An Open Letter to Republicans

[libertarianbob01]

An Open Letter to Republicans

by Andrew Ter-Grigoryan

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ter-grigoryan1.html

This is a letter to all of my fellow Republicans, written on behalf of the presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul.

If you have been following the Presidential campaign this year, the chances are good that you have encountered a candidate whose name is Ron Paul. Though underreported by the mainstream media (shakes fist at air angrily), the Congressional 10th-term Texas Republican candidate's run for the White House has amassed untold millions and has a legion of grassroots support across America. My fellow Republicans, if you are reading this and have decided to reject Ron Paul's candidacy, please allow me to explain why I so strongly believe that Ron Paul is the man that I believe will rescue our party and restore our Constitutional republic if we elect him into the White House.

Dr. Paul is truly a rarity in today's political environment. A strict adherent of the Constitution, Ron Paul his had the same consistent positions throughout his ten total terms in Congress, and has never compromised his values to a corrupt incentive or special interest. If you would like to read about Ron Paul's presidential platform, go to RonPaul2008.com (which just so happens to be the most visited website of any politician currently running for President, Republican or Democrat). Here is an overview of Ron Paul's positions on some of the major issues of this year's race for the White House:

Abortion: Ron Paul, who delivered over 4,000 infants from the womb over the course of his medical career, has one of the strongest pro-life records in Congressional history. Unlike Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney (before he flip-flopped), Dr. Paul opposes the Roe vs. Wade ruling and views a developing unborn life as a sovereign being, and has always voted that way in Congress. When our party led Congress, we may have had the opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but it appears that to many, the votes that could potentially be gained from the issue being open was a stronger incentive than actually overturning the decision. Abortion is one of the key GOP issues, and Ron Paul can truly represent our party on it.

Border Security: Like international faux-"free trade" deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA, some of our Republican politicians in Washington were misled into voting for amnesty for illegal immigrants not because of loyalty to conservatism but because of pressure from the president. Ron Paul opposes any plan for amnesty or an open borders policy. Much of his solution incorporates federalism and private ownership. Ron Paul is completely, unabashedly anti-amnesty. In fact, he supports what even Tom Tancredo would not – ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegals. Ron Paul's policies as President would ensure an end to this country's illegal immigrant problem.

Economics: Some have said that the GOP can no longer be considered the party of fiscal conservatism and market libertarianism. After begrudging support of new taxes, out-of-control spending, pork-barrel spending, unbalanced budgets, and many socialist programs, our politicians, even, unhappily, Republicans, often appear disingenuous when they talk of halting increases in taxation and spending. The braver ones may talk of lowering taxes as well. But of all the current candidates, only Ron Paul will abolish the income tax and phase out the IRS. He has never voted for an increase in taxes, an unbalanced budget, programs that propose welfare or affirmative action, or to even raise his own pay! Following with his commitment to personal liberty and limited government, Paul's economic positions are largely based on his decades of studying the free-market philosophy of the Austrian School of economics of Mises and Hayek. Above all this, Ron Paul realizes how much of our economic woes go back to the dollar itself, which is why he contends for a return to the gold standard and the end of the Federal Reserve.

Education: Whereas the party once opposed public-schooling measures and a Department of Education (as Paul still does), schooling freedom has continued to wane. Some of our politicians have allowed themselves to be watered down to the point of supporting No Child Left Behind. Ron Paul wants to make private and home schooling viable options once more by restoring educational freedom, while deconstructing the federal bureaucracy. School vouchers do not have the ability to accomplish these ends.

Health: As a lifelong physician, Ron Paul obviously has a lot of firsthand experience with the health care situation. When his patients could not pay for medical services, he helped them regardless, without pay. He understands that some Americans are unable to pay for their health care, mostly because of present anti-free-market policies in this field, not a lack of big government social programs. As the dollar gets further inflated and income further taxed, how can the average American be expected to keep up? Remember that since the government has unfortunately conditioned our citizens to depend on programs like Medicare, Ron Paul will not actively work to phase them out as President, but he would work to give citizens the option to opt out of such programs.

Family: Unlike the GOP "front-runner" Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul lives by his own moral values. He is possibly the most socially traditional of all the candidates running for President. Dr. Paul is a family man who has been married to his wife Carol for fifty years, has five children, and many more grandchildren. Although he does not publicly focus on this aspect of his life, like much of the GOP base, he is a churchgoing Baptist. If he gets the nomination, no kind of attack ads from the Democratic opposition would be able to lay a glove on Ron Paul's personal life, because there is simply nothing to be attacked! In Congress, he never voted for abortion, for infringements on our religious freedoms, or for an economic policy that harms the middle-American family. Ever. He voted against a national ban on same-sex marriage on federalist grounds. Marriage – period – is a private and societal institution that should not be connected with the State or its nanny-state benefits. That's the way it used to be in this country.

Foreign Policy: And here we reach the pivotal point. Fellow Republicans, if the current foreign policy's intrinsic failures have not been enough to convince you that it is errant, let me offer a recommendation: read your history! Far from a fringe renegade, Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is simply the policy that our party once had. What do WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and our presence in Kosovo have in common? They were all started by big-government Democrats and opposed by conservatives! The American people voted in our party to end self-destructive conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. How did the current administration's policy come to be the norm? It certainly was not the policy advocated by Russell Kirk, Robert Taft or President Ronald Reagan. President Bush's foreign policy is informed by members of an intellectual school called "neo-conservatism" encompassing those like Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Paul Wolfowitz, many of whom are former Marxists! Such a policy has already cost us trillions, reduced our national sovereignty, tarnished our image abroad, bred extremists, and entangled us in ever more perpetual and complicated conflicts and alliances, exactly what our nation's Founding Fathers warned against. Ron Paul, a former serviceman, supports our troops but not any errant, non-traditional foreign policy. He also supports the U.S. pulling out of NATO and the U.N., positions which used to be conservative boilerplate. A Ron Paul administration would be strong on defense; not offense. The mainstream media (boo! hiss!) tries to characterize him as out of step with Republican traditions; no, it is the other candidates who want the US to be the world’s policeman, who are incompatible with our basic philosophy.

Guns: In Congress, Ron Paul has never voted for a piece of legislation that would have infringed upon the rights of gun owners (well, further than they've already been trampled on). Paul is a gun owner standing 100% opposed to gun control and votes against any legislation to that effect. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney all have terrible records on gun rights. We must be wary of the Democrats in Congress that would strip us of our rights to own a firearm to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

How can we compromise ourselves in this critical time by supporting a candidate who can not fully represent our most basic historical beliefs? It is crucial that we lend our support to this man’s Presidential bid and his undiluted platform. What is the extent of Ron Paul’s competition? Rudy Giuliani? A fiscal moderate and social liberal without foreign policy experience. Mike Huckabee? An amnesty-loving big-government tax-and-spend "right-wing progressive" who will wreck federalism. Mitt Romney? Ditto, and a flip-flopper. John McCain? A thoroughly lukewarm big-government neoconservative. Fred Thompson? A zombie, with the Hollywood writers on strike. And all of them are in support of a failed foreign policy that compromises the values of our nation.

Finally, there is another objection, not to Paul's political program but asserting that "he can't win." We must not deceive ourselves in this way. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that I believe can defeat Hillary Clinton almost on default if nominated, largely due to the contrast between his views and her vicious welfare statism and her hawkish foreign policy not even in tune with her own party. Only Ron Paul of all the Republican candidates can attract uncommitted and even Democratic voters. The Paul campaign has enormous grassroots support from Americans of all walks of life, and has raised unbelievable amounts of money. Paul has over 40,000 Meetup groups to Huckabee’s 3000+. On November 5th the campaign raised an amazing $4.3 million, an all-time GOP fundraising record. On Dec. 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, he is expected to break even that amazing fundraising record. Don't trust the "official scientific" polls that claim to represent "likely" Republican voters for one second. Those polled therein had 80% support for Bush’s performance in Iowa and 55% in New Hampshire, meaning that the majority polled were hardcore Bushites. So, his actual Republican support, plus his massive independent support, is far greater than those polls would indicate. Ron Paul's supporters can also be expected to have a much higher voting turnout than supporters of other candidates. Ron Paul can win the Presidency, and if so, can certainly bring forth an era in this country that will far outshine the Reagan revolution.

"In your heart, you know he's right."

December 10, 2007

Andrew Ter-Grigoryan [send him mail] is a college student in Kentucky.

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul can win the Presidency, and if so, can certainly bring forth an era in this country that will far outshine the Reagan revolution.

"In your heart, you know he's right."

December 10, 2007

Andrew Ter-Grigoryan [send him mail] is a college student in Kentucky.

Hi Andrew,

I called 1 800 RONPAUL moments ago. It is the number to call for credit card donations to the Ron Paul campaign.

However I don't like to use my credit card so I found the address to use to send a check made out to :

RON PAUL 2008 PCC

837 West Plantation

Clute, TX 77531

If you send a check in the next day or so it will be added to the amount raised on December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Ron Paul will speak at a rally in Boston on that day, this coming Sunday, and my wife and I will be there along with thousands of other Ron Paul supporters.

As I understand it Cspan has been invited to attend as well so this may be huge.

Years from now when the country looks back to these times and this election with admiration for those who had the courage and foresight to support Ron Paul, who may be looked upon as the savior of the republic in that future, you may wish you had been among those of us who advocate his nomination for the presidency.

I know you can't change it now but instead of addressing yourself to just Republicans you should have addressed it to citizens of whichever political persuasion who love this country and want to save it from the looming disaster ahead given the direction in which it is presently plummeting.

galt

Edited December 11, 2007 by galtgulch

[Jody Gomez]

Ron Paul helps me to better understand why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

[Brant Gaede]

Ron Paul helps me to better understand why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

Can someone explain why Ron Paul has any appeal to an Objectivist?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Not a word on individual rights! Understandably. And when I first heard that "In your heart you know he's right" crap in 1964 i knew Goldwater's campaign was doomed! And this man hasn't half an idea on how to defend America!

--Brant

[Jody Gomez]

And this man hasn't half an idea on how to defend America!

Precisely!

[Barbara Branden]

But Jody and Brant, just think: Ron Paul will be able to say that he gave us low taxes while terrorists blew us up!

Barbara

[Greybird]

Deleted. At times, framing any response ends up being pointless.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Greybird

[Alfonso Jones]

And this man hasn't half an idea on how to defend America!

Precisely!

You got it.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

Years from now when the country looks back to these times and this election with admiration for those who had the courage and foresight to support Ron Paul, who may be looked upon as the savior of the republic in that future, you may wish you had been among those of us who advocate his nomination for the presidency.

I know you can't change it now but instead of addressing yourself to just Republicans you should have addressed it to citizens of whichever political persuasion who love this country and want to save it from the looming disaster ahead given the direction in which it is presently plummeting.

galt

The question in my mind is whether Ron Paul is channeling Nevile Chamberlain or not. How much will he concede to avoid war?

If we were living in a peaceful world, I would not mind giving Ron Paul a try, but we are surrounding by bloodthirsty people who want to destroy our society. That is the rub. Is Ron Paul an effective War Chief?

We are at war (de facto). I want a leader who acknowledges that fact. I would prefer a leader more competent than our current bumbling fool. What a disappointment Dubya turned out to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

If we were living in a peaceful world, I would not mind giving Ron Paul a try, but we are surrounding by bloodthirsty people who want to destroy our society.

When was that not the case? There are always the bloodthirsty, those who would love to expropriate wealth.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

If we were living in a peaceful world, I would not mind giving Ron Paul a try, but we are surrounding by bloodthirsty people who want to destroy our society.

When was that not the case? There are always the bloodthirsty, those who would love to expropriate wealth.

Alfonso

Until recently we were not ever attacked by suicide warriors here on our own turf. The Islamic threat is worse than others, because these people (if they are people) do not care whether the live or die. In fact they prefer to die as long as they can take us with them. That is what makes the current war different from prior wars. In WW2 we had to put up with Jap Kamikazes, but that was over the blue Pacific, not here on our own turf.

I don't want a war chief who thinks we brought our troubles on ourselves. I want a war chief who will show neither mercy nor compassion and who will kill our enemies and god damn the collateral damage. Is Ron Paul that war chief?

We are in for the fight of our lives. I want a mean son of a bitch who does not care what other people think and who has no compunction about killing enemy women and infants. Is Ron Paul that mean son of a bitch!

I want the equivalent of George Patton, Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay or Wm. T. Sherman. Is Ron Paul that equivalent?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... who has no compunction about killing enemy women and infants.

Bob,

Your resentment against having to die and glee in spite is showing.

All unnecessary death should be avoided and you know it.

I learned a different concept of manhood.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

... who has no compunction about killing enemy women and infants.

Bob,

Your resentment against having to die and glee in spite is showing.

All unnecessary death should be avoided and you know it.

I learned a different concept of manhood.

Michael

Manhood is nothing compared to killing one's enemies. Don't get mad. Get even.

Rules for survival:

1. Protect and cherish your friends.

2. Kill or neutralize your enemies

3. Be polite to the neutral folk, you may want to do business with them someday.

That is how you survive in a bad neighborhood. Right now the world is a bad neighborhood. When we get rid of the bad people then it might turn into a good neighborhood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Ron Paul will be able to say that he gave us low taxes while terrorists blew us up!

I believe that it is a taxonomic fallacy to ascribe "rationality" to every featherless biped. Creatures that look like you on the outside may not be like you on the inside. We just had an ice storm blow through here that killed eight people. Where is the handwringing? Why does no candidate speak up for a national program to control the weather? Have we forgotten the lesson of Hurricane Katrina? Why did no one bring "her" to justice? Why do we let storms kill people? More to the point (for Objectivists), why do we not hold storms morally responsible for their choices?

We think of suicide bombers as "volitional" creatures who could have "chosen" some other course of action.

Being truly a rational creature, I have chosen to pursue a career in security versus "law enforcement" because I do not care about the perpetrator's personal problems. My goal is to protect my client from all threats. That is what threat assessment and target hardening are all about.

Part of that is teaching the client to be responsible for their own outcomes. The airlines considered passengers to be freight and passengers learned to accept that role. Hijackers go back to the 1960s -- and they got bolder and bolder. From kindergarten on, we all learned to sit down, shut up, and do as we are told, no matter how pointless it seemed. Two flights took off from Washington DC and the one with the National Geographic film crew should have been the one to stop the terrorists. But that would have been contrary to the culture of Washington DC. No, the guy who stopped the terrorists was a computer salesman, someone who found success in the marketplace by thinking clearing when faced with novel challenges.

Part of that, actually, is knowing when to fold your cards. 9/11 was a suicide mission. The men who carried it out died. It ended there.

Now, as for the wider problem... well, yes, there are some solutions, but warfare is not one of them. If it were, then there would be no civilization, but only the Hobbesian war of all against all.

Radical Islam is a convenient target for those who do not apply principles. Lacking a conceptual approach to life, integrated by reason and tested against fact, we demonize some people far away and forget about the demons next door. I have never been threatened by a Muslim. In fact, it has been about 40 years since I was threatened by anyone because I have learned to get along with people better over time. The last time I was threatened by a gang who invaded my living space, they were white chrisitian college kids, my peers, who objected to my objectivism. I talked them out of their action... which I think was the outcome they wanted anyway...

I do not share this next viewpoint completely but I appreciate the context. In one of my classes, I have a veteran, a Marine who fought in Somalia and some other places. He is opposed to the current war because it is wrong-headed. He said that we surrendered our freedoms because 3,000 people died and we forgot how many people died to create those freedoms in the first place.

For myself, just on the operational logic of it all, I can see the action in Afghanistan to disrupt the Taliban training camps. However, that ignores the antecedent actions of the USA government in Washington DC in helping to create them in the first place as an action against the USSR government in Moscow. So, too, did the USA government in Washington DC meddle in the Iran-Iraq conflict and the Iraq-Saudi conflict (in Kuwait) and on and on... As for the Taliban government, action against them was inevitable independent of 9/11 because the world news was building propaganda against them anyway. I, too, was saddened by their destruction of Buddha statues, as I hate to see any art desctroyed, but, you know, Gautama Siddhartha himself might have seen the matter differently... and certainly at least one philosopher might have counseled against taking sides in a war between Buddha-guys and anti-Buddha-guys. So, even if Afghanistan was one problem, Iraq was a totally different situation. Do not drop the context. Even if Afghanistan were the place where terrorists were being trained, Iraq was not. The war against Iraq is simply realpolitik on behalf of the Saudi royal family which has no popular support in the land it rules. If invaded by Iraq, they would have had to flee to the casinos the way the Kuwaiti royals did. That's not my problem.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. Protect and cherish your friends.

2. Kill or neutralize your enemies

3. Be polite to the neutral folk, you may want to do business with them someday.

Bob,

1. When do you intend to protect and cherish OL? Hate speech is diametrically opposed to this.

2. What enemies do you find on OL who need killing?

3. Do you have any idea how rude your hate comments are to the neutral people on OL?

I see you talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

... who has no compunction about killing enemy women and infants.

Bob,

Your resentment against having to die and glee in spite is showing.

All unnecessary death should be avoided and you know it.

I learned a different concept of manhood.

Michael

Manhood is nothing compared to killing one's enemies. Don't get mad. Get even.

Rules for survival:

1. Protect and cherish your friends.

2. Kill or neutralize your enemies

3. Be polite to the neutral folk, you may want to do business with them someday.

That is how you survive in a bad neighborhood. Right now the world is a bad neighborhood. When we get rid of the bad people then it might turn into a good neighborhood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al -

This sounds like the attitude of a bitter person. I find it ironic that you seem to share this slice of attitude with those in charge of ARI, though you are hardly an Objectivist.

Alfonso

[Martin Radwin]

Ron Paul helps me to better understand why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

Ayn Rand was a libertarian. Objectivism as the political philosophy that she formulated is based on a recognition of the sanctity of individual rights and banning the use of force except in retalitation against those who initiate its use. She was an advocate of an unregulated laissez faire free market economy and a government strictly limited to the protection of individual rights. She even advocated voluntary financing of government, because she could not accept the coercive funding of government via taxation. These principles are the very essence of libertarianism.

That Ayn Rand denounced libertarianism was largely based on the fact that it is strictly a political philosophy and not a comprehensive philosophy including epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. As such, many of its adherents disagreed with various aspects of objectivism, something that Rand found intolerable. Furthermore, she accused libertarians of ripping off her political ideas, even though libertarian ideas were around long before Rand formulated objectivism.

Heretics are almost always treated worse than non-believers.

Martin

Edited December 14, 2007 by Martin Radwin

[Martin Radwin]

But Jody and Brant, just think: Ron Paul will be able to say that he gave us low taxes while terrorists blew us up!

Barbara

Had the US been following the non-interventionist policy advocated by Ron Paul, the 9/11 attacks would almost certainly never have happened. These attacks were organized by Bin Laden in retaliation for the criminally stupid decision by the US government to station troops in Saudi Arabia.

The US invasion of Iraq, a country that never attacked or threatened the US in any way, besides being a criminal war of aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created millions of Iraqi refugees, has greatly destabilized the region and almost certainly created a whole new generation of terrorists.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

The US invasion of Iraq, a country that never attacked or threatened the US in any way, besides being a criminal war of aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created millions of Iraqi refugees, has greatly destabilized the region and almost certainly created a whole new generation of terrorists.

Martin

In May of 1987 and Iraqi war plane attacked a U.S. Warship the U.S.S. Stark

http://usscoontz.tripod.com/id23.html

In addition, when Saddam Hussein was in power he was indemnifying the families of Palestinians whose sons did suicide bombing against Israel. This might have goaded Israel into an attack against Iraq. It happened once in 1981 it could happen again. An Israeli attack against Iraq at a time the U.S. was not prepared to align its strength against Iraq could have had serious consequences for the U.S. In addition, it is not certain how much financial aid Saddam gave to various terror organizations which attacked U.S. interests abroad or threatened to do so. In addition Saddam threatened a major source of oil that the U.S. depends upon (i.e. Saudi Arabia). That constitutes an attack against the U.S..

Even so, the war against Saddam at the time it was undertaken was ill-advised. We should have nuked North Korea and Iran first. If there are multiple sources of danger to the nation, attack the most dangerous first. My guess is that Rumsfeld believed if the U.S. bitch-slapped the Hussein regime, the rest of the middle east would have fallen into line. Dumb Donnie Rumsfeld.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

The US invasion of Iraq, a country that never attacked or threatened the US in any way, besides being a criminal war of aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created millions of Iraqi refugees, has greatly destabilized the region and almost certainly created a whole new generation of terrorists.

Martin

In May of 1987 and Iraqi war plane attacked a U.S. Warship the U.S.S. Stark

http://usscoontz.tripod.com/id23.html

On June 8, 1967, Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding over 100, about the same number of Americans killed by the attack by Iraq. I guess that, according to your theory of proportional retaliation, the US should have attacked Israel with cluster bombs, invaded and occupied Israel, killed tens of thousands of Israelis, and driven a million Israelis from their homes, turning them into fleeing refugees. That's about what the US has done to Iraq, relative to their populations.

In addition, when Saddam Hussein was in power he was indemnifying the families of Palestinians whose sons did suicide bombing against Israel. This might have goaded Israel into an attack against Iraq. It happened once in 1981 it could happen again. An Israeli attack against Iraq at a time the U.S. was not prepared to align its strength against Iraq could have had serious consequences for the U.S. In addition, it is not certain how much financial aid Saddam gave to various terror organizations which attacked U.S. interests abroad or threatened to do so. In addition Saddam threatened a major source of oil that the U.S. depends upon (i.e. Saudi Arabia). That constitutes an attack against the U.S..

Last time I checked, Israel is not part of the United States, and the United States is not responsible for Israel's defense. If Israel decided to attack Iraq in retaliation, that would be Israel's decision and Israel's responsibility. There are many policy decisions followed by the US government that undoubtedly have "serious consequences" for other nations around the world. I wonder if you would consider these "serious consequences" to be justification for these nations launching military strikes against the United States? No? I didn't think so. An Iraqi attack against Saudi Arabia would constitute an attack against Saudi Arabia, not at attack against the US. To argue that this constitutes an attack against the US because the US uses Saudi oil is no different than arguing that any nation that is attacked constitutes an indirect attack against the US, as long as the US trades with the attacked nation. This is a formula for perpetual war and a blank check for the US to launch military actions against anyone it wishes and to then justify its aggression as "defense".

Saudi Arabia has kindly repaid our generousity in defending them by financially supporting terrorist schools and training camps around the world. They are the leading source of Wahhabist Islam in the world today. And they also kindly repaid us by providing most of the 9/11 highjackers, in a plot launched by Bin Laden in retaliation for the US government decision to station troops in Saudi Arabia, which decision was justified as a defense of Saudi Arabia against an Iraqi invasion. So our decision to defend Saudi Arabia, based on the same kind of justification that you are using here, was probably one of the major motivating factors for the 9/11 attacks, which would probably otherwise never have happened. 9/11 has in turn provided the US government with the justification it has long sought to start turning the US into a police state. This is all part of the price we have paid for your idea of defending the US.

Even so, the war against Saddam at the time it was undertaken was ill-advised. We should have nuked North Korea and Iran first. If there are multiple sources of danger to the nation, attack the most dangerous first. My guess is that Rumsfeld believed if the U.S. bitch-slapped the Hussein regime, the rest of the middle east would have fallen into line. Dumb Donnie Rumsfeld.

Fortunately for all of us, the Bush administration, as viciously murderous as they have been, are not as crazy as you are.

Martin

[Jody Gomez]

Had the US been following the non-interventionist policy advocated by Ron Paul, the 9/11 attacks would almost certainly never have happened. These attacks were organized by Bin Laden in retaliation for the criminally stupid decision by the US government to station troops in Saudi Arabia.

Ahhh...the blame America mentality. No wonder you support Ron Paul. So you support Bin Laden in his retaliation for the "criminally stupid decision by the US government to station troops in Saudia Arabia?" How was this decision "criminal"?

Edited December 16, 2007 by Jody Gomez