For me, the best car speakers are neither too heavy on the bass nor too heavy on the treble….

Nice!…

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the “mission is accomplished”, the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can’t be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn’t require they surrender their liberties.

Ron Paul

Between you and Darknight, I don’t know who’s more polite. “Polite liberals”. Shudder. Wotta thought!

CC,

I said nothing that would cause you to categorize me as a “liberal.”

Ron Paul is running as a republican correct?

There was still no answer to the fact that the republican party has changed from its roots. This is what I take issue with.

Perhaps you (and many on this forum) should read this from the GOP website again, especially the part about “extending peace:”

Republican Principles

I’m a Republican Because…

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

We can agree to disagree, however, H.J. Res. 64 authorized only a “use of force” and did not “declare war.”

That’s splitting some mighty fine hairs when use of force means moving military men and machines into another country to physically remove a dictator.

Once again, there are no moves in courts by anyone, even though so many ultra left people hate Bush. Again, this gets complicated, but surely the lack of any meaningful suit against Bush or the government must inform you of the fact that your viewpoint is legally insubstantial.

especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction,

Yeah, that poor, misunderstood murderous monster. There is a difference between being honest and being wrong, Fed Up. According to some of his scientists, Saddam believed that he did have chemical weapons because they told him they, themselves, were making them. He thought he did. that isn’t the same as telling the truth by any meaningful interpretation. Besides, more and more evidence is slowly emerging that chem weapons were there and then moved. After all, I’m sure we can agree that he didn’t use them all up when he gassed thousands of his own people.

The war is legal. If you know something all the left-wing zealot lawyers in the world don’t, then by all means inform them of how to bring this President down legally via the judiciary.

Sorry. You’ve been misinformed.

Between you and Darknight, I don’t know who’s more polite. “Polite liberals”. Shudder. Wotta thought! Thanks for the interesting debate.

We can agree to disagree, however, H.J. Res. 64 authorized only a “use of force” and did not “declare war.”

Regarding an investigation into congress:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 4, 2004

“Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War

There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.

Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad information is a good investment. The administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice so much in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that surely will last for years to come.

But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress– as we’re now scrambling to accomplish– clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened– and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.

There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country– the decision to go to war– was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people. If we followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.

The president reluctantly has agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures, and that is good. Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry. We can hope for the best from this newly appointed commission.

But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere. If the commission avoids the central controversy– whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration– the commission will appear a sham.

Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point– the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning. Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002. The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then. We should have debated a declaration of war resolution. Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country. This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence. The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season. Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process.

It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.”

I’ll let you have the last word and thanks for the discourse.

Fed Up

In short, what Congress told the president with the passing of the AUMF was “You decide when or if we go to war with Iraq. Just let us know shortly after.”

Right.

Therefore, every single member of Congress who voted to transfer this power to the president violated the Constitution. And, the president violated the Constitution by not refusing this illegal transfer of power.

Wrong. I won’t go into the constitutional law to explain why you goofed up on this one because my posts are generally 400 percent too long as it is, and this one would take up a full page. Suffice to say that if what you sayu is true, that this matter would have been brought up before the Supreme Court by every left-wing group imaginable. It hasn’t been nor will it. That must surely inform you that whatever crime you think has been committed simply has not.

The President recieved a legal authorization to use military action, in part on the basis that we already had that when the late and unlamented Saddam broke his first of 17 UN resolutions. But you know what? I promised that this wouldn;t be long and I’m already going there.

If what you say was true, legal action would already have been taken. It hasn’t contrary to all common sense on the part of the President’s detractors. It never will. That must surely tell you everything. You’ve been misinformed. Sorry.

Dont’ get me wrong, I’m NOT in favor of a democrat President, especially Clinton and I never implied this.

Here’s what you need to understand about the current situation in Iraq:

Ron Paul believed that if a war is sought, it must be fully approved by Congress with a complete declaration of war, which would allow total resources to be dedicated to victory. This did not happen.

“There is a huge difference between the following: “authorize the executive’s use of military force”, and voting for a “declaration of war”. They are not the same.”

“In 2002, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Military Force” (AUMF). Although Congress claimed that this legislation “satisfied” the requirements of Article I, Section 8, it did not.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war. It authorized the president to make that decision on his discretion. Thus, the AUMF was a transfer of the war-declaring powers to the excecutive branch – which is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.

In short, what Congress told the president with the passing of the AUMF was “You decide when or if we go to war with Iraq. Just let us know shortly after.”

Therefore, every single member of Congress who voted to transfer this power to the president violated the Constitution. And, the president violated the Constitution by not refusing this illegal transfer of power.

It’s pretty simple. When one branch breaks the law, it’s up to the others to “check” that branch. But, unfortunately, all three branches have been ignoring the plain English of the Constitution for decades.”

Fed Up (from planet Earth)

I answered your question politely and then you go on a diatribe about what was approved, who wants what and who will win in 08.

Congress approved the war in Iraq – remember, Kerry voted for it before he voted against it even when Hillary voted for it – one reason the far left are attacking her. What planet have you been on?

Yes, a majority of the people don’t want war. Virtually nobody does. But when asked if they would have the war and put off another 9/11 or put off the war and have another 9/11, they choose the war. I think you’re eating precious bandwidth in the wrong place – the people on this board know the facts. I feel confident that you won’t change anyone’s mind here.

Yes, Ron Paul is against the war. By his own admission he also wants to do away with homeland security, the CIA, the FBI and I think Medicare (I agree with him that we need a new tax system and should abolish the IRS, but he isn’t alone on that) so the chances that he will be elected in ‘08 are only slightly better than the chances are that you will be elected President in 08. If you want to throw away your vote, that’s your business. As for me, I’m going with the guy who certainly isn’t conservative-perfect, but has the strongest record and is the one guy I feel who, with that record, can fight off the Clinton Destruction Machine to victory in ‘08, and we can’t have any Bob Doles this time around – whoever goes up against the Clintons is going to have to be tough and proven as hell, because as we all know, the Clintons play the dirtiest game in town. That puts you and me on rather opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of voting intentions: you are voting your ideals out of conscience, and I’m voting a practical compromise because I don’t want Hillary/Reid/Pelosi to turn this country into a socialist nightmare in 4 years – out of conscience.

gayle said:
‘Nough said. Consider the source.

Gayle,

From military (dot) com – perhaps you trust them?

Aug. 28, 2007:

“The Pentagon is asking National Guard troops and their families to make sacrifices like never before in Iraq and other hot spots, the Army’s chief of staff told a conference bringing together citizen-Soldiers from across the country.

The National Guard has taken a battlefield role whose scope is unprecedented in American history. At one point in 2005, half of all U.S. combat troops in Iraq were National Guard.

Of the 352,000 members of the Army National Guard, 57,000 are mobilized for duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Horn of Africa and other locales, said Lt. Gen. Clyde A. Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard.

Of the total 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today, almost 30,000 are National Guard Soldiers.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told the conference Monday that old notions about the National Guard are obsolete.

“The distinction between the Guard and active forces – a distinction that once was so clear – is now virtually undetectable,” the Republican presidential candidate said.”

August 11, 2007: “Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush’s new war adviser said Friday.”

August 10, 2007: “After missing its monthly recruiting goals for two consecutive months, the Army is expected to announce Friday that it met its target for July. Though the number recruited in July was not available Thursday, the Army had signed up roughly 52,000 of the needed 80,000 recruits by the end of June.

The recruiting shortfall in May was the first time in about two years that recruiters didn’t meet the goal for the Army, which is under great strain from serving repeated and lengthy tours of duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to increase its overall size.”

‘Nough said. Consider the source.

PBoilermaker said:
I’ve got news for you Fedup, we voluntarily take an oath when we join the military and nothing in that oath exempts us from fighting in a war because we are “just in the armed forces to support a family or pay for…college education”.

That has to be one of the most idiotic reasons I have yet heard to justify pulling our troops out of Iraq.

True, they do volunteer for this service to our country. But here are the facts from the House Armed Services Committed: “The current operational deployment schedule has placed tremendous pressure on active duty troops; the committee is concerned that if the current deployment pace continues it will have a long-term adverse impact on our forces, particularly the ground component.”

There is tremendous stress on military forces and their families fueled by multiple deployments and minimal dwell time between deployments. Do you think this is what they signed up for? Ask their wives/husbands.

Are individuals rushing to sign up to fight this war? “ABC News has learned the Army missed its recruiting goal in June for the second month in a row, falling 1,400 short or about 17 percent off the goal. It’s the first time in more than two years that the Army has missed recruiting goals for two consecutive months.”

Things aren’t the same as they were before this war in Iraq started and they won’t be getting better soon.

You may have “volunteered” to serve this country and thank you for that. I don’t want my child to be drafted to fight unaproved wars. “If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the god of “equality.” Conscription is slavery, plain and simple. And it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.” Ron Paul

It is silly that you say the crazy things you do AND that you have internet access.

Call me crazy, I don’t care. …and by the way, I can exercise my free speech because the first amendment to constitution gives me that right. The same constitution ignored by congress in going into Iraq. It hasn’t worked before and it won’t work this time. By Nov. 2008, those who support a candidate that is for the war will understand this. I won’t and that is why I am voting for Ron Paul.

The party has not changed. The world has. On Sept 11th two towers fell, killing 3,000 people in the aggregate on our own soil, for the first time since Pearl Harbor, with more devistating loss of life than in 1941. We’re the party of practical solutions. The war was brought to our shores. Now we have to fight and win it or suffer more of the same. That’s not complicated, and I applaude our party for seeing it and sticking with it, no matter how tough that might be.

CC,

Thanks for the reply.

The Republican party did in fact go after the ones they deemed responsible for 9/11, the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was voted on in Congress and Paul voted for this as well as most democrats. The Iraq war, was not approved by congress…same as the Vietnam and Korean wars. 70% of Americans don’t want this war. If there is nothing done to get the troops out of Iraq by Nov. 2008 (or before), none of your top tier Republican candidates stands a chance of being elected.

I’m voting with the majority of Americans who don’t want war. That vote will be cast for Ron Paul. Either way, I don’t see the other candidates, all of whom are for this war and many who want to take it to the next level by attacking Iraq, getting elected in the next election.

When choosing between socialists ideas and no war, “no war” is what Americans want. The polls say so.

Personally, I don’t want socialist health care or any other “New Deal, Same as the Old Deal” FDR type, government can solve everything, candidate as our next president. I believe in Free Markets and the Austrian perspective.

Alternatively, I’m not going to live my life in fear which is what all the other Republican candidates are campaigning on. It’s the only way “they” stand a chance.

Unfortunately, this will also be there downfall.

All I am asking for is a return to that which was.

It was a time to put the liberals to bed and let the grownups discuss serious matters.

Now if only we could remove the dwarves from the stage and let the top tier candidates debate each other at length.

Respectfully,

eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com