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

[Masih ad-Dajjal on January 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM]

Um, because the country refused to extradite OBL.

We don’t know whether the Argentines would have complied with the demand that Eichmann be extradited, if we made it. However, if the same pressure had been applied to the Argentines as had been applied to the Afghans, I believe your point would be moot.

This same analogy applies to OBL and Pakistan. See, also, Pancho Villa.

Dusty on January 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The Taliban doesn’t give a damn about anything but keeping foreign forces outside Afghanistan. I say we oblige them.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Why do you hate Afghan women and children?

Vince on January 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The benefits of the bootie found in the compound were lessened because Obama or Paneta announced publically that they were recovered, giving the enemy the warning of the need to make changes.

democratsarefools on January 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Why do you hate Afghan women and children?

Vince on January 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM

When Afghan women and children start sharing a common bond of citizenship with me, then I will start giving a good goddamned about them.

Until that day as Afghanistan is our 51st state, however… they

are

on

their

OWN!!

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM

They also hope the War on Drugs continues, lest their main source of revenue might dry up. Thanks, socons!

EddieC on January 17, 2012

Ummmmmm
The vast majority (95%) of Afghan opium refined into heroin goes to Europe, Great Britain and Russia. Let them deal with the “TollyBon”.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Umm…why did we go into Afghanistan in the fist place? Because the TALIBAN had invited foreign forces into their provinces to train to kill Americans, dumbass.

Al-Ozarka on January 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

See, I seem to remember George Bush giving the Taliban an ultimatum… to turn over OBL, or we’re coming in.

So, what exactly would we have done if they had, in fact, turned over OBL?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

EddieC on January 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I know you would like your selective amnesia about the stated goals of Al Queda to establish a worlwide caliphate to spread to the rest of us just so you can smoke your dope. Unfortunately for you, that’s not the case. Did you happen to notice the terrorist bombing in Iraq a few weeks ago, after we withdrew troops from that countrty? Why do you think they did that? Why did they do that while we were there? Is that how they get back at us, for our war mongering, by killing fellow Muslims?

celtnik on January 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM

See, I seem to remember George Bush giving the Taliban an ultimatum… to turn over OBL, or we’re coming in.

So, what exactly would we have done if they had, in fact, turned over OBL?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

What? Is this a trick question? What’s your hypothetical point?

Vince on January 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM

So Herr Doktor supports his stance against the killing of OBL by coming out in favor of the Iraq war – which he opposes.

Principles…

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I thought Al-Qaeda was responsible for sept 11. I thought the Taliban was an allied? Didn’t they help us to defeat Russia? Why all the Paul haters so angry now-a-days?

[Capitalist75 on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM]

No permanent allies, only permanent interests.

The Taliban refused to extradite OBL. Congress passed an AUMF which generally identified that those who harbored Al Qaeda were essentially the same as Al Qaeda. The Taliban fit that definition precisely at the time and, I’d argue, since they have not surrendered, still do.

Ron Paul doesn’t get it because he is stuck on his threads of principle from which he weaves an absurdly looking garment, which most everyone realizes is invisible.

Dusty on January 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM

So, lemme’ see if I got this straight…

Our forces captured Saddam by first bombing the hell out of Iraq, and softening them up enough to get to the spider-hole.

But, “bombing countries all over the place is wrong.”

Our forces killed bin Laden by violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, but not bombing.

But, “We shouldn’t be violating other countries’ sovereignty.”

And, “We should have captured him alive.”

Sounds like, a Monday Morning Quarterback, just making it up as he goes along.

franksalterego on January 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Ron Paul is an illogical, quirky, kooky embarrassing, conspiratorial coot. Period. I know 9 year-olds who can put together a more logical, comprehensible paragraph.

How any thinking person can review his entire portfolio of positions, actions and articulations then still believe this guy is actually Presidential material, is beyond imagination.

Marcus Traianus on January 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Paul came across as a bumbling, confused, pacifist, roll over and play dead, old coot. We’d be in serious trouble if he got that infamous 3 am call.
Newt definitely ripped Jaun a new one – good job.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM

What’s with the goofy laugh that Ron Paul has? It may be his natural laugh, but he sounds like a loon.

onlineanalyst on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Gabby Hayes.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Ron Paul will neither be asked nor accept serving in any administration. He has not a single clue as how to work with ANYONE, other than maybe Lew Rockwell. The sole reason he has been able to be re-elected as a congressman has been his ability to BRING HOME THE BACON.

Kermit on January 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Good article on grandpa’s porky ways here: America’s Most Hypocritical Earmark King

This is the guy to depend on to get our finances in order?

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM

kingsjester on January 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM

So are you a dispensationalist? Might help understand why you are quoting Genesis.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I was hesitant to weigh in on this when I saw That Dr Paul was in the Post. I don’t know what it is about him as I have said before he makes me sleepy. With that said here goes. Dr Paul seemed extra un……..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Things For Some Christians To Ponder About U.S. Foreign Policy http://bit.ly/Christiansandwar

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Things For Some Christians To Ponder About U.S. Foreign Policy http://bit.ly/Christiansandwar

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Thanks for the nudge, I might have slept the day away. Can non Christians have a look too?

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Paul came across as a bumbling, confused, pacifist, roll over and play dead, old coot.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I thought Paul’s condescension was most remarkable.

No wonder he’s been so ineffective in congress.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

What? Is this a trick question? What’s your hypothetical point?

Vince on January 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM

My point is that we’re spending billions of dollars chasing a bunch of primitive nomads all over Hell for ten years for the sin of not turning over someone who is now fish food. Oh, and an ancillary point is that we’re never going to wipe out the Taliban, as they cross borders and hide amongst the people. Trying to wipe them out is like trying to keep back the ocean with a broom.

Time to move on from Afghanistan. Something tells me al Qaeda has already done so.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Romans 13:4 – For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It was directed towards Christians. Why do I have to include anyone else? Should I label all my comments so as not to offend a particular group? You first.

I have no issues with non-Christians as I “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And when you morons vote for Romney or Gingrich over Obama, you’ll be voting for slightly less socialism, and in four years you’ll be crying, “Whhhhaaaaaaaaa!!!!! We voted for smaller government and didn’t get it! WHHAAAAAA!!!!” like little babies.

libertarianlunatic on January 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Things For Some Christians To Ponder About U.S. Foreign Policy http://bit.ly/Christiansandwar

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The old (rarely explicitly stated) argument – God wants you to sacrifice your neighbors to terrorists, tyrants, etc.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Revelation 19:11-12: 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Not sure I understand your point of view there shinty…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

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

Paul certainly came across exceptionally poorly here.

He might have had a point except for one huge fact that Newt drove home: How could we trust the Paks? As Newt said, nobody believes that Pakistan officials were unaware of Bin Laden’s residence one mile from a military base. It may or may not have been a secret kept from Karzai, but at best someone close to him would have passed the information on and when our SEALs showed up, Bin Laden would have been gone. At worst, we could have lost all of our guys.

This may be the only thing The One has done right, though I can’t agree with his decision not to allow some pictures of Bin Laden to be shown — not necessarily gruesome ones but maybe from the burial at sea.

EconomicNeocon on January 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Let me know what version of the Bible you are using so I don’t take what you say the wrong way. I am using King James version.

In the old testament, when Israel was with God, they won the wars. When they were against God, they lost. The New Testament is quite clear on what Jesus would do. Perhaps you have a different interpretation. But Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. Did you support that war and why?

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

It was directed towards Christians. Why do I have to include anyone else? Should I label all my comments so as not to offend a particular group? You first.

I have no issues with non-Christians as I “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Certainly not, you can offend whomever you want. Breaking people out into groups might eventually lead to pitting one group against another…Oh wait thats already the case. Thanks for waking me up all the same though.

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM

EconomicNeocon on January 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM

The U.S. is aware of drug smugglers crossing our borders while our troops protect 130 other nations borders. Paul wants a national defense, not an international defense. Talk about an open invitation to Al Qaeda. Remember that guy from the Apprentice who rode an elephant with a Mariachi band playing across our border?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Remind me again why I should give a damn about the Taliban?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Does September 11th, 2001 ring a bell, jackass?

HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

But WE caused that, don’tcha know. It was America’s fault and WE forced bin laden to have his people attack us.

How do I know this, you may well ask.
Because Ron Paul said so. Neener, neener.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM

If Newt wanted votes from the Paul camp, he’d be trying to convince us he can take the argument for classical liberalism to the general electorate.

Instead, Newt has spent his time attacking Romney from the left and spewing incoherent hostility at everyone around him.

Newt has failed on his own and needs to go away now. Sadly, all the candidates are terrible.

jhffmn on January 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM

So I direct my comment towards “some Christians” and you take offense. Interesting how your perception is of the English language. I can easily break people out into groups when I am addressing that particular group. The Quakers and Puritans did it long ago when breaking away from their own tyrannical government. Doesn’t mean one was superior to the other. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. Doesn’t mean they didn’t write a good Constitution that dictates we should “declare” war before going off to fight them.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Paul is a Morally Repugnant Buffoon, knee deep in Moral Relativism to justify his Anti-Americans, Anti-American Sovereignty, Anti-Defense, Anti-Constitution views in favor of Islamist and the Enemies of Christendom.

Ron Paul: Sanctions are War, but 9/11 Massacre was a Crime

Ron Paul: Globalism and International Law trump defending the Constitution. Pakistani Sovereignty Trumps defending and placing first American Sovereignty

The Kucinich/McGovern/Chomsky worldview is not Christian, its godless.

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

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.

You missed his point, Ed. The point wasn’t how we got Saddam, the point was that we captured him, we sought info from him, and he faced a trial and a verdict – which is what Paul said should have been done with Obama. Being against the Iraq War and that specific bin Laden operation doesn’t mean one has to deny facts and reality.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

The founders were Polar Opposites of RuPaul. Particularly on their views of War and Defense, as well as what the Constitution actually said and meant.

Thomas Jefferson for example, Totally opposite of RuPaul’s Utopian Suicidal ANti-American Delusions.

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You missed his point, Ed. The point wasn’t how we got Saddam, the point was that we captured him, we sought info from him, and he faced a trial and a verdict – which is what Paul said should have been done with Obama. Being against the Iraq War and that specific bin Laden operation doesn’t mean one has to deny facts and reality.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

are you really this stupid?

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM

So I direct my comment towards “some Christians” and you take offense. Interesting how your perception is of the English language. I can easily break people out into groups when I am addressing that particular group. The Quakers and Puritans did it long ago when breaking away from their own tyrannical government. Doesn’t mean one was superior to the other. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. Doesn’t mean they didn’t write a good Constitution that dictates we should “declare” war before going off to fight them.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I took no offense at all. Sorry if it appeared as if I had. Just woke up from a nap , you know.

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

If Newt wanted votes from the Paul camp, he’d be trying to convince us he can take the argument for classical liberalism to the general electorate.

Instead, Newt has spent his time attacking Romney from the left and spewing incoherent hostility at everyone around him.

Newt has failed on his own and needs to go away now. Sadly, all the candidates are terrible.

jhffmn on January 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I’m not too sure any other Republicans can get RP primary votes. His primary voters include significant numbers of democratics either out to cause mischief, or genuinely interested. In either case they go home to Bammie in the general.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

jhffmn on January 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Newt is the Classical Liberal.

Paul on the other hand is an Anarcho-Capitalist whose entire BASIS was founded in the REJECTION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

[Comment deleted for multi-thread spamming, user banned — Ed]

LeeSeneca on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Not sure I understand your point of view there shinty…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Some of my christian friends would make the argument (especially during the Bush years) that fighting, war, etc. are wrong. From my view, then the alternative is to allow tyrants, terrorists, and others to have their way. Which means that innocent people will die. These christians’ argument, though never clearly stated, was that God, in the name of peace, wants us to allow our neighbors to die.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

catmman on January 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Except the Bible also says that man can’t possibly know the will of God. Therefore, how can you (or any man) determine when war is righteous in the eyes of God, or by extension make any claim of said war being righteous? To do so would be to claim that you know God’s will, which is clearly blasphemous.

Often, those who claim the most piety are in fact the most blasphemous.

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Glenn Beck is hammering Ron Paul this moring on his radio show. Ron Paul is done.

America is safe.

NickDeringer on January 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Too bad Glenn, who is aleays talking about how important the truth is, has to lie about it.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I’m not too sure any other Republicans can get RP primary votes. His primary voters include significant numbers of democratics either out to cause mischief, or genuinely interested. In either case they go home to Bammie in the general.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I don’t think they’ll vote for BHO a second time. I believe some will vote for the nominee and a few will go with BHO, for spite, but I also believe a big chunk of them will stay home.

Norky on January 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So as I was saying, Dr Paul sure was on top of his game last….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

jp, I see you are still at it with your anti-Ron Paul stance. How did that McCain guy work out for you? At least Paul knows economics, to wit the winner Obama has taken us further into the black hole that Bush had dug (prescription drugs, wars, TARP).

Declare the wars per Article 1 Sec. 8. Not too much to ask for. It is the law of the land…till you ignore it and get things like the Patriot Act,
TSA, NDAA, SOPA etc. all in the name of fighting the war on terror right? Bush, Obama, more of the same. Ron Paul stands alone.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM

And yet you support the noted warmonger Paul who voted for the invasion of Afgahnistan.

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Does September 11th, 2001 ring a bell, jackass?

HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The Taliban attacked us on Sept. 11?

And let’s not forget, this man as recently as 2007 said that Lincoln was wrong to go to war (forget the fact that the South fired the first shot) and should have worked with the Confederate States to save the Republic.

jcelephant on January 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ah, a member of the Lincoln cult. Lincoln was wrong to go to war, and there were events that preceded the firing on Fort Sumter. It didn’t start with the shot fired.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I had no idea a word could get beyond the text box :)

Bunsin2 on January 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Understand your point of view shinty…it may be tough to distinguish why others want to fight, whether it be use or each other. Naturally a world of peace is preferred by all, and naturally when attacked, one has the right to defend oneself. This is not being a pacifist mind you.

The U.S. can’t afford to be the policemen of the world any longer. We can utilize letters of marquee and reprisal per Congress and the Constitution. It is a better alternative than marching off to (undeclared) wars that in the end, just cause more havoc, innocents killed along with our own. This won’t sink in to neoconservatives until there is a draft.

Remember, 40% of the youth vote for Ron Paul as they have to sign up for selective service. If/When the call is made to institute the draft because people like Paul Krugman think war would be good for the economy, then you reap what you sow voters of war. I choose the only peace candidate; Ron Paul. Obeying the Constitution is a good starting point and I don’t think it’s asking for much in agreement. What say you?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

No worries…thanks…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:11 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

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.

I love Hot Air Ed but the truth is that I’m very irritated by this line of reasoning. Hot Air as well as other erstwhile conservative outlets have been unmerciful in their treatment of Newt Gingrich to the benefit of Romney. Then when Newt does something good, the line is “it’s too late.”

Here’s an idea, how about a new narrative that goes like this: Mitt Romney currently has 20 delegates out of a convention that will have more than 2040. He still needs like 1000 delegates to secure the nomination. Important states like Florida still haven’t been heard.

How about we stop talking about the inevitability of Mitt Romney and let the challengers duke it out for another month?

Jeez.

eaglephin on January 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

are you really this stupid?

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Yes Froma/dante is that stupid. He/she doesn’t understand the difference between capturing a head of state to turn him over to his own people for trial and execution vs killing the head of an international terrorist organization that is divided into autonomous operations cells. The best intel avialable from UBL was in the computers, papers, and cell phones in his compound. As a prisoner, he would still be a figurehead that al qaida would use to threaten more terrorist activities if we didn’t release or trade him back.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Perhaps the new POTUS can appoint Ron Paul to a post as ambassador to Afghanistan.

TimBuk3 on January 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

On top of that, it appears he’s also a closet Confederate coward.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Ron Paul sure seems to defend Iran and Pakistan fiercely, guess he’s got a soft spot in his heart for Islamists, those sneaky Nazi joooos though keeping poor muslims in “concentration camps”, well that’s a different story ……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

golembythehudson on January 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Paul proposed a golden rule foreign policy. The crowd amazingly booed. I think it says more about the neoconservative desire for endless war, everywhere, than it does about Christian just-war theorist Paul.

As for Bin Laden, Paul is fine with taking him out. Paul VOTED FOR the AoMF after 9/11 to go get Bin Laden (the moderaters didn’t even know this!?). It’s just that it would have been nice to collaborate with Pakistan if possible, and also capture OBL alive and try him, if possible.

NewLiberty on January 17, 2012 at 12:33 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

It won’t do any good. For example, he’s convinced Jefferson wasn’t a non-interventionist.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I supported going into Iraq at the time but only as a means to surround and invade Iran, one of the chief sponsors of terrorism. Since we didn’t do that and instead turned it into a futile nation building effort, in hindsight I was wrong to support the post 9/11 invasion of Iraq.

At the time of the invasion I did have some reservations because I felt that Pakistan should be the primary target. Iran was secondary, and the only strategic purpose of invading Iraq was because of it’s location in the region and the access it provides to Iran. By invading Iraq while letting the Afghanistan and Pakistan conflict slide we made a strategic mistake. Instead of concentrating our efforts were they were most needed in a response to 9/11, instead we got bogged down in a decade long proxy war and nation-building exercise.

And now that our troops have exited Iraq and it’s falling apart the futility of it all has been exposed.

So even though I am actually quite hawkish, and am on the record here at Hotair over the years in that regard, I think that in hindsight Ron Paul was right to oppose the invasion of Iraq.

Not that I agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy in every regard, but the fact is that the neo-con foreign policy has been a failure. The Arab Spring that they supported is spreading Islamism across the ME. The “religion of peace” garbage after 9/11 mislead the American public.

If after 9/11 Bush had taken the Ron Paul approach and leveled with the American people about who the enemy were and that war was necessary then he should have gotten a declaration. If Congress didn’t go along then he should have redoubled his efforts to convince the America people of the necessity. Congress could make their case to the people too, and eventually if America was behind the war effort Congress would have to go along or they would be replaced.

Instead of the “religion of peace” BS and the proxy wars and nation-building we might have actually accomplished something more than a waste of blood and treasure in Iraq.

FloatingRock on January 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

He/she doesn’t understand the difference between capturing a head of state to turn him over to his own people for trial and execution vs killing the head of an international terrorist organization that is divided into autonomous operations cells. The best intel avialable from UBL was in the computers, papers, and cell phones in his compound. As a prisoner, he would still be a figurehead that al qaida would use to threaten more terrorist activities if we didn’t release or trade him back.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I was explaining Paul’s point, which had nothing to do with any of what you just wrote. Seems to be a trend with you …

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Ron Paul sure seems to defend Iran and Pakistan fiercely,

golembythehudson on January 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Defended Pakistan… by saying we should cut off aid to them.

Just like he defends Israel.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I had no idea a word could get beyond the text box :)

Bunsin2 on January 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Yes it can, use it wisely.

B

more on January 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

No worries…thanks…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Good deal. You’re welcomed.
Oh and thanks to both of you for waking me up again. I have got to figure out what it is about …… well you know that makes me so sleepy. I’m just going to leave this thread now before, well you know.

Bmore on January 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

What’s funny about that video is that even after that, L. Ron Paul Hubbard’s followers will tell everyone that he won. He could have had a stroke on that stage (and maybe had) and he would have won as far as the Paultards are concerned.

Sometimes the devotion is scary, the rest of the time it’s funny as hell.

Pcoop on January 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Obeying the Constitution is a good starting point and I don’t think it’s asking for much in agreement. What say you?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

If congress were to declare war, I doubt president Ron Paul’s willingness or capacity to be commander-in-chief. I just don’t think he has it in him.

I don’t like saying this (because I have friends who like him), but I think Paul will do whatever twisting of logic is necessary to blame his country for whatever international problems arise. Then excuse himself for doing nothing, imagining that at least he’ll save money.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Al-qaeda is no where near being defeated in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region……they are regrouping and will continue to grow stronger as we retreat:

Senior Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban leaders meet with Baitullah

By Bill RoggioJune 21, 2009

Senior al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban leaders are reported to have met with Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud to advise him to move his group’s operations into Afghanistan and halt attacks against the Pakistani state.

Al-qaeda is already establishing new bases in Afghanistan and will continue to establish strongholds in Libya,Yemen,and now back in Iraq:


U.S. Afghan Pullback Lets Taliban Open New Bases, Pakistan Military Says

By Haris Anwar and James Rupert – document.write(dateFormat(new Date(1309490972000),”mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z”));Jun 30, 2011 11:29 PM ET Fri Jul 01 03:29:32 GMT 2011
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/u-s-afghan-pullback-lets-taliban-open-new-bases-pakistan-says.html

A U.S. pullback of troops from northeastern Afghanistan over 20 months has let Islamic guerrillas establish bases in the area and carry out unusually large attacks on Pakistan in recent weeks, the Pakistani military said.

…and of course the Taliban and al-qaeda support each other 100% and have the same goals….so to say that we are safer by declaring the Taliban is “not our enemy” and al-qaeda is being “defeated” defies all levels of reality:

Al Qaeda brokers new anti-US Taliban alliance in Pakistan and Afghanistan

By Bill RoggioJanuary 3, 2012
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/01/al_qaeda_brokers_new.php#ixzz1iY4JJZ6e


One of al Qaeda’s top leaders has reached out to the most powerful Taliban commanders along the Afghan-Pakistani border to create a new alliance to battle the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The new alliance, which is called the Shura-e-Murakeba, consists of four major Taliban groups that operate in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The four groups that make up the alliance are the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, which is led by Hakeemullah Mehsud and his deputy, Waliur Rehman Mehsud; Hafiz Gul Bahadar’s group; Mullah Nazir’s group; and the Haqqani Network. Each leader has appointed a deputy to represent them on the council.

Leaders in our own military have taken the very rare stance of speaking out against a Presidents decision making while we are still at war:

Marine Corps commandant: Obama’s withdrawal timetable is giving “sustenance” to the Taliban

“We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011,” Gen. James Conway told reporters on Tuesday. “In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance….In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’”

The withdrawal in Iraq…..the withdraw in Afghanistan is nothing more than retreat.The Jihadist see this and are on the march while the Obama administration begs them for a peace surrender agreement that will mean nothing more than political cover during an election. The enemy is not only still strong….we will actually leave them stronger than when we first came into Afghanistan.

We have essentially turned Iraq over to Iran and al-qaeda is now launching attacks and gaining strength there on a daily basis.

The cries of Gitmo and “pissing on dead bodies” increasing jihadist recruitment and anger are nothing compared to the excitement and emboldened feeling that America’s retreat is giving them.

The jihadist have sworn to do everything in their power to destroy us and are not going away.Surrendering hard fought gains and appeasement foreign policy is not going to make us safer now just like it did not make us safer in the past.

Baxter Greene on January 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

You missed his point, Ed. The point wasn’t how we got Saddam, the point was that we captured him, we sought info from him, and he faced a trial and a verdict – which is what Paul said should have been done with Obama. Being against the Iraq War and that specific bin Laden operation doesn’t mean one has to deny facts and reality.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

So, even though he’d be “morally opposed” to it, RonPaul would rather that we had invaded Pakistan (after, of course, dropping bombs all over the place) to capture osama bin laden; and put him on trial for the “crime” (not, act of war) of the events of 9/11/01.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM

If congress were to declare war, I doubt president Ron Paul’s willingness or capacity to be commander-in-chief. I just don’t think he has it in him.

I don’t like saying this (because I have friends who like him), but I think Paul will do whatever twisting of logic is necessary to blame his country for whatever international problems arise. Then excuse himself for doing nothing, imagining that at least he’ll save money.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM

He actually voted to go after Afghanistan shinty. But the point was to go in, take bin Laden out, and be done with it, not stay there 10 years. That didn’t work out to well for Russia and it’s not working out well for us.

As to your last paragraph, it’s actually the opposite. He 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. Heck the Swiss had to sell much their gold and change their currency just to weaken it! We borrow from anyone who will lend…till perception of strength of currency changes in the world.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:47 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

This is a perfect example of why RP and his supporters are so clueless. You paint Amy discussion from people who actually want the federal government to exercise their obligation to DEFEND THIS COUNTRY from outside threats as war mongering. Then you balk when people express doubts that RP is actually interested in national defense. You and RP deny the threats that radical Islamists pose to our society, and that is why your “golden rule” approach to foreign policy is viewed by realists as insane and suicidal.

You just don’t “get it.”

JannyMae on January 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Newt is the Classical Liberal.

Paul on the other hand is an Anarcho-Capitalist whose entire BASIS was founded in the REJECTION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

jp on January 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The difference between a Anarcho-Capitalist and a Classical Liberal is that an Anarcho-Capitalist believes in the elimination of the state. RP is a kook, but he doesn’t believe that.

Newt is a lot of things, but he is most certainly not a Classical Liberal. I’d call him a technocrat.

Anywho, the problem with RP is that 20% of his ideas are crazy. But the other 80% are spot on and in the direction we should be moving as a party.

jhffmn on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Amy=any.

Drat you, autocorrect!

JannyMae on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

So, even though he’d be “morally opposed” to it, RonPaul would rather that we had invaded Pakistan (after, of course, dropping bombs all over the place) to capture osama bin laden; and put him on trial for the “crime” (not, act of war) of the events of 9/11/01.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM

We shouldn’t need to invade Pakistan. They are, on the face of it, a friendly government. We have normal relations with them. 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

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Thanks Dante…I know he has studied history. I want peace now. We can’t afford this attitude any longer.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

As a prisoner, he would still be a figurehead that al qaida would use to threaten more terrorist activities if we didn’t release or trade him back.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

As opposed to him being an inspirational martyr for those same folks now?

These are radical fundamentalist religious zealots. OBL dead or alive makes no difference… he’s either a figure to rally around alive or a martyr for the cause to be lauded in death. His death was purely for justice/revenge on our part. And I have no problem with that at all. I was personally pleased to see us go in and get him. But that said, I doub it either helped or hurt the terrorist cause… for as many as it may have demoralized, it serves as martyrdom to others. You simply can not kill every terrorist, especially those motivated by this level of religious zealotry. To even try is silly beyond belief. We can do our best to protect ourselves here at home.

gravityman on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Well, its a given that you don’t know what you’re talking about and can’t follow logic in any way. You’re apparently just throwing out ridiculous comments with nothing to back them up, and then denying what it’s about – typical Froma Harrop liberal. You’ve proven over and over that you’re likely an Obamatron pretending to be a Paulbot. You still don’t have a clue what you’re saying.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM

. Ron Paul stands alone.

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Nah. He’s got all those deluded followers keepin’ him company and funding his retirement account.
Not to mention all his pals at Stormfront.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM

The U.S. is aware of drug smugglers crossing our borders while our troops protect 130 other nations borders. Paul wants a national defense, not an international defense. Talk about an open invitation to Al Qaeda. Remember that guy from the Apprentice who rode an elephant with a Mariachi band playing across our border?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:05 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

As for Bin Laden, Paul is fine with taking him out. Paul VOTED FOR the AoMF after 9/11 to go get Bin Laden (the moderaters didn’t even know this!?). It’s just that it would have been nice to collaborate with Pakistan if possible, and also capture OBL alive and try him, if possible.

NewLiberty on January 17, 2012 at 12:33 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

Thanks, ‘slickwillie2001′

Gabby Hayes – indeed. It’s been rolling around in my noggin who he minded be of. He should let his beard grow out and say ‘durn tootin’ LOL

Bob in VA on January 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

So, even though he’d be “morally opposed” to it, RonPaul would rather that we had invaded Pakistan (after, of course, dropping bombs all over the place) to capture osama bin laden; and put him on trial for the “crime” (not, act of war) of the events of 9/11/01.

Solaratov on January 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM

That is not the argument he was making, so no.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You and RP deny the threats that radical Islamists pose to our society, and that is why your “golden rule” approach to foreign policy is viewed by realists as insane and suicidal. JannyMae on January 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Why don’t we bomb Dearborn, Michigan then? Just sayin… http://bit.ly/PeacePresidentPaul

Saudi Arabia where 15/18 of the hijackers came from and home to the most radical Muslims, the Wahhabi’s…and our leaders direct our troops to go after Iraq? We support Hussein then go after him. We support bin Laden and then go after him. What kind of foreign policy is “insane and suicidal?”

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Your grammar is as poor as your logic, and your scaremongering garbage fools nobody but your fellow NeoCons.

I’ll give you this, though…it doesn’t seem like there are enough Americans willing to stand up to the like of you. And that includes the lefties.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 12:56 PM

We shouldn’t need to invade Pakistan. They are, on the face of it, a friendly government.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I’m really curious to where you are picking up these perceptions. I’ve spent three solid years near the boarder. I didn’t see any hint that Pakistan was a friendly government, maybe at some time in the decades past they were at best indifferent. But Friendly? They have had stronger relations with Russia and China than at any time with the US.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I was explaining Paul’s point, which had nothing to do with any of what you just wrote. Seems to be a trend with you …

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I don’t care what you think you were explaining – if you think it had nothing to do with what I said, then you don’t understand the situation, you don’t understand Paul’s point, and that means apparently Paul doesn’t understand what he’s saying either.

dentarthurdent on January 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Why does it seem that every time someone describes Romney’s performance in a debate the writer says “Romney did well, or at least well enough….” The nomination has been Romney’s to lose since the beginning because he has been anointed, not because he strikes any chord within “the base” and other than Ann Coulter not with conservatives generally. The GOP helped the liberals drive every conservative out of the campaign, and we are left with deciding which of the rich, middle-aged white guys in power suits is going to go up against the First Black President.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on January 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

MelonColliem

You can attack grammar and typos but not the ideas. What is your challenge or logical objection to what I have said. I’m interested in hearing. I promise I won’t attack your grammar or your bathing habits.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

We are in agreement on a strong national defense. Unfortunately, our soldiers are protecting other borders while ours the drug smugglers pass through daily as well as many illegal immigrants. How about we at least secure our borders before those of other nations? Our navy and air force is more than capable of handling things from a short distance should problems arise. But hey…why take away from the economies of Japan, Korea and Germany? They need our money to support their own GDP…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Its time for some of you to wake up. No matter what you think about Ron Paul, HE IS NOT GOING TO EVER BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

He may have some great ideas on monetary policy.
He may have some points on over sea issue.

The folks supporting Ron Paul have two choice, (Florida or SC),
Vote for Paul = a vote for Mitt = a vote for Obama.
Vote for Newt or Santorum or Perry = we have a chance.

Plain and simple. You can get pissed, you can disagree, you can put together some long post response on this blog about how you love Ron Paul and how he is the only man that you can vote for. At the end of the day, with all that said, I repeat, “HE IS NOT GOING TO EVER BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED SATES”

Sorry, now can we move on.

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 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

Read Constitutionalists Robert Turner on the subject for starters, there is a reason that a Declaration has only been used 5 times in the well over 200 Military Engagements abroad.

Further, in regards to Afghan and Iraq both had War Resolutions debated and passed by Congress.

Jefferson sure didn’t seek a “Declaration of War” for the Barbary Wars, against Jihadist AND their STATE SPONSORS when he ordered the Marines to Invade North Africa.

Nor was he talking about it while writing his famous “Empire for Liberty” letter to Madison. Plotting taking over Cuba at the time.

jp on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

how lovely….

A letter on congressional letterhead, dated August 30, 1979, from Paul thanked a Mr. Amos W. Bruce for “the copy of the article in The American Mercury and the copies of your essays. I found them all very interesting.” The American Mercury was an anti-Semitic magazine owned by Willis Carto, one of America’s most notorious holocaust deniers and the founder of The Liberty Lobby. The issue of The American Mercury Paul praised included essays entitled, “You Can’t Escape the Kosher Food Tax,” “Are You Ready for the White Man’s Doomsday,” and “Racism – Black African Style.”

The February 1988 Political Report alleged that a female terrorist who bombed a disco in Berlin frequented by American servicemen (an operation backed by the Libyan government) “was in cahoots with Syria, or Israel’s Mossad, which always seeks to stir up anti-Arab feeling here.”

those sneaky joos….

The June 1990 Political Report Paul complained, in the context of deported war criminals, of “the anti-German bigotry that the Nazi spectre is used to stir up” and suggested the creation of “a German Anti-Defamation League.”

no idea where that one was going, but i assume a general defense of nazi war criminals?

The February 1991 Political Report alleged that Israel’s “supporters in this country were the most bloodthirsty for war” against Iraq. “And why, would someone please explain to me, are we supposed to be so grateful to Israel because it lets us fight its war?” it asked. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “was Israel’s enemy. This poor country of 17 million with a GNP less than 1% of ours, was no threat to us, despite the hysteria of the Israel First Lobby.”

those bloodthirsty joos, we’d get along with innocenr muslims if it weren’t for their insatiable lust for killing!!

The March 1994 Survival Report alleged that “the purpose of ‘AIDS education’” is “to keep the truth about AIDS from getting out. And this goes way back. Scientists originally named it GRIDS – Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome – until the homosexual lobby succeeded in getting the origins of this disease disguised.”

the gay lobby!! the gay lobby!!

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two?page=0,1

golembythehudson on January 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The folks supporting Ron Paul have two choice, (Florida or SC),
Vote for Paul = a vote for Mitt = a vote for Obama.
Vote for Newt or Santorum or Perry = we have a chance.

kara26 on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Ridiculously horrible logic.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

’m really curious to where you are picking up these perceptions.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Gee, maybe from our US Department of State, which for decades has argued in favor of us giving them tens of billions of dollars.

Sounds like a friendly government to me. Well, that, and the fact that we have full diplomatic relations with them.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

jp on January 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

do you have anything against letters of marque and reprisal as an alternative to sending troops (lives, costs), yes or no?

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

You missed his point, Ed. The point wasn’t how we got Saddam, the point was that we captured him, we sought info from him, and he faced a trial and a verdict – which is what Paul said should have been done with Obama. Being against the Iraq War and that specific bin Laden operation doesn’t mean one has to deny facts and reality.

Dante on January 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

SO you think if we had gone the Iraq route here, invaded openly, captured Osama, and put him on trial… Ron Paul would have supported the US actions in this hypothetical alternate reality?

Or would Ron Paul have opposed this action exactly as he opposed the Iraq war when we did this with Saddam?

I think it’s safe to say the only reason Ron Paul claims to support this choice is because we DIDN’T do it… if we had done it he’d have opposed it vehemently, exactly as he has done in the past and continues to do regarding the Iraq war.

The only acceptably American Foreign Policy action in Ron Paul’s eyes is whatever we didn’t do; nothing we actually do is acceptable.

How you can miss seeing this point when it is clearly and explicitly made is confusing to me.

gekkobear on January 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

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

We are in agreement on a strong national defense. Unfortunately, our soldiers are protecting other borders while ours the drug smugglers pass through daily as well as many illegal immigrants. How about we at least secure our borders before those of other nations? Our navy and air force is more than capable of handling things from a short distance should problems arise. But hey…why take away from the economies of Japan, Korea and Germany? They need our money to support their own GDP…

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Reasonable response. Securing the boarders is indeed of a good concern but as well, a rational immigration policy and enforcing current laws on the books would also go a long way.

I’m a little lost on how the Navy can contribute to protecting our borders though unless you meant our coasts. With the way Paul and Obama wants to slash an already gutted military force I don’t see how even that would be possible.

You need people on the ground, The Air Force is just a support force. We can condone Drone attacks on Mexican family crossing now can we?

Let’s also discuss that Military spending is not JUST for suppprting military members and bases, Contractors and Entremeneurs provide the brains and genius behind all our weapons. Nothing is produced by our government. These, I’m sure, are classified as NeoCon Crony Corporations by the Left and Libertarians.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

FTFY, you dipstick.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Yep, Libertarians act just like the left when it comes to confronting others. Attack, insult and state no case of rational opposition.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3