Captain's Quarters -

He has much in common with the Left: he cares much, much more about the nutters in the mideast than he does about the civilized people (I am thinking of the voters of Iraq).

Such a man is not truly on the side of civilization.

The implicit message the Ron Pauls of the world give is - terrorist tactics work.

Want us out of the Middle East? Blow up the Twin Towers. We'll cut and run.

Hey, and if you don't like the price of tea in china, don't like your little girl watching Madonna videos, don't like your wife buying a new dress and want the price of oil to be $100 a barrel so you can fund new Islamic education centers - hurl a few bombs, kill a few Americans and the Ron Pauls of the world will be there to "feel your pain" and ask what we can do to help you.

Those Middle Easterners who hold peaceful demonstrations and stand up to your evil regimes in Syria and Iran - you're just troublemakers who should be ignored.

Kill a few Americans and then we'll talk, says Ron Paul.

Here's the top 3 winning tickets order of preference:

1. F. Thompson/Gingrich
2. F. Thompson/Huckabee
3. Gingrich/Huckabee

And can someone lay off the Southern Idiot thing on the webcast today? :) I'm Southern but I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot..

Russell Kirk was against the first Iraq war, just as I am against the current Iraq war. ( Political Errors at the End of the Twentieth Century, 2/27/1991)

The Battle of Derna was not a war, it was the equivelent of a modern special forces operation. It's a conservative MEASURED response.

The battle consisted of less than a few hundred people! We sent a total of 10 US Marines! Get real, and learn your history.

Ron Paul is all for going after those who would attack us. He's most certainly ready to defend the US. He's continueally stated that he's ready to take down Al Queda.

You're using his reasonable response to the war in Iraq to color him as a break-and-run "scardie-cat."

He's also one of the biggest supporter international trade too - again you're coloring him in the wrong light.

And Guiliani is farthest from the conservative ideal of all the candidates, sorry to speak the plain truth here.

We were saying "idiom", not "idiot", meaning he was talking in cliched.

If Ron Paul is a "classic Republican," then I'm a goose-steppin' Leftist.

"He's most certainly ready to defend the US. He's continueally stated that he's ready to take down Al Queda."

Once they reach our shores? I'd rather kill them where they live, thank you.

"He's continueally stated that he's ready to take down Al Queda."

Well that's great, but how does he presume to do that from here? Does he really think we can leave the Middle East and "take down Al Qaeda" remotely? How exactly?

Won't we need allies? Who will just be flocking to us, when we follow Ron Paul's plan and abandon the Iraqis to Al Qaeda? Those Al Jazeera videos of Al Qaeda beheading our Iraqi allies in the streets, will just have "moderate" Muslims flocking to our side, right?

What Congressional District does Ron Paul represent, Pluto or Uranus?

NoDonkey - we have the greatest military in the world. We have the largest intelligence network, as well.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think that all-out wars will quell these guys. It's true - they won't back down until we take them out.

But wars only spread our resources thinner, lower our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and honestly don't get the job done in the most efficient manner possible.

There's no logical reason to think we can't and won't be able to take these guys down where ever they hide.

And need I remind you - we had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 - read the commission report! What failed us was the beaurocracy between departments. Breaking down this beaurocracy and forming tighter, leaner, more informed anti-terrorism agencies should be our real goal.

Homeland security isn't doing that. The potential attack on Fort Dix wasn't foiled by homeland security, was it?

The attackers were there, gathering weapons and monies. They were ready to attack. A freakin clerk at Circuit City saved us.

"He's continueally stated that he's ready to take down Al Queda."

Happydog

AQ is not only in Iraq they are now causing most of the bloodshed in that country. Anyone who says they want to fight al Qaeda but wants to withdraw is full of hot air.

Withdraw and concede Iraq and we will end up fighting a bigger AQ. They are being decimated in Iraq and their repuation in that country is in the toilet because of their tactics of killing innocent people.

Muslims are now taking the fight to AQ in Iraq and Paul wants to abandon them. This is extremely short sighted -so short sighted one could describe it as a classic liberal approach..

There is nothing unpatriotic about this statement: "We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

There is nothing unpatriotic about this statement: "We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

Terry -

AQ was not in Iraq until we brought the war there. It's admirable that Muslims are finally combatng AQ.

I went to, and spoke with Russell Kirk at his lecture series, I studied with conservative professors. I'm no liberal.

But wars only spread our resources thinner, lower our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and honestly don't get the job done in the most efficient manner possible.

What is the most efficient manner? Dialogues? Boycots? Sanctions? UN Resolutions?

The fact is we need dozens of methods and there are times when nothing short of war will achieve our goal.

For example, Iran's nuclear program is rapidly reaching that point.

Maybe the world is better with Iran having a nuke than it would be if the US tries to stop them, but I have a feeling war (or Iran facing the very real possibility of war) is the only thing that will stop them from trying.

convivialdingo said:

AQ was not in Iraq until we brought the war there.

That is not accurate. The reality is that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda, as well as other terrorist groups.

Asymmetric war is being waged against us.

We need to do the same. As soon as the cretins come out of hiding to take over the countries that they conquer with terrorism,

We should reply in kind.

SSASSINATE Them!

I'd start with every public leader of Hezb' Allah, Hamas and the the idiot in Iran. No profit from conquest by terrorism, if you die by terrorism.

"AQ was not in Iraq until we brought the war there"

Happydog,

Did your conservative professors teach you logic?

Zarqawi was not al Qaeda? Ansar al Islam are not Islamofascists? Saddam was not running terrorist training camps at Salman Pak?

You are wrong on these facts but even if you were right it's completely irrelevant whether they were there before the liberation commmenced. They are there now and the reason they are there is because they understand what a democratic Iraq will do to their plans for a caliphate.

But even their opposition to democracy isn't the deciding factor.

The deciding factor is al Qaeda declared war on America and they are in Iraq fighting America. The America-Iraq coalition now has a chance to deal al Qaeda a devastating defeat that will set them back years and maybe even finish them off as a major threat.

Surrender there and they will handed a great victory as well as demonstrating to all moderate Muslims who don't want to live under sharia law that America is the paper tiger bin Laden says it is and can't be counted on in the struggle against Islamofascism.

"
1. F. Thompson/Gingrich
2. F. Thompson/Huckabee
3. Gingrich/Huckabee
"

Thanks for the laugh.

Any ticket with Gingrich on it is dead from the baggage he carries.

And Huckabee is Southern - you don't put 2 southerners on the same ticket.

Go for the ethnic thing: Thompson/Steele maybe, or Thompson and JC Watts (depends on how good Watts is as a speaker and campaigner - he's spolidly conservative in terms of philosophy).

Or Thompson and Pawlenty. The Minn Gov appeals to swing and independents - plus he is a good speaker and campaigner, and brings into play the upper mid west

The likely one is Thompson/Romney, since Mitt Romney, Settling in for 1 term is a viable setup for Romney, behind Fred Thompson (who would probably retire after a single term to spend time with his kids if he gets done what he sets out to).

As far as Romney's presidential campaign goes, its just not getting any traction. Despite all of Hugh Hewitts pimping pumping and obnoxious used-care salesman tactics, and spending over $20 million so far, Multiple Choice Mitt , Plastic King of Flip Flops (in the publics mind apparently) cannot get over 9% nationally. Hugh Hewitt should be ashamed - his is becoming synonymous with Romney Shill. Hey Hugh, talked about Justice Harriet Myers lately? SNARK!

I thought that Al Qaeda was founded to get us "out" of Saudi Arabia, and that the oil the Saudis are selling to us belong for the sole use of the Islamic Lands.

Of course, the lefties are free to agree with Al Qaeda with their "no blood for oil" chant, but right now they can blame the Republicans for the price of gas at the pump; who will they blame if we allow Ron Paul's thinking to actually translate into action?

Paul's other gem is attempting to fit Reagan's mantle upon his own head: Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there.

The one part of Reagan's mantle with the chicken-scratch on the helmet? Pick a little, talk a little. NoDonkey's right -- they just have to kill a few of us and we go away and try to talk them into sanity. And, not being sane, they'll just step into our personal space and kill a few more of us again. Their hope is that we'll give up hope completely and convert to Islam.

Didn't we learn anything from 9/11?

NONE of the candidates in that forum can win against Hitlery - period. Fred Thompson might be able to win, but that depends on who his running mate is. I would say the best bet would be George Allen - a second best would be Huckabee.

NONE of the candidates in that forum can win against Hitlery - period. Fred Thompson might be able to win, but that depends on who his running mate is. I would say the best bet would be George Allen - a second best would be Huckabee.

NONE of the candidates in that forum can win against Hitlery - period. Fred Thompson might be able to win, but that depends on who his running mate is. I would say the best bet would be George Allen - a second best would be Huckabee.

Dang Ed...

None of the three posts above showed a completion success! Hope we can get that fixed one day soon...

Ron C

If there's anything more annoying than kos, Soros, Moore, Olberman, Matthews, CBS, CNN, NBC. the Clintons, the Kerrys, Kennedy, Reid , Pelosi, Durbin, Feingold, Biden, Hagel, etc it's a 4th post apologizing for a triple post.

When I post this I will get a message SERVER ERROR, which, trusting in God, I will ignore.

Cheers.

Ron C.

Highlarious. My last post went through without a hitch. God may not be dead but I've no doubt She is menopausal.

This comment will no doubt be posted 4 times.

Terry -

Your question "Did your conservative professors teach you logic?" has nothing to do with our conflicting information. Logic is reasoning to a conclusion based on facts - and just because my conclusion is different does not mean it is not logical. But I will give you facts.

Your response to the question of al Queda in Iraq makes it seem as if you are speaking the truth. This is pure fiction.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

The CIA also concurs with the DIA on this assesment.

I will give you a point on Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. But, again, there has been no documented evidence of any relationship between al Queda or with the Ba'ath government.

The possibility of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before March 2003 was used by the Bush Administration to justify the Iraq invasion, although recently declassified Pentagon documents reveal that there was no substantial link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Finally on the question of whether to continue the war. My view, stated again, is that we can wage a more effective campaign with less collateral damage and a higher enemy kill ratio by using special forces that more closely mirror the terrorist threat.

One Clarification:

When I said:
"But, again, there has been no documented evidence of any relationship between al Queda or with the Ba'ath government."

I should qualify that statement. There were some contacts between the regimes. But there was no terrorist funding, training, or cooperation.

From the report:
Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides “no
conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,”but believe that the available
signs support a conclusion that Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-
1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts
would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these
contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out
that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of
cooperation,training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to
manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives.

"A freakin clerk at Circuit City saved us.

Posted by: convivialdingo at May 16, 2007 3:12 PM "
And where did this clerk get the idea to report things like this. Homeland security, maybe. I wouldn't have been and wasn't reported in the 90's.
Now the evidence is in that AQ and Saddam had been pardnered since the early 90's. AQ simply acted as his agent and at his direction.

9-11 was simply the result of the 90's cut and run tactics. Now the dhimmi's want to endanger thousands of Americans, again.

Attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places. Documented facts that Paul , his cut and run pardners and supporters should read to their children, if they can read or if they are capable of having children withour murdering them during birth. Yep, I think most of the left wing democrats are cold blooded murderers.

9-11-01 got a different response.

"My view, stated again, is that we can wage a more effective campaign with less collateral damage and a higher enemy kill ratio by using special forces that more closely mirror the terrorist threat.'

Your view is nuts. Hand al Qaeda a victory in Iraq and you will multiple the threat from al Qaeda by a thousand times -minimum.

At his point-other than Mogadishu - they have not defeated America and they don't have a sanctuary with access to oil revenues. But doggyboy, if you get your way they soon will.

I'd also like to note that Paul seems to forget that Reagan's foreign policy also made a mess of Afganastan. When we pulled out after the Soviets, we left a power vaccum and weapons behind that the Taliban used to take over and later provide sanctuary for OBL. So, by Paul's own twisted logic we shouldn't even really be going after terrorists in Afganastan because it our fault that they're there in the first place. Now, he suggests we pull out again and leave another mess behind. I hope this nation will reject his isolationism and have the courage to try once more to fix what we broke because as Colin Powell said, "you break it; you own it."

Just so we are clear, Sunni tribes in Anbar -the ASC, which I've no doubt happydog has never heard of, have been fighting al Qaeda for the past 6 months. They are about to be joined by the Diyala awakening.

Happydog wants to throw all of this away and abandon these Sunni tribes and fight al Qaeda with Special Forces-as if they could do a more effective job of fighting al Qaeda alone than with the cooperation of Sunni tribes and the cooperation of the local populace.

If I were a member of Special Forces I would tell Happydog that he can shove his partisan- induced crazy ideas where the sun don't shine.

Terry -

"If I were a member of Special Forces I would tell Happydog that he can shove his partisan- induced crazy ideas where the sun don't shine."

Do you even know anyone in SpecOp? My family served the military in every American war, from the French-Indian war on. They weren't generals or officers for the most part, but they served. I contribute as a civilian contractor to the security of our nation and I'm proud of it.

But I don't agree that we're winning the war. And even if we won, the only "peaceful" regime in Iraq so far has been a tyranny. It doesn't look to be changing anytime soon, and I would not support another tyranny in Iraq, would you?

I disagree that the tactics of all-out war will EVER defeat a terrorist organization. History proves this correct, everytime. Every military knows this.

Retaliation in the form of war against terrorism always has collateral damage - which undermines the moral authority of the Army.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the CentCom: The administration behavior [has] ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption."

Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation.

Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Richard Clark, National Security Council: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Clark continues:(Immediately after 9/11)
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

Maybe you should listen to these guys. Maybe you should read Federalist #4. Why don't you go and meet a few service members. Find the definition of a "Just war."

While I do not share your views, I am at least man enough to give you respect - which is less than you give me now.

Terry -

"If I were a member of Special Forces I would tell Happydog that he can shove his partisan- induced crazy ideas where the sun don't shine."

Do you even know anyone in SpecOp? My family served the military in every American war, from the French-Indian war on. They weren't generals or officers for the most part, but they served. I contribute as a civilian contractor to the security of our nation and I'm proud of it.

But I don't agree that we're winning the war. And even if we won, the only "peaceful" regime in Iraq so far has been a tyranny. It doesn't look to be changing anytime soon, and I would not support another tyranny in Iraq, would you?

I disagree that the tactics of all-out war will EVER defeat a terrorist organization. History proves this correct, everytime. Every military knows this.

Retaliation in the form of war against terrorism always has collateral damage - which undermines the moral authority of the Army.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the CentCom: The administration behavior [has] ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption."

Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation.

Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Richard Clark, National Security Council: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Clark continues:(Immediately after 9/11)
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

Maybe you should listen to these guys. Maybe you should read Federalist #4. Why don't you go and meet a few service members. Find the definition of a "Just war."

While I do not share your views, I am at least man enough to give you respect - which is less than you give me now.

I'd like to make a suggestion. Instead of adding note after note from every wacko who wishes to expound his weird ideas about small pieces on history, as he/she believes them to have occurred, and watching your comments decompose into a debating match between two or three, or as happens more and more lately, six or seven nutcases, why don't you limit notes on one subject to three. After that, cut em off. I'm so tired of starting to read one of these discussions then having to bail out due to the nonsense. I rarely post a comment myslf. When I do, I never respond to another's response to me. Driver