Ron Paul - A Surprising Republican

This is extremely concerning because it shows an extreme lack of judgment about long term issues and consequences. It seems that Paul only focuses on the here and now.

Perhaps we should have never gone to Iraq. Paul is probably right on that. But we did. We are there. And we can't unring that bell. Now we have to do what is right to attempt to secure the long term future rather than the immediate political issues.

I think this statement by Paul is indicative of someone without wisdom and judgment who is unqualified to be the commander in chief.

When you can't think past today, you are not qualified to lead.

 

I still believe we should set up a permanent base there. We have them everywhere else.

 

That wasn't exactly the goal. The goal included a viable functioning government able to defend its land. That goal has not been accomplished.

They are involved, being trained to take over.

This is simply false on its face. Immediate withdrawal would plunge Iraq into disaster which would allow the extremists to take over and terrorism and insurgency to run the country. The long term viability of hte Iraqi government is the responsibility of the Iraqis to be sure. But we, in this situation, must help them, just as we did with Germany and Japan.

Immediate withdrawal is not an option. We have to be concerned with more than how to appeal to politics and get your name in the news. We have to be concerned with more than the immediate.

Of course, a supporter of Ron Paul will never understand this.

 

As you wish...

 

A "representative government" that could not stay in power on its own without the security screen provided for it by the US military is not a representative government, in my opinion.

The officially stated goal of the war in Iraq was not just to remove Saddam and establish a representative government. It was to remove threats of terrorism to American interests in both the Middle East and around the world. Since those terrorist threats to American interests did not exist in Iraq before the war, extricating ourselves is going to be difficult. I'm all for immediate withdrawal, except that if we do, the instability that will dissolve into a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites will make Iraq into a terrorist base, just as it did in Afghanistan and Somalia. Instead of stopping the spread of terrorism, Bush will have opened the door to yet another country to which it will spread.

I hope that whoever the Democrats nominate for the White House in '08 is already working on some kind of comprehensive plan to clean up this gargantuan mess, because that's the individual who is going to be saddled with the responsibility of taking care of it, and the American people aren't going to trust a Republican to get it done.

As far as Ron Paul goes, I have trouble discerning whether he's a brilliant, true libertarian, or a nut case. He can wear both faces. It's a moot point, though. He won't even draw double digit percentage points in his own party.

 

I'd like to hear more from Ron Paul, but I know it won't matter.

I fear we are going to be stuck between Hillary and Hillary-lite (Rudy).

 

No they didn't. You read too much into the election. Furthermore, the American people 1)were not entrusted with the deployment of troops anywhere (as much as a constitutionalists as you claim to be you should know that) and 2) cannot be expected to have an informed opinion on the matters at hand. They have neither the knowledge nor the experience to make determinations in this area.

The election of 2006 was certainly about disatisfaction, but not entirely about the war. And that is irrelevant anyway since they are not the ones in charge.

 

Do you really think that foreign policy decisions and military decisions should be made by people with little knowledge and little training?

Come on, Ken. You know better. We go to doctor's for a reason. When it comes to health, they have the training and background to know causes and solutions. They are experts. When it comes to foreign policy and military, we should expect no less.

You really think that the average American knows anything substnative about Iraq? They get their few minutes of news coverage from the sound bite driven news media. They have seen no intelligence reports. They have no idea what "military readiness" involves. Many of them probably can't find Iraq on a map and have no idea of the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

Why should they be making decisions? We have a republican form of government for that very reason. Our founders were smart enough to agree with me on this principle.

That would be a good question. We could ask the same question about welfare, paying government salaries, building projects and the like. It's not just the war in Iraq.

 

Yes, we have a democratic republican form of government, is the exact term. That government is not just the President and the rest of the executive branch. That includes the Congress, and yes, the Congress switched hands in November due to ineptness of the executive and legislative branch before it.

You keep harping on how dumb the American people are, and how the executive branch has the latest handy dandy up to date intelligence report. Those reports really did a lot of good in 2002, didnt they? They were either faulty intelligence, or we have been lied to. I suspect both. Maybe in your part of Michigan the average American has a hard time understanding the issues, not here.

You put people who have proven over and over again they have no leadership ability or common sense on a pedestal. You know, if you keep repeating the same mistakes, you get the same results. That means if something does not work, do something different.

Regardless of what you think, this whole government structure is the servent of the American people, who are footing the bill and sending the troops to die. The troops and the people have a right, to demand competent leadership. Maybe you see things different. Maybe you think the executive branch should be honored without question.

 

Yes, to a large degree.

I haven't harped on that at all. In fact, I have never said they are dumb. Go back and read, and be more careful with my words. I said they are not knowledgeable on foreign policy and military issues. How in the world can you dispute that? You really think the general American public is qualified to make military decisions? You think they are qualified to make foreign policy decisions?

There is a huge difference between being dumb and being uninformed. I have no idea of the ins and outs of cancer. I would go to a medical professional for that. My doctor has no great handle on car repair. So I would go to a mechanic for that (after I messed it up trying to do it myself). The fact is that in neither case is intelligence and mental capability the issue. Neither I, nor my doctor, nor my mechanic are dumb. It is simply that they are not equipped to comment on certain other fields.

The same is true with foreign policy and military. Not being qualified to manage these areas does not make one dumb. Remember, the American public that is now against the war was at one time overwhelmingly for the war. The public is notoriously fickle. Remember that when you read polls. We cannot govern that way.

Apparently the problem is there since you don't even understand what I said. You apparently thought I was saying the American people were dumb, when I never said that. That is not the issue. The intelligence was apparently faulty. Whether or not there was intentional deceit is not entirely clear.

Who and where have I done that? I think this adminstration has shown some great ineptitude. I don't lay it all at the feet of the president. Managing something the size of the federal government requires multiple layers of responsibility. Bush has not done a good job overall. But it is not all his fault.

And the Democrats are standing in the way of that, voting to not support the troops by sending reinforcements, threatening to pull funds. Ron Paul is, unfortunately, right there with them. He is just another politician.

Yes, they are the servant in some respects. They are also the government.

Yes, and they voted for Bush and he was elected. Twice. That's the way the system works.

Honored? Yes. I think the government should be honored at all levels. That doesn't put them beyond question however.

Right now, we have a government that is failing massively at all levels. We are spending way too much money, and neither the Dems nor the Repubs will cut it. We are at war, and we have people publicly trying to create another Vietnam. We have people asking to bring our troops home as failures, and asking them to leave the lives of 3000 dead soldiers in failure rather than winning and helping the Iraqis establish a solid government and train soldiers.

So perhaps we do see things differently.

There is no doubt that Bush has not been the kind of leader he promised to be.
There is no doubt that there has been mismanagement in many areas. (There is also no doubt that Bush is not responsible for all of that.)
There is no doubt that Iraq has been badly managed on many levels.
There is no doubt that the Republicans have no viable solutions.
There is no doubt that the Democrats have no viable solutions.
And there is no doubt that Ron Paul is not, at this point, serious candidate for the presidency. If that changes, I will gladly consider him. I am greatly disturbed, at this point, by his shortsightedness. But some time in the spotlight running for a major office will perhaps help that.

If we see things differently, then we do.

 

You have several positive points. The one I agee with the most is that democrats are not the answer.