can’t even protect our own borders from illegal immigrants and drug runners, we would have a tough time stopping terrorists from coming in the same way. And even if we brought ALL of our troops home and put them on the borders, it violates posse comitatus and other laws to use the military for law enforcement activities – which is how Paul defines anti-terrorism. These battles are better fought as away games, otherwise our homeland becomes the main battlefield – as Israel is dealing with.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It’s not that we can’t – it’s that we WON’T.

Were local police forces authorized to detain suspected illegals, instead of being sued by Eric Holder, and were deportations not being canceled by the federal government, and were sanctuary cities such as Houston not allowed to countenance widespread lawbreaking, and were illegals not given free medical care, free education, exemption from traffic and insurance laws through catch-and-release, we COULD protect our borders.

For chrissakes, we built the Hoover Dam and the Empire-State building during the Great Depression. We can seal our borders if we try.

cane_loader on January 17, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Typical libtard hypocrisy, denial and selective justification Froma.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:00 PM

And the personal attacks continue, but really, that’s all you ever have.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Ah, a fellow Tom Woods fan.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM

cane_loader on January 17, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I agree with you on that point – I suppose I could have worded better. But with Obummer in charge, we “can’t” do any of what we could and should be doing. I’d say my “can’t” is more aimed at the Dems not allowing the states to do anything – and sure as hell not helping.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Get over it Froma – or stay out of the debate. As long as you question others’ honesty and intelligence you’ve got no ground to stand on – just hypocrisy and whining.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:45 PM

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Are you a twelve-year old? You sure are behaving as one.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM

If I was, it would still put me above your intelligence level. Get out of your Mommy’s basement and get a clue about the real world.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Biased about what? Herr Doktor? You bet.

About Jesus? Not really.

Its always amusing when a Paultard gets rattled. The mask slips.

Other than my saying ‘Herr Doktor’, nothing in my comments had anything to do with him. I was talking about you.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Biased about what? Herr Doktor? You bet.

About Jesus? Not really.

Its always amusing when a Paultard gets rattled. The mask slips.

Other than my saying ‘Herr Doktor’, nothing in my comments had anything to do with him. I was talking about you.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM

And you would never make a good attorney as you don’t stick with the “issue.” I am never rattled and if you care to take your Christ like candidate versus Paul, I am more than happy to debate.

Did the same thing with the Malkin worshipers 4 years ago. McCain was your chosen one. How’d that work for ya against Obama? How do you think the youth will vote this time around after being lied to by neo-conservatives and neo-liberals?

And it’s not about me. It’s about His word and yours versus mine interpretation of it. But I’m not judging your interpretation, just your use of the term “Herr Doktor” and its negative insinuations without factual relevance. It’s rather childish.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I don’t really see this as Newt “destroying” Ron Paul’s foreign policy argument. I’ll admit he answers poorly and draws some weak comparisons, but there are two major points to take from this.

First, Paul’s final response about not needing to get into yet another war as appears to be the case with Iran is entirely valid, and entirely supported, as it receives just as big an ovation as Newt’s ludicrous line about Andrew Jackson, which is the second major point.

Newt’s argument about Andrew Jackson isn’t a real comparison, it’s a stupid applause line aimed at people who are too riled up about ‘Murrica to realize just how stupid it is.

Jackson fought in the Revolutionary War. He was a man, living at home, when foreign troops came to his homeland and attacked. He was taken prisoner, starved nearly to death, and got that saber to the face as torture for refusing to clean a British officer’s boots. He went on to defend what had become our turf again in the War of 1812, again against the British, and became a hero for it.

He became a hero for DEFENSE, not for OFFENSE, though he displayed plenty of the latter as well, in taking 20 million acres of land from the Indians during the War of 1812, and later just seizing Florida from Spain, an act for which he was internationally denounced.

aic4ever on January 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I’m not sure if there are still any Baby Dr Paul fans on this thread. If there are you might want to tune in the Mark Levin show. He is preparing an endorsement for Baby Dr. Paul.

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

For someone who claims not to get rattled, your response sure is testy. As usual, when a Paultard is called on their crap, the only recourse they have is to get nasty.

For your benefit, as I’ve explained before, I use the honorific Herr Doktor because that’s what he is right, or are you the only Paultard who doesn’t acknowledge his gynecological prowess?

As to any negative connotations of the phrase, they are implied by you alone or those who support him who might be more inclined to embrace such terminology.

Typical of the Paultard: Complain he doesn’t get enough attention, then b!tch when he gets it. Complain when he isn’t addressed in the proper fashion, b!tch when he is.

As far as debating candidates/policies/etc what’s the point? I tried debating you on scripture and you got all pissy.

I could sh!t you a pile of silver dimes and you wouldn’t be happy.

Of course, I realize I have devolved into the use of crass and profane language but at least I’m better than your anti-semitic, racist, homophobic conspiracist crank of a candidate.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

As far as debating candidates/policies/etc what’s the point? I tried debating you on scripture and you got all pissy.

I could sh!t you a pile of silver dimes and you wouldn’t be happy.

Of course, I realize I have devolved into the use of crass and profane language but at least I’m better than your anti-semitic, racist, homophobic conspiracist crank of a candidate.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Been arguing with the Paulian horde I see….. I gave up on it, they are simply dishonest, vindictice little control freaks. They demand the absolute right to tell you how you can speak, and what the subject will be, then when you still destroy their glassy eyed qoutation of the gospel of Paul,… they call you names, question your intelligence, then explain how you’re a joo loving warmonger…

They aren’t strict Constitutionalists, not when it becomes clear, they only spout those lines because they think it supports their fevered desire to cause Israel’s destruction. Every single Paultard could take their ball and run home to mommy and I’d just tell em to not let the door hit em in the ass. They aren’t welcome, not when they spout “warmonger” to vets, for having served their country in wars they don’t approve of… name one they did? They even go so far as to say, many of them, we should never have fought Germany, since they didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor..

That Germany actually declared war on us the next day… they didn’t even know.. then they jump to, well,… if we weren’t helping the British,.. coming full circle to the blame America first principle of every useless Paultard.

They should run away and go third party,..

They then can get used to being as popular as the libertarian party, the American Nazi party, and the American Communist party..

They say it’s about the Constitution, but it’s really about crazy anarchists, neonazi’s, blaming America, and cutting our friends throats, while french kissing our enemies like Iran..

The GOP would rise emensely in moral authrity, by giving them the boot.. they make it plain, they care about themselves, and the rest of America could drown, and they’d shrug… not in their budget, not their problem…

The end point for me, was when someone went after Hawkdriver for being career military, implying it was a socialist position and organization.. I can’t imagine why they worry about the wars, they never volunteer anyway,.. but feel free to ridicule better men than they’ll ever be. I’m not the only vet to be repulsed by them,. .. they should all run back to Stormfront.

mark81150 on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Ron Paul LIED – people DIED!!

HEY – PAULNUTS: “Osama Bin Laden was NOT a Chinese Dissident!!”

Newt is RIGHT!!

williamg on January 17, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Wow, I think I just watched a video of Ron Paul’s brain melting down. That was pitiful.

Midas on January 17, 2012 at 11:13 PM

mark81150 on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Well spoken. It does get annoying hear them pretend like their beliefs line up with the founders view of America. Our very first war as an independent nation was against Muslim militants (pirates) who sought to destroy the unbelievers. Its too bad Ron Paul wasn’t around back then so he could have come up with some reason why a brand new America was responsible for Muslims waging war on merchant ships passing through the Mediterranean coasts.

NeverLiberal on January 18, 2012 at 12:26 PM

When General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! 31

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it? 32

NeverLiberal on January 18, 2012 at 12:33 PM

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

War is a fact of life — and all those in favor of whorled peas will learn that if they try to implement their world vision.

And, if war is a fact of life, then you want to be the biggest, friendliest warmonger of them all.

unclesmrgol on January 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

And on Oct. 10, 2001, he introduced the 2001 Bill of Marque and Reprisal that authorized the president to capture or kill bin laden, al qaeda, and any other conspirators by any reasonable means.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Are you aware of the reason why nations no longer issue letters of marque or reprisal. I guess there’s all those inconvenient treaties which Paul would have to abrogate as a consequence.

We now call privateers pirates — uniformly.

unclesmrgol on January 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM

cartman, you were the one who uses debate tactics of a sophomore in high school. I don’t have to lower myself to your standards. Good luck to your candidate…they’ll need it more than Paul will as they can’t win without those you mock voting for them. See where your skills get you? Nowhere. My guess is your are in your early 20′s based on your language. Probably still in college.

Paul’s message will live on and your candidate will go back to running his companies or in the case of Newt, disappear.

Fed Up on January 18, 2012 at 2:19 PM

War is a fact of life — and all those in favor of whorled peas will learn that if they try to implement their world vision.

And, if war is a fact of life, then you want to be the biggest, friendliest warmonger of them all.

unclesmrgol on January 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

War is not a fact of life for Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, China, Korea, Australia, who all have better economies and stronger currencies than the United States. How we doing with our debt anyway?

Fed Up on January 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM

mark81150 on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM

They say it’s about the Constitution, but it’s really about crazy anarchists, neonazi’s, blaming America, and cutting our friends throats

Neo-conservative is closer to Hitler’s neo-nazi my friend. Look it up.

They should run away and go third party,..

This just shows how dumb some of the neo-conservatives are. Paul goes 3rd party and what does that do for you? You lose. But you will lose with the war loving, big spenders Romney, Santorum and Newt anyway. It’s laughable that neo-conservatives support those who cant’ do math.

Remember…you got McCain last year and Paul didn’t run third party. This year, he has the numbers to do what he wants. And you mock us…

Fed Up on January 18, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Fed Up on January 18, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Now you pull the condescension card? Really? That’s the best you got? You get all snippy in your other retorts then you want to play the “I’ll not lower myself” chestnut – and then doing exactly that by making fun of my possible age, etc.

You guys really are a piece of work.

Here’s a newsflash for you: We mock you because you deserve it. You brought it on yourself.

To be honest with you Fed, I don’t give a rats rear end who you – or anyone else – supports, as long as its not Obama. You want to idolize Herr Doktor, fine. What bothers me is the sycophantic cult worship most of you have for the guy. You’ll excuse anything, justify anything, look over anything – no matter the evidence or contrary opinion.

That is why you are mocked. We mock the Obamatards for the same thing.

catmman on January 18, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Naïveté, thy name is Ron Paul.

Scrappy on January 18, 2012 at 6:19 PM

War is not a fact of life for Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, China, Korea, Australia, who all have better economies and stronger currencies than the United States. How we doing with our debt anyway?

Fed Up on January 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That would quickly change if we follow Paul’s foreign policy. We thought that would work after WWI, but it didn’t. Our isolationist policies allowed Hitler to seize power and and rebuild Germany’s military power. And Germany then became allied with Japan who attacked us, not for attacking it, but for standing in the path of expanding its empire. Without the US global presence, all the countries you mentioned who soon re-arm and the tensions would begin again.

As far as our debt is concerned, it’s no due to military spending so much as entitlement spending. If we don’t back off of the domestic spending including Obamacare, the only way to balance the budget will be to increase taxes, which is what Democrats want so that they can keep spending and kick the hard choices down the road. Nobody with Ron Paul’s ideas has won widespread support in modern history.

flataffect on January 19, 2012 at 3:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3