Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Student Tasered For Asking Question At Forum
If you haven't done so, it is important for you to watch the Tucker show that aired 9/17/07. You can find the two most pressing segments here:
Madatory Health-care:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm...
Student tasered for asking question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBc...
They hit on everything from Hillary's health-care plan, to the true justification for the Iraq War, and Willie Geist dicusses a student who gets tasered for asking John Kerry a question at a Q&A forum! Not a fan of Tucker's point of view on War, but the whole show was very informative. Any citizen worried about the direction of their country should watch these two segments and take notes.
Madatory Health-care:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm...
Student tasered for asking question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBc...
They hit on everything from Hillary's health-care plan, to the true justification for the Iraq War, and Willie Geist dicusses a student who gets tasered for asking John Kerry a question at a Q&A forum! Not a fan of Tucker's point of view on War, but the whole show was very informative. Any citizen worried about the direction of their country should watch these two segments and take notes.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Wasted Lives And Killing Time
I can't help but notice the arguments that are being made to keep our military engauged in Iraq, or to move this failing war into Iran. We have went from "Saddam's talking to al Qaeda," to (no one mentioned we sold them to Iraq so they could kick Iran's ass) "WMDs," to "liberating a repressed people." Now the arguments for considering action against Iran are "they sponsor terrorism," to "they're developing a nuke," to "well... even if they couldn't use it against us they'll put it in a suit-case." Anyone here fail to realize that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, or that over half of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from that country.
On the issue of suit-case bombs...
If we are so worried about suitcase bombs, why are we not taking action to keep them from our shores. And no... I am not talking about bombing every individual that has ever prayed to Allah.
We have yet to develop any real means of inspecting import vessels. We haven’t even started to deal with anything realted to our physical borders. Its funny how this government (D and R alike) keeps preaching that we must stay and fight in the Middle East to keep such a thing from happening. Wouldn’t the 500 billion dollars we have wasted have been better spent securing and defending this nation instead of invading a foreign country. Even more important, wouldn't the lives we have spent been better utilized cooking up some bar-b-que before the game, battling the forces of a rival softball team, or caring for the children of now single mothers.
Right now we are allowing trucks to come in from Mexico and drive freely in the US virtually unchecked. Sounds like a good way to smuggle in a bomb. Let alone the fact that it takes even more jobs out of this country. Or… one could bet the odds and set the damn thing in a cargo container and pray to Allah that it is one of the thousands that go uninspected everyday.
Perhaps, if we had taken the time to look inward and develop truly defensive strategies maybe both the immigration and security issues ruining this country could have been solved.
Important Note: When Petreaus was asked if the war in Iraq is keeping America safe he answered, "I don’t know." Apparently, from the view-point of this President, his lackey staff, and the Congress that’s a big hell yeah. But let us not forget, “We’re kickin’ ass.”
On the issue of suit-case bombs...
If we are so worried about suitcase bombs, why are we not taking action to keep them from our shores. And no... I am not talking about bombing every individual that has ever prayed to Allah.
We have yet to develop any real means of inspecting import vessels. We haven’t even started to deal with anything realted to our physical borders. Its funny how this government (D and R alike) keeps preaching that we must stay and fight in the Middle East to keep such a thing from happening. Wouldn’t the 500 billion dollars we have wasted have been better spent securing and defending this nation instead of invading a foreign country. Even more important, wouldn't the lives we have spent been better utilized cooking up some bar-b-que before the game, battling the forces of a rival softball team, or caring for the children of now single mothers.
Right now we are allowing trucks to come in from Mexico and drive freely in the US virtually unchecked. Sounds like a good way to smuggle in a bomb. Let alone the fact that it takes even more jobs out of this country. Or… one could bet the odds and set the damn thing in a cargo container and pray to Allah that it is one of the thousands that go uninspected everyday.
Perhaps, if we had taken the time to look inward and develop truly defensive strategies maybe both the immigration and security issues ruining this country could have been solved.
Important Note: When Petreaus was asked if the war in Iraq is keeping America safe he answered, "I don’t know." Apparently, from the view-point of this President, his lackey staff, and the Congress that’s a big hell yeah. But let us not forget, “We’re kickin’ ass.”
GOP Leader: "We" Will Have Paid "A Small Price" In Iraq
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
(source: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/gop_leader_boeh.php)
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
(source: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/gop_leader_boeh.php)
Is The Dollar About To Fail?
The US Dollar is worth .49 pence (UK), .71 Euro cents, $1.04 Canadian… Light Crude hit $80 a barrel, Gold is at $720. And if that isn’t enough… China is quietly dumping US Treasuries?
A sharp drop in foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds over the last five weeks has raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States, leaving the dollar increasingly vulnerable.
Data released by the New York Federal Reserve shows that foreign central banks have cut their stash of US Treasuries by $48bn since late July, with falls of $32bn in the last two weeks alone.
“This comes as a big surprise and it is definitely worrying,” said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.
“We won’t know if China is behind this until the Treasury releases its TIC data in November, but what it does show is that world central banks are in a hurry to get out of the US. They don’t seem to be switching into other currencies, so it is possible they are moving into gold instead. Gold is now gaining momentum across all currencies and has broken through resistance at 500 euros,” he said.
China threatens ‘nuclear option’ of dollar sales
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.
Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China’s “nuclear option” in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out… you might want to brush up on your bartering skills!
(source: http://ronpaul2008nyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/who-needs-an-army-when-you-hold-900bn-in-us-bonds/)
A sharp drop in foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds over the last five weeks has raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States, leaving the dollar increasingly vulnerable.
Data released by the New York Federal Reserve shows that foreign central banks have cut their stash of US Treasuries by $48bn since late July, with falls of $32bn in the last two weeks alone.
“This comes as a big surprise and it is definitely worrying,” said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.
“We won’t know if China is behind this until the Treasury releases its TIC data in November, but what it does show is that world central banks are in a hurry to get out of the US. They don’t seem to be switching into other currencies, so it is possible they are moving into gold instead. Gold is now gaining momentum across all currencies and has broken through resistance at 500 euros,” he said.
China threatens ‘nuclear option’ of dollar sales
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.
Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China’s “nuclear option” in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out… you might want to brush up on your bartering skills!
(source: http://ronpaul2008nyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/who-needs-an-army-when-you-hold-900bn-in-us-bonds/)
Monday, September 10, 2007
Paul holds his own on O'Reilly
So the interview has ended... What did you think?
Myself I thought O'Reilly had a few lines that were a little over-the-top but... all in all it went well.
Congressman Paul was given a chance to get his point out on a popular national program, and in the end O'Reilly didn't demagogue too much. A point to note is that Dr. Paul did get to state that he did vote to go into Afghanastan (after calling out O'Reilly on a mis-quote.) He also posed that we have yet to truly track down bin Laden. You know, the guy that attacked this country. The Congressman also made the point that we must put our actions and the actions of numerous other countries in the region into account. He cited the influence of Saudi Arabia, a point people will hpoefully notice, and this only goes to show how much the Congressman does understand this conflict. The interview, for entertainment purposes, was quite bland, yet its subdued nature could allow people to digest the information they were presented with.
No matter how much of a chance Congressman Paul had to explain his Foreign Policy bona fides, I thought there was one particular moment of the night that was quite interesting. When O'Reilly asked if Paul feared Iran, the Congressman replied that he's not, but later in the interview he stated that he is concerned. That takes fortitude. The kind of fortitude a president must have. By relaying a message of consideration and concern, without provoking fear, I believe Dr. Paul might have convinced the audience (albeit unconciously) that he has the capability of being very Presidential.
One quote of consideration: "We don't need a history lesson."
Really Bill? My personal opinion... I think that is what we need most. It gives us perspective.
Myself I thought O'Reilly had a few lines that were a little over-the-top but... all in all it went well.
Congressman Paul was given a chance to get his point out on a popular national program, and in the end O'Reilly didn't demagogue too much. A point to note is that Dr. Paul did get to state that he did vote to go into Afghanastan (after calling out O'Reilly on a mis-quote.) He also posed that we have yet to truly track down bin Laden. You know, the guy that attacked this country. The Congressman also made the point that we must put our actions and the actions of numerous other countries in the region into account. He cited the influence of Saudi Arabia, a point people will hpoefully notice, and this only goes to show how much the Congressman does understand this conflict. The interview, for entertainment purposes, was quite bland, yet its subdued nature could allow people to digest the information they were presented with.
No matter how much of a chance Congressman Paul had to explain his Foreign Policy bona fides, I thought there was one particular moment of the night that was quite interesting. When O'Reilly asked if Paul feared Iran, the Congressman replied that he's not, but later in the interview he stated that he is concerned. That takes fortitude. The kind of fortitude a president must have. By relaying a message of consideration and concern, without provoking fear, I believe Dr. Paul might have convinced the audience (albeit unconciously) that he has the capability of being very Presidential.
One quote of consideration: "We don't need a history lesson."
Really Bill? My personal opinion... I think that is what we need most. It gives us perspective.
2004 Bush Strategist: Public Opinion of Iraq
I think the following points made by Mr. Michael Dowd are a decent summary of the typical citizens point of view. If 70% of the public follows this line of thought, then the Congressman Paul has one helluva shot at getting into the White House should he make it through the primaries.
1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.
2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.
3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly.
4. The war in Iraq is now seen exclusively as a foreign policy concern, and the American public no longer supports the initiative as part of national security. This is in stark contrast to the war's beginning -- at inception, the public perceived it as directly related to fighting terrorism, and thus it was seen as a domestic policy issue connected to homeland security. Not surprisingly, the public gave it broad support. Today, this is no longer the case -- the dynamic has changed and most of the public sees no "positive" relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I hope this analysis helps bolster the leaders who are ready to stand up for the troops and for the vast majority of Americans in this country. Not only is truth on those leaders' side, but politics is as well. It is my opinion that the best leaders are those who trust the will of the public, even if that means changing direction or admitting a mistake. This is true leadership and the kind of leadership our nation has always desired.
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-dowd/war-in-iraq-wisdom-of-c_b_63677.html)
1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.
2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.
3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly.
4. The war in Iraq is now seen exclusively as a foreign policy concern, and the American public no longer supports the initiative as part of national security. This is in stark contrast to the war's beginning -- at inception, the public perceived it as directly related to fighting terrorism, and thus it was seen as a domestic policy issue connected to homeland security. Not surprisingly, the public gave it broad support. Today, this is no longer the case -- the dynamic has changed and most of the public sees no "positive" relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I hope this analysis helps bolster the leaders who are ready to stand up for the troops and for the vast majority of Americans in this country. Not only is truth on those leaders' side, but politics is as well. It is my opinion that the best leaders are those who trust the will of the public, even if that means changing direction or admitting a mistake. This is true leadership and the kind of leadership our nation has always desired.
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-dowd/war-in-iraq-wisdom-of-c_b_63677.html)
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Ron Paul on "The O'Reilly Factor"
Congressman Ron Paul will be a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" September 10th @ 8:00pm. Not a show that I typically care to watch anmore, but it looks like the Media is starting to notice that Ron Paul's not going away anytime soon. I encourage everyone to watch the show as I believe it should be an interesting event. One thing's for certain, O'Reilly shouldn't be able to accuse the good doctor of "bloviating."
Well...
He may try.
(source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events)
Well...
He may try.
(source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events)
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Paul vs.Huckabee (The Showdown)
Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Mike Huckabee were involved in a very lively argument over foreign policy and issues directly related to the Iraq War. In a debate at the University of New Hampshire broadcast on Fox News the two went toe-to-toe during the most heated exchange of the evening. Here are a few of the reactions from The Huffington Posts Liveblog:
Glynnis (9:52:27 PM): Huckabee: whether or not we should have gone, we are there now.
Rachel (9:52:36 PM): Ron Paul is gooooooood.
Glynnis (9:53:01 PM): Ron Paul and Huckabee DEBATING
Rachel (9:53:08 PM): This is exciting!
Glynnis (9:53:13 PM): Huckabee says American honor trumps all!
Rachel (9:53:24 PM): And Ron Paul says that mistakes should be corrected!
John (9:54:06 PM): Wow, they are completely talking past each other, and Huckabee is not speaking with as much gusto, but this may be the most telling exchange we have seen in this whole debate season.
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger-glynnis-macnicol-and-rachel-sklar/liveblog-foxnews-gop-deb_b_63235.html)
For those of you who did not get a chance to see the event live here are the excerpts from the quarrel.
(source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295886,00.html)
[begin transcript]
WALLACE: Congressman Paul... (APPLAUSE)
Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said.
PAUL: So why not ask the people... (APPLAUSE)
... why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit. Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula. And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in the 30 more and reducing by five -- totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders... (APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this -- you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (LAUGHTER)
PAUL: No. (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war... (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (APPLAUSE) (AUDIENCE BOOING) (CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Senator Brownback, you want in on this. What do you have to say, sir?
BROWNBACK: I didn't hear your question, so I'm going to...
WALLACE: What do you have to say to what you heard?
BROWNBACK: Thank you. I think what we need to do now is look at the situation we have and now have a political surge taking place. This is Thomas Friedman's statement, but it is true.
BROWNBACK: You've got the military that has made a number of progressive steps, particularly in the west -- Al Anbar Province -- they've made progress. But we don't have a political solution on the ground that works in Iraq. Iraq is less a country than it is three groups held together by exterior forces. It's the Kurds in the north, the Sunni in the west, the Shia in the south, and a mixed city in Baghdad. And, yes, there are groups that are mixed around in that. I think we need to recognize that reality. We ought to now push for establishment of a Sunni state in the West. Still one country -- still one country, but separate states. That's a political solution that you can take advantage of what the military has done on the ground. That's what we need to do to move forward now.
GOLER: Senator, let me ask you, quickly, if you do that kind of less federation, how do you keep the Kurds in the north from fighting with Turkey, how do you keep the Shia from allying with Iran, and how do you keep the Sunnis from rebelling over having no oil resources?
BROWNBACK: How do you do it now? I mean, I think you're going to need a long-term U.S. presence in -- particularly in the Kurdish region in the north and the Sunni region in the west that you're going to have a long-term -- invited by those governments.
BROWNBACK: And you're going to need it to assure the Turks that the Kurds aren't going to pull out and to assure the Kurds that the Turks aren't going to come in. I think that's what you have to do in looking at the reality. And the next president needs to come in and know foreign policy and not learn it on the job. This is something we need to know going in. The world is flat. I ought to know that. Being from Kansas, I understand flat. (LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest national intelligence estimate, which was out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- "Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance."
WALLACE: Governor, if that's the best we can hope, should we continue the surge?
HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.
HUCKABEE: Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word...
(APPLAUSE)
... because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend. And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.
PAUL: Can I respond...
(APPLAUSE)
HUME (?): Go ahead. You wanted to respond. He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond.
PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under god. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate.
PAUL: No, we've dug a hole for ourselves and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important (inaudible) the Republican Party.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home.
(APPLAUSE)
HUME: Gentleman, thank you.
[end transcript]
After the debate, Fox News conducted a poll asking, Who do you think won tonight? It seems as though Fox has fixed the problems from the last poll conducted for the South Carolina debate in which they claimed Congressman Ron Paul supporters were spamming the polls. Those who attempted to vote more than once were sent the following reply:
Now that we know Fox News has fixed the “spamming” problem how do the final results look?
Ron Paul - 33%
Huckabee - 18%
Giuliani - 15%
McCain - 14%
Romney - 12%
Hunter - 2%
Tancredo - 2%
Brownback - 1%
Glynnis (9:52:27 PM): Huckabee: whether or not we should have gone, we are there now.
Rachel (9:52:36 PM): Ron Paul is gooooooood.
Glynnis (9:53:01 PM): Ron Paul and Huckabee DEBATING
Rachel (9:53:08 PM): This is exciting!
Glynnis (9:53:13 PM): Huckabee says American honor trumps all!
Rachel (9:53:24 PM): And Ron Paul says that mistakes should be corrected!
John (9:54:06 PM): Wow, they are completely talking past each other, and Huckabee is not speaking with as much gusto, but this may be the most telling exchange we have seen in this whole debate season.
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger-glynnis-macnicol-and-rachel-sklar/liveblog-foxnews-gop-deb_b_63235.html)
For those of you who did not get a chance to see the event live here are the excerpts from the quarrel.
(source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295886,00.html)
[begin transcript]
WALLACE: Congressman Paul... (APPLAUSE)
Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said.
PAUL: So why not ask the people... (APPLAUSE)
... why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit. Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula. And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in the 30 more and reducing by five -- totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders... (APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this -- you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (LAUGHTER)
PAUL: No. (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war... (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (APPLAUSE) (AUDIENCE BOOING) (CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Senator Brownback, you want in on this. What do you have to say, sir?
BROWNBACK: I didn't hear your question, so I'm going to...
WALLACE: What do you have to say to what you heard?
BROWNBACK: Thank you. I think what we need to do now is look at the situation we have and now have a political surge taking place. This is Thomas Friedman's statement, but it is true.
BROWNBACK: You've got the military that has made a number of progressive steps, particularly in the west -- Al Anbar Province -- they've made progress. But we don't have a political solution on the ground that works in Iraq. Iraq is less a country than it is three groups held together by exterior forces. It's the Kurds in the north, the Sunni in the west, the Shia in the south, and a mixed city in Baghdad. And, yes, there are groups that are mixed around in that. I think we need to recognize that reality. We ought to now push for establishment of a Sunni state in the West. Still one country -- still one country, but separate states. That's a political solution that you can take advantage of what the military has done on the ground. That's what we need to do to move forward now.
GOLER: Senator, let me ask you, quickly, if you do that kind of less federation, how do you keep the Kurds in the north from fighting with Turkey, how do you keep the Shia from allying with Iran, and how do you keep the Sunnis from rebelling over having no oil resources?
BROWNBACK: How do you do it now? I mean, I think you're going to need a long-term U.S. presence in -- particularly in the Kurdish region in the north and the Sunni region in the west that you're going to have a long-term -- invited by those governments.
BROWNBACK: And you're going to need it to assure the Turks that the Kurds aren't going to pull out and to assure the Kurds that the Turks aren't going to come in. I think that's what you have to do in looking at the reality. And the next president needs to come in and know foreign policy and not learn it on the job. This is something we need to know going in. The world is flat. I ought to know that. Being from Kansas, I understand flat. (LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest national intelligence estimate, which was out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- "Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance."
WALLACE: Governor, if that's the best we can hope, should we continue the surge?
HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.
HUCKABEE: Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word...
(APPLAUSE)
... because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend. And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.
PAUL: Can I respond...
(APPLAUSE)
HUME (?): Go ahead. You wanted to respond. He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond.
PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under god. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate.
PAUL: No, we've dug a hole for ourselves and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important (inaudible) the Republican Party.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home.
(APPLAUSE)
HUME: Gentleman, thank you.
[end transcript]
After the debate, Fox News conducted a poll asking, Who do you think won tonight? It seems as though Fox has fixed the problems from the last poll conducted for the South Carolina debate in which they claimed Congressman Ron Paul supporters were spamming the polls. Those who attempted to vote more than once were sent the following reply:
Now that we know Fox News has fixed the “spamming” problem how do the final results look?
Ron Paul - 33%
Huckabee - 18%
Giuliani - 15%
McCain - 14%
Romney - 12%
Hunter - 2%
Tancredo - 2%
Brownback - 1%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
