This has been making the rounds, and if you haven't seen it, you need to:
I agree with Ron Paul on everything but his foreign policy. I can understand him being against the War in Iraq but not the Afghanistan War. As much as I think that the United States could have waited to go to war in Iraq, I also think that both the U.N. and the United States should have confronted Saddam Hussein much sooner-before Sept. 11, 2001. Saddam violated 18 U.N. resolutions and committed mass murder on his own people so I think he deserved to be removed. Plus, his removal was long overdue regardless to his connection or lack thereof to Bin Laden. I think part of the reason we are on defense is because (or at least mostly) we were caught offguard on 9/11 because Clinton downsized both the CIA and the troop levels. I do think we need a good offense but I also think certain necessary tools to fight the war on terror have been removed from use because of human rights and civil liberty groups-data mining, EIT's.
Ron Paul actually voted for the war in Afghanistan: http://bit.ly/a1LJOS and sponsored a bill calling for the issuance of letters of Marque and Reprisal against the 9-11 terrorists after 9-11. He also proposed a bill arming pilots with guns on planes. Neither of his proposals passed. They show however, that he is stronger on defense than the media wants you to know.Now simply supports withdrawal from Afghanistan and I agree with him, not because we lost, but because we won! Not because we're weak, but because we're strong. We have crippled and destroyed Al Qaeda, and now we are simply spending our time fighting a tribal civil war against the Pashtuns- an abuse of one of our country's most valuable assets- its fine young men and women at arms.
Wes, Thanks for setting me straight on Ron Paul actually voting Yea, on going to war in Afghanistan. Somehow, I have gotten the impression from other Ron Paul supporters that he was against going into Afghanistan. But, that's wrong. He just thinks we ought to leave Afghanistan now, which although I disagree, is quite understandable.
Hey no problem. Ron's stronger on defense than a lot of his extremely anti-war supporters, so I can see how you'd get that impression. Even more importantly, the liberal mainstream media painted him that way as strongly as possible in 07-08 so that he wouldn't get the conservative vote even though he had a proven record of conservatism unmatched by the other candidates. They were afraid of a Paul run because they knew he would beat the Democratic candidate by truly inspiring grassroots America. They were right and their character assassination of Paul as an isolationist worked (even though he voted for war in Afghanistan), and as a truther (even though this is patently false and Ron Paul has never stated anything to indicate it), and weak on defense (even though he wanted the most immediate, most direct response we could muster against the terrorists after 9-11 with his Marque and Reprisal bill; supported arming pilots after 9-11; and talks tougher on illegal immigration than any other serious candidate for the office of President ever).And now Barack Obama is president. The lefty media did their job of deceiving and dividing conservatives well.