Ron Paul can win the presidency

Imagine.

A president-elect puts his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the constitution of the United States and really means it. No games. No grabs for more power. No circumventing the congress by executive orders. No personal corruption, such as the traditional deals of ambassadorships in return for donations to a presidential library and the unspoken pledge of having a corporate jet available for personal use for the rest of their lives.

Imagine a president who reduces his own salary from the Barack Obama high of $500,000 a year and millions in “expenses” to $39,336, the median wage of the average American worker.

Imagine, sixty-six years after World War Two, we finally bring home our troops from Germany and Japan and save trillions of dollars that can be used in our own economy.

Imagine power flowing back to the States and to the people.

Imagine an end to corruption in the FDA and all the other agencies where the big companies donate money to candidates and then handpick their own regulators. Imagine instead a free market, where private companies compete for the trust of the American people, putting their own stamp of approval on the good food and running airport security with efficiency. It would be like UPS and Fed Ex sprouting up to compete with the US Post Office.

Journalists openly ridicule the idea of privatization, as if it were preposterous, insisting that most things only the federal government can do. In fact, private companies not only efficiently run airport security in countries, such as Spain, they already operate in selected American cities like San Francisco and Kansas City, Missouri.

Imagine a government that stops wasting its time auditing a waitress, to make sure she pays taxes on her tips, and starts auditing the Federal Reserve which now meets in secret, creating trillions of new dollars for the business elites. These are unsecured, zero interest loans. And they are paid for by you and all the rest of us, especially the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes who see the value of their own dollars diminish when the Fed dumps trillions more into the money supply.

Ron Paul’s HR 1207 which passed in 2010 achieved a partial audit of the FED. We learned that in 2008 they created $17 trillion which they loaned out to banks, mostly the banks run by their own board members and numerous corporations, General Electric, for example and the McDonalds Corporation.

Ever wonder why Ron Paul gets passed over in the network debates? Why executives send down the orders to pan Ron Paul? Why CBS, in its last debate gave him 89 seconds in the first hour, dead last of the seven debaters, even though he was third in their own national polls? Wonder why a director’s voice was picked up by amateur radio buffs, yelling into Chris Matthews’s ear piece during the first South Carolina debate, “Don’t go to Ron Paul, don’t go to Ron Paul”?

The craven personalities on television will do whatever they are told to do. It is the price they pay to be on screen. And the producers verbalize those plans to their anchors and segment producers as dictated by the executives. And the executives get their orders from the Chairman. And the Chairman does not want to lose the Federal Reserve, the golden goose of American elites, the gift that keeps on giving, the bank that meets in secret and can, in one year, dole out more newly created money than the entire accumulated national debt.

It’s about money. It’s always about money.

But people are not dumb. I should amend that to say, people will not remain dumb forever. They can sense when something is wrong. And they become aroused and curious when their own interests are threatened. And they can get smart in a hurry. They have lost the value of their homes and savings and now they are losing their jobs and they are hearing about trillions going to banks and corporations that are moving all of their money overseas and they are reading and Googling and some of them have found Dr. Ron Paul.

Why should they vote for candidates who are part of that system, who were employed by that system? Why vote for someone who was paid money to protect that system when there is a candidate who warned of the coming crisis, on the record, in congressional testimony, ten years before it happened?

Most young people cannot remember the Ronald Reagan era, how the media mocked his intelligence and sneered at his motives. Late night comics had a field day. He was regularly portrayed as a warmonger and a racist. And yet, he won the White House in a landslide. And by the way, Reagan was not a racist and he ended the Cold War. I might add, his Justice Department declared water boarding was torture and they sentenced a sheriff to ten years in prison for doing so. And people can be discerning and they resent being led around by the nose by arrogant, insider, elite media personalities, acting as the lapdogs to modern day robber barons who counterfeit money to finance their lifestyle.

If the Iowa Caucus were held this week, Ron Paul would win. He is in a statistical dead heat with four other establishment candidates and he, alone, has a following of informed voters. The other campaigns have no ground game, not true believers, they depend on free television and the bluff of television personalities who keep repeating the mantra, “Ron Paul can’t win.”

But now we know. Ron Paul can win. He can win the Iowa Caucus where a Bloomberg News poll shows him in a tie for first. And if he can win there and come second in New Hampshire, which the recent Bloomberg Poll shows he is doing now, he will rise in the West and the South. And it can happen.

The Public Policy Poll shows he was the only Republican candidate to beat Obama among independent voters. He wins 48% to 39%.

It can happen. He can win.

Imagine.

About these ads

117 Responses to Ron Paul can win the presidency

  1. Excellent summary of the hope that a libertarian like Ron Paul can offer the nation, and the unease we should feel when we see the depth of the manipulation of the political process by the corporate interests that own the “news” in our nation. That unease must not trigger despair, but instead it needs to inspire a fighting spirit to “clean house.”

    Despite the oft-repeated opinion, presented as fact though clearly it is not, Ron Paul can win — as long as he continues to run as a Republican. Attempts to move his campaign to a third-party run would scuttle his chances due to restrictive ballot (and debate) access for “non-major” parties. I’m sure the Libertarian Party would like to have a staunch libertarian like Ron Paul as their candidate, but they can’t fix the poisoned political process in time for this election.

    • jen says:

      terrible interview. doug did not have the intelligence or prep to answer any of cavuto’s questions. what a joke of an advisor.

      • Ann Fraley says:

        I followed this link to read a blog. I don’t know anything about an interview. Do you mean the one where he talked about Churchill? I didn’t see it that way at all.
        As for this article, It completely lays out the case for the kind of president we need and that many Americans want. It will take diving intervention on the scale of the five smooth stones laying out a giant so that a shepherd boy could cut off his head. I hope Ron Paul is David, more than he is Churchill.

  2. These NeoCoins are fooling themselves if they think anyone but Ron Paul can win. Obama has already established himself as a war President and he will use that to his advantage to prove there is no differentiator. Also, no other Republican can bring the turnout necessary to defeat Obama.

  3. tex2 says:

    Nick,

    Barry is NOT a war president. He is exiting Iraq and Afghanistan much faster than his military advisers are recommending because he thinks that will get him reelected. He has captured/killed the bad guys using the process Bush set up. The economy sucks, and THAT is his major problem getting reelected.

    Adam,

    Hope (and change) was the last election. We need a good dose of reality this time around.

    • Mike Urban says:

      That’s not true. Obama wanted to stay in Iraq – it was Iraq who made us leave under an agreement made by the Bush Administration. Obama has also expanded Afghanistan by adding 30,000 troops!

      Obama is following the same failed Wilsonian/big government/Neocon foreign policy we’ve had for decades.

    • hahah… not a war president? He just bombed Libya without the consent of congress. Another illegal occupation not for humanitarian efforts (snort), but to steal kill and destroy. He’s illegally and immorally assassinated american citizens without a trial. And please, define bad guys! We’re the only nation bombing innocent civilian populations killing millions. yes, millions. You neo-cons should love Obama. He’s nothing more than Bush on steroids. No change, more bankster bailouts, and MASSIVE inflation from his friends at the Fed, Goldman Sach,s and the rest of the money changers.

      • tex2 says:

        Virtually EVERY president has bombed one country or another without the consent of Congress. Also, he didn’t do it unilaterally, he did it with NATO (not that I’m a fan of Barry and realize the U.S. makes up most of NATO). We did not send ground troops, exactly how does a country occupy without occupying? LOL Which citizens did he “assassinate” illegally and immorally? The scumbag in Yemen? When you declare war on the U.S., citizenship doesn’t matter. I think that qualifies as a bad guy, don’t you? Do you have proof we’ve killed millions with our bombing?

      • Len Larson says:

        Yay! Neo-bama! A conservatives best friend. LOL

      • Robert Rittenhouse says:

        Al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son was also an American citizen. Taken out by a drone. I guess 16 year olds are too scary to apprehend.

      • It’s called collateral damage.

    • Len Larson says:

      @tex2 “We need a good dose of reality this time around.”

      Yep, and we know just the good DOCTOR to prescribe it. LOL!

      With Ron Paul we can Restore America Now!

    • Mike says:

      Mike Urban is right. Obama is only withdrawing because he is being forced to follow Bush’s US-Iraq SOFA agreement. As you pointed out, Obama ran on withdrawing immediately. This clearly was a broken promise. No one in their right mind would consider three years later to be immediate or as Obama put it on Oct 27, 2007:

      “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. ”

      Even still, Obama wanted to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq, according to this LA Times article from July: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/06/world/la-fg-us-iraq-20110706

      But when he was pushed to stay true to the Bush administration’s schedule, Obama made further attempts to keep up to 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-wants-to-keep-3000-5000-us-troops-in-iraq-into-2012/2011/09/07/gIQAcnkhAK_story.html

      I would hardly consider these multiple attempts to keep troops in Iraq ‘getting our troops home.’

      In regards to your another of your comments, “Which citizens did he “assassinate” illegally and immorally?” I suppose you feel the assassination and execution of a 16 year old American citizen, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki and whose only crime was barbequing with his friends, is a justified murder? Watch this piece by the The Young Turks and judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1fmT9j_5c

      • By the way, if Barry wanted to change the Bush deal, he could have done so. I’m not satisfied the Bush deal included our troops being subject to Iraqi law, which was the advertised sticking point.

  4. what an exciting vision!

  5. Andy Morris says:

    what a compelling vision…

  6. Mike Widney says:

    I will be sharing this article far and wide. It’s a bullet !! Thanking God that you are helping to lead, inspire and direct our team. Thanks Brother.

  7. Reality says:

    You can fool some people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

  8. sm says:

    Dr. Paul can’t win if he doesn’t let the masses get to know him. All too frequently, I run into brick walls of misunderstanding and second-hand quotes that are miles from reality. His name and face need to be out there. And it wouldn’t hurt anything if he could put a one or two of the major items of his platform in a short, easily remembered quip.
    Sometimes I think that Dr Paul doesn’t realize just how dumbed down our overall population has become.
    Cain’s popularity started to drop, so he asked for Secret Service protection—anything to keep his name out there. it works.
    Our country isn’t going to have very many more chances to pull out of the mire she is in. I think maybe Dr. Paul is our last.

  9. Awesome! Anyone against Paul is just another neo-con/lib warmonger that loves killing women and children.

  10. Andrew says:

    Boy George is the only non-incumbent candidate ever to win the Iowa caucus and go on to win the nomination and ultimately the Presidency. Iowa IS NOT a national bellwether or a launching pad to bigger things. Putting any stock in the Iowa caucus is a fool’s game.

    • Joe says:

      That will certainly be the spin the media will put on a Paul victory, like the 16 straw polls he’s won – they don’t matter.

  11. Dither Robotelli says:

    Doug, do you have any sources (links) for the bit about Chris Matthews being told, “Don’t go to Ron Paul”? Thanks.

  12. pj mcflur says:

    Thanks Doug. Shared and spot on. As usual.

  13. Kate says:

    Ron Paul is actually running for the presidency to serve the people instead of seving for his own financial windfalls. God Bless him!

  14. Michele says:

    President Ron Paul I like the way that sounds. Everyone I beg you to find out what the delegate process is in your state and do it. It’s not hard. I was a democrat my whole life until I saw “American Freedom to Fascism” by the late Aaron Russo. My paradigm shifted. I became a precinct chair and a county and state delegate for Dr. Ron Paul (president to be)people we could all be in Florida next August together and vote to make history with Ron Paul as the nominee. Come on be a part of the most incredible event since our founding. Just think President Ron Paul.

    • tex2 says:

      How dreamy. Reminds me of Barry’s campaign, women fainting in the aisles as if he were a part of the Beatles.

      • Larry Andrews says:

        Tex,
        Try adding something useful to this blog. Ignorant name calling, rhetoric, and negative comments aren’t cutting. Try concrete examples of leadership lacking, wasteful spending, war mongering, flip flopping, corporate collusion, or philandering. You can’t find them, neither can the media, and that is why you resort to false comments and name calling

      • tex2 says:

        You’re assuming the pro-Paul folks are adding something useful to this blog. LOL

  15. Jim Fox says:

    Excellent article, Doug! But please, please, please DO NOT COMPARE RON PAUL WITH WINSTON CHURCHILL! That is honestly insulting to Dr. Paul. Please read up on Churchill at http://www.lewrockwell.com and http://www.jbs.org.

    • tex2 says:

      Ron has to at least BE in a national leadership position before he could be in the same league as Churchill.

    • jen says:

      doug seems nice and all, but highly incompetent to be a senior advisor to any candidate that a serious chance at getting elected with this locked down two party system. if doug and the likes of him got out of the way, paul has a better chance of winning. doug blocks all comments to paul. so all those commenting that paul needs more exposure will never get back to paul via doug.

      • Doug Wead says:

        Actually, I pass everything I can onto Dr. Paul. Let me know what you want heard and I will get it to him and his top advisers.

      • Jo Ann says:

        I’m happy to have this article to pass on to my friends and impressed by Doug Wead’s reply to the above comment. I think we all need to help with exposure. Ears have walls, but history has proven that walls can come down.

  16. untroll says:

    tex2…
    -I’m glad to see that you’re getting all sorts of counterpoints and discussion pieces for your trolling reponses. If you think Ron Paul is a joke, and that Obama doesn’t deserve to be unseated by him, why not go to a blog-friendly atmosphere where people share the same view as you? I mean, it’s good to see people ignore you as you’re only trying to incite an argument or shenanigans, but you look more pathetic the more you do it. Take your “I know everything”, LOL-attitude, someplace else. What a douchebag. Jeez.

  17. Glen Woodfin says:

    Ron Paul’s stance on defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would save America.

  18. PhobeLexx says:

    Tex2 – needs to go back into the “PSPS” to get re-educated. Obviously the first round wasn’t enough to completely brainwash him.

    **The obedient must be slaves**

    PSPS= Public School Prison System

  19. David says:

    Nice trolling, tex2. Please offer some constructive criticism against Ron Paul’s views instead of saying things like “he can’t win” or “he can’t lead”. I think we’ve already heard enough of that from the “news”. Otherwise you’re just another puppet. Ron Paul’s supporters require much more than pointless, baseless statements to change their viewpoints. We’re not like the other candidates supporters. Oh, and to your comment about how Dr. Paul couldn’t lead Congress… I imagine it’d be quite difficult to lead people who only care about how much money they make on their next vote instead of voting in what they truly believe in or what is best for this country or its citizens.

  20. [...] Source post here >>> Related Tags: 2012 Election, CLibertyC, constitutional liberty coalition, Doug Wead, Doug Wead's blog, for life and liberty, GOP Nomination 2012, Imagine, Iowa Caucus, Presidential History, Republicans, Ron Paul, Ron Paul can win presidency Previous Topic: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Passes House Added: November 18th, 2011 Author: Doug Wead Category: CLC Multimedia Spotlight, DC, Features, Grassroots in Nebraska, Network, News, R3publicans, Virginia [...]

  21. lars12Lars says:

    Always funny to read the comments. tex2 has about half of them and seems determined to do what he/she can to talk down Ron Paul’s chances.

    The truth is that most people who look into Ron Paul like what they see. He would end the wars, restore the constitution (i.e. law and order) and rein in the political establishment in Washington. Policies that most informed patriots would support if only they got presented to them in a fair and unbalanced way.

    There is hope though as more and more people take a look at Ron Paul themselves and realize that the media is trying to choose the president for us (as them have done for years).

    Amerika is waking up!

  22. Chris says:

    First of stop wasting your time with this Tex2 joker.

    He’s clearly a plant. That or he’s a pretty sad individual spending all day on one thread so be can bash someone. Why would he do this? What is he afraid of that he feels it’s so important to hate on someone instead of promote someone he supports.

    This is actually a pretty common tactic you see all over the Internet when articles about Ron are written. It’s especially common on heavily trafficked sites where their whole purpose is to distract people from talking about the issues and having an honest conversation and instead encourage peope to respond to them and fight amongst each other. Very frequently this sort of poster will be the first person to respond in an attempt to distract and steer all the other comments as was done here. Need more proof? Check out any article on thehill.com written about Ron where someone named “sledgehammer” is always first to post and always tries to turn the thread negative. They even pop up on the Daily Paul from time to time. It’s so obvious it’s just sad.

    Just ask yourself why the only person posti g multiple times throughout a thread under a positive Ron article is the person who apparently hates him. The fear of Ron is so transparent its actually amusing.

    And, tex2 don’t bother replying to this I won’t be wasting my time coming back to read your reply.

    • tex2 says:

      Good, then I’ll get in the last word. Perhaps some of you other Paulites can explain:

      1. Why is it a good idea to remove our forces from all over the world and allow the terrorists to have the time/space to plan the next 9/11, or worse?

      2. Also, explain how is Ron going to get rid of the Federal Reserve?

      • Mike says:

        1. If we stop burrowing from other countries in order to defend said countries, and in the process subsidizing their social welfare programs, we might actually be able to salvage our own programs as the good doctor tries to ween people away from being dependent on the government (allowing young people to opt-out, for example). If we focused on our own defense and not Germany’s, we could concentrate on vital intelligence pertaining to what is happening in this country and prevent future 9/11 scenarios from occurring on our soil.

        Let me direct your attention to the story of Bogdan Dzakovic. He was a counter-terrorism expert with the Federal Aviation Administration. He “was in charge of the FAA’s Red Team — a small, elite squad who conducted mock undercover raids as terrorists and hijackers.” He warned the FAA multiple times of our security vulnerabilities before 9/11. Afterwards, he blew the whistle and spoke before the 9/11 Commission, and what was his reward? Dzakovic was reassigned to an entry-level desk job in the newly formed Transportation Security Administration.

        The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition provided a list of 13 more whistleblowers, who were all prepared to testify, but were “turned away, ignored or censored.” You can find out more, with links to the original stories, at this page: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/11/911-whistleblowers-ignored-retaliated-against/

        2. He doesn’t need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. His immediate goal would be to push for Friedrich von Hayek’s solution of competing currencies.

      • Mike says:

        A couple of more points for number one. Last year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen told CNN “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” He goes on to say it is “because the strength and the support and the resources that our military uses are directly related to the health of our economy over time.” As long as we continue to fund our overseas militarism with burrowed money, our national security will be weaker for the efforts. Planting a bases in Australia because one day China might attack us is absurd. China is not going to attack us, they are one of our biggest creditors. In addition, bases like these have nothing to do with preventing another 9/11 or protecting us from terrorism.

        U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler famously said that “war is a racket.” All war, including the war on terror, is a racket. Firstly, the war on terror is a war on a tactic. You cannot defeat a tactic, as a tactic is not real. There is nothing to shoot or bomb; there was no declaration, so there are no defined goals or enemies. Thus, it becomes an unending struggle against, well basically, the boogeyman.

      • Reality says:

        If you think you can control the world with bases and troops, you are ignorant. As our political overlords try to exert more and more control, they will CLEARLY bankrupt us here at home before they quell the threats. Meanwhile, as they exert more control, the threats will INCREASE as people don’t like being put under a foreign thumb. So under your framework “tex2″ we go broke and threats increase. Makes a lot of sense, OR NOT.

      • tex2 says:

        1. I think you meant “borrowing.” I think we’re spending FAR more in Iraq and Afghanistan than Germany, although I’m in favor of cutting back in Germany.

        Even if we had warnings of 9/11 (and think of how many other “warnings” of other attack techniques have been offered that have never materialized). Whistleblowers aren’t going to keep the terrorists from planning and training for attacks if we don’t keep them off balance with our military assets.

        2. Then he should drop it from his speeches and official positions. How is he going to implement Friedrich von Hayek’s solution of competing currencies?

      • Mike says:

        1. Well, you’re right about “borrowing.” And you are right again about spending more in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the more reason to pull back out of those areas as well.

        “Whistleblowers aren’t going to keep the terrorists from planning and training for attacks if we don’t keep them off balance with our military assets.”

        The point was that we were unprepared here at home, even with the many attempts to correct the situation. Potential terrorists can plan and train all they want, but nothing will happen if we have the proper security here at home. And I don’t mean the Patriot Act or TSA. We had a more than adequate system in place before the attacks, but as I pointed out, no one would listen to the experts when they warned about the flaws. Another important point is that being killed in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely. You are more likely to die from a bee sting than from an attack.

        Of course, there is also the reality of blowback and unintended consequences, but I tried to steer clear of that in my response because that is what everyone else always goes on about.

        2. He explains this point all the time. A quick youtube search shows a video where Ron Paul is introducing a bill, HR 4248 Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. He explains that competing currencies would lead to a soft transition away from the fed as people drift away from federal reserve notes. Highlights of the act include repealing legal tender laws, and taking the taxes off of gold and silver. Competing currencies is also the answer he gives in his ‘End the Fed’ book.

      • tex2 says:

        1. Germany is not Iraq and Afghanistan. You OBVIOUSLY don’t understand the reason for standing up these 2 countries. You OBVIOUSLY don’t understand what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and don’t care to learn from history. And then you wonder why more people don’t like Ron Paul.

        No preparation is going to be perfect, the question is whether you think shrinking back into our country will protect us. The world is FAR too small today to accept this idea – unless you’re a Ron Paul nutcase. The reasons why we are less likely to die from terrorists than bee stings are there are so many of us, and we have put practices in place to minimize a terrorist attack. Is it perfect? No way, but it has worked for over 10 years, thanks to being VERY lucky the terrorists are incompetent a few times.

        We need to be more concerned about “blow” than “blowback.” You also need to consider the unintended consequences of shriveling up to our borders, as I’ve described previously.

        2. That’s the point. He “explains” it all the time, but he can’t get many others, particularly in Congress, to accept it. In other words, he can’t lead. He’s similar to Barry, neither one can lead. I don’t know which is worse, an inexperienced guy (Barry) who can’t lead because he never has, or an experienced one (Ron) who can’t lead because he never has.

      • Mike says:

        “You OBVIOUSLY don’t understand what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s”

        You mean when we supported Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to kick out the Soviets? That is a perfect example of the unintended consequences that spring from our foreign interventions. I’m starting to think you are playing a prank on everyone here if you use that as an example and then say I’m the one who “OBVIOUSLY” doesn’t understand.

      • Reality says:

        tex2 when the government is too broke to pay the bills and there are even more people everywhere angry at aggressive global cowboys like you, what are you going to do at that time?

      • tex2 says:

        “Reality,”

        The idea is to not get too broke to pay the bills. We don’t need Ron’s bankrupt foreign policy positions to pay the bills, we need to get rid of Barry and a lot of the people in Congress.

        You are clueless if you think we are “aggressive global cowboys.”

      • tex2 says:

        We’re not trying to control the world with bases and troops, we’re keeping evil at bay and maintaining the capability of responding to it. Under your framework, the game is over.

      • tex2 says:

        Does Mullen propose withdrawing all of military force from around the world, or deploying it responsibly? Do you honestly think the only reason we’re in Australia is because one day China may attack us? How do YOU know these bases have nothing to do with protecting us from terrorism? Do YOU know they won’t train others or respond to terrorist threats?

        Butler (most famous for his pacifist positions) was right, but he died before WWII, so that doesn’t mean we should have stayed out of WWII. War is not only a racket, it is also a means of survival. To oversimplify is a grave error.

        Eisenhower also warned against the military-industrial complex, and we need to keep his thoughts in mind as well. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any military presence overseas, and I doubt Ike would support such an idea today if he were still alive.

        Terror isn’t only a tactic, it’s bombs, guns, and bullets. If there is nothing to shoot or bomb, why are the Paulites complaining about taking out U.S. citizen terrorists? Are these guys “boogeymen?”

      • Mike says:

        “Terror isn’t only a tactic, it’s bombs, guns, and bullets. If there is nothing to shoot or bomb, why are the Paulites complaining about taking out U.S. citizen terrorists? Are these guys “boogeymen?””

        Yet even further proof indicating you are being purposefully obtuse. Terrorism is just a tactic, which uses fear as a means of coercion. Guns and bombs are not terrorism, they are just weapons. If you use a gun to go hunt some deer, nobody would call that terrorism.

        If we are not in a declared war and there are no clearly defined enemies, then I would hardly call the government extrajudicially murdering/assassinating people “taking out U.S. citizen terrorists” or in the case of the 16 y.o. son “collateral damage.” In America, there used to be a presumption of innocence. Under our laws, you were innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Now the president can decide, behind closed doors and with secret proof, who lives and who dies.

        Also, I can tell you are a big time collectivist. Your use of the term “Paulites,” along with the assumption that all Ron Paul supporters think alike and have the same motivations or reasoning, is proof of my point.

      • tex2 says:

        Without guns and bombs (and poisons and cyber attacks, etc), terrorism is harmless. Your hunting example is why terrorism isn’t JUST a tactic, it is ALSO various weapons used with bad intentions. That isn’t being obtuse, it is being factual.

        Why didn’t you answer my questions:
        If there is nothing to shoot or bomb, why are the Paulites complaining about taking out U.S. citizen terrorists?
        Are these guys “boogeymen?”

        The nature of terrorism is there can’t be a declared war and there are no clearly defined enemies. The normal rules of war simply don’t apply, because the parameters are different.

        I would call the government extrajudicially murdering/assassinating people and “taking out U.S. citizen terrorists” or in the case of the 16 y.o. son “collateral damage.”

        In America, there still is a presumption of innocence. Under our laws, you were innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Now the president can decide, behind closed doors and with secret proof, who lives and who dies because they are operating outside of the criminal laws and have entered the rules of war that have to be applied appropriately.

        Also, I can tell you are dead WRONG if you think I am a big time collectivist. I use of the term “Paulites,” along with the assumption that all Ron Paul supporters think alike and have the same motivations or reasoning, because you all parrot what Ron says.

      • Mike says:

        “Without guns and bombs (and poisons and cyber attacks, etc), terrorism is harmless.”

        You are admitting in this sentence that there can still be terrorism without guns and bombs (although you feel the attempts would be harmless). Terrorism is using fear to reach your goals, weapons are just tools used to create the fear. A long time ago, people would use strategic assassinations to create such fear. On a less political level, organized crime uses fear to extort money through protection rackets and to extort silence from witness and those about to testify. The Bush administration terrorized the American people with lies about Iraqi WMDs with the goal of overriding the widespread popular opposition to an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.

        And I did answer your question. You make the assumption that any person the president declares to be a terrorist, is in fact a terrorist instead of just a person suspected of terrorism. I prefer the rule of law to your attitude that we should bring back the wild west. It is important to realize that the federal government (TSA, FBI, etc) has not stopped one terroristic plot this past decade that wasn’t a plot of the government’s own creation. I’ll let the good judge [Andrew Napolitano] explain this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrxpLEuWjM4

        “because you all parrot what Ron says.”

        Funny, because you are excellent in parroting the war propaganda pumped out by the administrations of both Bush and Obama. And even more humorously, you are parroting back my own words without even correcting the sentence to make sense. For example “I use of the term “Paulites,””

      • Reality says:

        tex2 says: “You are clueless if you think we are “aggressive global cowboys.””

        But you call an extrajudicial killing of a 16 year old American boy WHO HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME and is not anywhere near who his father who was killed IN A SEPARATE ATTACK, “collateral damage” with a shrug. Imagine if it were your son who got killed in such an attack. Maybe you would shrug it of as the ways things go, but that just says even more about your lack of demonstrated soul.

        “We” may not be aggressive global cowboys as in you and I. But YOU sure as heck demonstrate such an attitude.

      • tex2 says:

        “Reality,”

        Yemen is not a country where you can serve a warrant and take somebody into custody, it probably would have cost many lives to capture/kill these tribal terrorists. If the 16 year old was hanging out with known terrorists and got caught up in the military strike, so be it. You have NO idea how careful we are with our bombing to minimize collateral damage. You need to understand war IS extrajudicial. Take your complaint to one of the families from 9/11, their loved one did nothing more than go to work the day they died. And you wonder why Ron can’t get elected to a national office!

      • tex2 says:

        You mean when we supported Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to kick out the Soviets? That is a perfect example of the unintended consequences that spring from our foreign interventions. I’m starting to think you are playing a prank on everyone here if you use that as an example and then say I’m the one who “OBVIOUSLY” doesn’t understand. —> No, I’m talking about how we didn’t stabilize Afghanistan after we helped kick out the Soviets. Instead, we just left and allowed the Taliban to take over and for people like bin Laden to set up his terrorist training facilities. We didn’t make that mistake in Iraq this most recent time (we DID in the first Gulf War) and we weren’t doing it in Afghanistan either, until Barry put this at risk when he became determined to accelerate troop withdrawal in order to get reelected at the expense of this worthy goal.

      • Mike says:

        “No, I’m talking about how we didn’t stabilize Afghanistan after we helped kick out the Soviets. Instead, we just left and allowed the Taliban to take over and for people like bin Laden to set up his terrorist training facilities. We didn’t make that mistake in Iraq this most recent time (we DID in the first Gulf War) and we weren’t doing it in Afghanistan either, until Barry put this at risk when he became determined to accelerate troop withdrawal in order to get reelected at the expense of this worthy goal.”

        Lets say I felt like occupying Ubekibekibekibekistanstan. How many generations would I have to police and propagandize there before I can feel safe from blowback and retaliation by it’s citizenry or any other unintended consequences. To me, the only correct answer would be to not invade in the first place.

        And again, no one accelerated anything. Following a timeline scheduled years in advance can hardly be considered an acceleration.

        Interestingly, I learned recently who Obama’s advisers were regarding the assassinations. It turns out Newt Gringich was wrong about Anwar al-Awlaki being found guilty under review by a panel that looked at it and reported back to the president. Obama’s so called panel was no more than two lawyers, whose job was not to determine if al-Awlaki was worthy of assassination or not, but, much like Bush’s torture lawyers, to simply determine the legality of such an action.

        Ben Swann’s “Reality Check” on Newt Gingrich:
        Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8FcGyaWCFE
        Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpJRdGrdneg

      • tex2 says:

        Lets say I felt like occupying Ubekibekibekibekistanstan. —> This is a stupid premise. We didn’t go into Iraq or Afghanistan because we “felt like it,” we did it because these countries posed a clear and imminent danger to the U.S.

        How many generations would I have to police and propagandize there before I can feel safe from blowback and retaliation by it’s citizenry or any other unintended consequences. —> As opposed to allowing countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China do the policing and propagandizing?

        To me, the only correct answer would be to not invade in the first place. —> That’s why you have about as much chance of becoming president as Ron Paul, because you don’t realize you can’t stay within our national boundaries to protect us.

        And again, no one accelerated anything. Following a timeline scheduled years in advance can hardly be considered an acceleration. —> The “timeline” was not written in stone, it was flexible to conform to conditions on the ground. Barry is the one who wanted to leave ASAP in order to get reelected.

        Interestingly, I learned recently who Obama’s advisers were regarding the assassinations. —> You also picked only a part of the process. Do you really believe Barry only listened to 2 lawyers, and nobody else, about this? REALLY?

        It turns out Newt Gringich was wrong about Anwar al-Awlaki being found guilty under review by a panel that looked at it and reported back to the president. —> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html

      • tex2 says:

        Obama’s so called panel was no more than two lawyers, whose job was not to determine if al-Awlaki was worthy of assassination or not, but, much like Bush’s torture lawyers, to simply determine the legality of such an action. —> See above link, then do some independent research before you believe Ben as much as you assumed I believed Newt during the debate.

        Ben Swann’s “Reality Check” on Newt Gingrich was full of errors. —> Here’s an example, it indicated Al Awlaki’s son was NOT the prime target, and he was advised to leave Yemen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html

      • tex2 says:

        Link correction – this is the one that confirms Barry didn’t make a decision to kill Al-Awlaki based soley on reading a letter by 2 lawyers: http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/10/06/if-the-legal-case-for-killing-awlaki-is-so-sound-then-why-maintain-presidential-plausible-deniability/ To suggest so makes you a PERFECT Ron Paul supporter, however. LOL

        Also, I have no idea why you’re not criticizing Barry, because while Newt merely TALKED about killing this guy, Barry actually DID it!!! LOL

      • Mike says:

        “I do not want to in a society where one person can decide who is an enemy of the state and deemed acceptable for extrajudicial execution. —> You just admitted it wasn’t a single person, now you’re back to that idea. Make up your mind.”

        Ultimately, it was Obama that made the decision. From the article you linked to me: “And the President gave the final order to pursue the operation…” So on one hand, Obama could have stopped it at any time by not giving the order. On the other hand, the president now has the new power to give said order. I was glad when Obama stopped the policy of torture, but who needs torture when you jump straight to the execution.

        “Also, I have no idea why you’re not criticizing Barry, because while Newt merely TALKED about killing this guy, Barry actually DID it!!! LOL”

        I criticize him a lot and many times during our exchanges here, and I feel Obama is as bad as Bush in many areas. Although Bush may have instituted a lot of the troublesome policies, Obama’s had three years to stop them and hasn’t even tried. I am no Obama apologist.

        “Chemical weapons are weapons and they cause mass destruction. Therefore, they are WMDs. Even wiki agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction It’s a little tricky to accuse someone of using WMD before they use them…. LOL”

        But no one was talking about chemical weapons back then, only nukes. We already knew they had chemical weapons, we sold it to them and were perfectly okay when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians.

        “This is a stupid premise. We didn’t go into Iraq or Afghanistan because we “felt like it,” we did it because these countries posed a clear and imminent danger to the U.S.”

        Hardly. Neither of those countries posed close to such a danger. Iraq had no nukes, only the chemical weapons we sold them, and they weren’t about to use them on us. In regards to Afghanistan, that country wasn’t at war with us either. We don’t need a full scale invasion to take out relatively small criminal organization. It is a wrong idea that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism. Torturing, terrorizing, or killing innocent civilians is also morally wrong.

        “Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.””

        Yeah, he sure was stupid to believe the US government’s own official words and statements, including the one by the US State Department stating that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’

        “Saddam was very secretive. Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs. To think otherwise would be VERY naive.”

        Saddam might have done something someday… I guess that is as good as reason as any to invade a country and execute it’s ruler these days.

        “WRONG. He is an enemy combatant, the court of law doesn’t apply, the rules of war do.”

        Even though you disagreed with one aspect of Ben Swann’s report, he covered this argument as well.

        “This guy had millions of witnesses to his “kill America” jihad videos. I think that is more than 2. LOL”

        The evidence needs to be presented in open court. Don’t speak about checks and balances, but then ignore the parts you don’t like.

        “Lots of people are still being captured and killed. We had the 2 largest office towers knocked down, a hole punched in the Pentagon, and another one that was thankfully overtaken that was headed for the White House or Capitol building, remember?”

        I thought you had someone specific in mind, since you said “to capture/kill him.” And I’ve already dealt with your question of how to handle these people. Murder is on the books the world over under criminal law. Although after 9/11, Ron Paul offered an alternative solution to that of warring against Afghanistan, and that is the constitutional method of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

        “Tell that to the families and friends of those killed on 9/11. Your “propaganda” killed them.”

        No, a criminal organization of murderers did, but nice attempt at eliciting an emotional response.

        “We’ve had numerous conflicts over the past few decades without declaring war. Hey, show me why the War Powers Resolution is illegal and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. LOL”

        If only I knew it would be so easy to persuade you. The constitution deals with what powers the president has regarding war and already puts limits on the president’s authority to use force. You cannot just write a law to amend these powers, and therefore the constitution. You’d need an official amendment ratified by the states. For many more reasons, wikipedia seems to have compiled a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality

      • tex2 says:

        Ultimately, it was Obama that made the decision. —> Duh. That’s what a president is supposed to do. Make decisions. Nice try to change the subject, you said he got input from only 2 lawyers, which is patently FALSE.

        From the article you linked to me: “And the President gave the final order to pursue the operation…” So on one hand, Obama could have stopped it at any time by not giving the order. On the other hand, the president now has the new power to give said order. —> That’s YOUR opinion. His advisers took the Constitution and federal law into account and made an interpretation involving a situation that is not directly addressed by current law. To be more accurate, Barry made the final decision by not overturning the decision, he is very good at passing on actually MAKING a decision. The Congress could make a new law defining this situation, but Congress is also good at leaving things fuzzy. Has Ron Paul started a bill to do so?

        I was glad when Obama stopped the policy of torture, but who needs torture when you jump straight to the execution. —> Again, there is a lot of disagreement regarding what constitutes torture. Other countries have REAL torture that would make water boarding look like a swim in a pool! Who needs “torture” when there is little to nothing to be gained by “torture?”

        “Also, I have no idea why you’re not criticizing Barry, because while Newt merely TALKED about killing this guy, Barry actually DID it!!! LOL” I criticize him a lot and many times during our exchanges here, and I feel Obama is as bad as Bush in many areas. —> Good, at least you’re consistently stupid like Ron Paul.

        Although Bush may have instituted a lot of the troublesome policies, Obama’s had three years to stop them and hasn’t even tried. I am no Obama apologist. —> Neither am I, but Barry’s campaign talk was apparently overcome by learning some top secret national security facts after he got in office.

        “Chemical weapons are weapons and they cause mass destruction. Therefore, they are WMDs. Even wiki agrees: [link removed] It’s a little tricky to accuse someone of using WMD before they use them…. LOL” But no one was talking about chemical weapons back then, only nukes. —> You need the first paragraph of this link, and next time please verify your massively erroneous statements before typing such drivel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

      • Mike says:

        “Duh. That’s what a president is supposed to do. Make decisions. Nice try to change the subject, you said he got input from only 2 lawyers, which is patently FALSE.”

        You are arguing against yourself. It doesn’t matter if he received input from 2 people or 20. My point was that I didn’t want one person to be able to make that decision. You replied “You just admitted it wasn’t a single person, now you’re back to that idea. Make up your mind.” You are the one changing the subject.

        “The Congress could make a new law defining this situation, but Congress is also good at leaving t hings fuzzy. Has Ron Paul started a bill to do so?”

        We don’t need any new laws. The laws we have already deal with these issues. We just need elected officials who will uphold their oath to the constitution and the rule of law.

        “Again, there is a lot of disagreement regarding what constitutes torture. Other countries have REAL torture that would make water boarding look like a swim in a pool! Who needs “torture” when there is little to nothing to be gained by “torture?””

        Actually, it is pretty simple. If you purposely inflict pain, whether physical or psychological, you can probably consider it torture. And we did more than water boarding. For example, forcing detainees to sit in place for days, while they pee and defecate on themselves.

        “You need the first paragraph of this link, and next time please verify your massively erroneous statements before typing such drivel”

        Sure, I read it. It says that “Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War.” This just further proves my point. We knew that that he had chemical weapons. No one was worried that he was going to acquire them, as he already had them for decades. Bush Jr. did not send troops into Iraq to search for chemical weapons; and Colin Powell did not give a speech in front of the UN about chemical weapons.

        “We already knew they had chemical weapons, we sold it to them and were perfectly okay when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians. —> We weren’t exactly friends with Iran, don’t you recall the U.S. State Department embassy people they kidnapped for over a year? Besides, that fits perfectly with Ron Paul’s position to not mettle in others’ affairs, so what’s your problem? Plus, the UN condemned it, what else would Ron have done? LOL”

        I was pointing out that it was no secret that Iraq had chemical weapons. Also, that we didn’t care.

        “You don’t read much, do you? The events of 9/11 made it necessary for these rogue countries to cooperate or suffer the consequences. Saddam had used WMD on Iran and his own people, what makes you think he wouldn’t use them on us? Also, both countries had evidence of having terrorist training camps in them.”

        Oh, I thought ‘we weren’t exactly friends with Iran,’ so why should Iraq be blamed for something we wanted. Regarding the humanitarian reasons, why aren’t we invading all of the other countries were citizens are being slaughtered, such as Syria. I don’t know whether to find it funny or sad when I see republicans bashing Obama for attacking Libya over the same humanitarian claims that democrats were bashing Bush Jr. over for attacking Iraq.

        “They trained terrorists. Therefore, they were at war with us.”

        Then we should have had a declaration of war.

        “It is a wrong idea that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism. —> And we’ve never used only overwhelming force.”

        I didn’t say it was the only thing we did, but it is a tactic that will just cause more hatred.

        “Torturing, terrorizing, or killing innocent civilians is also morally wrong. —> It’s also a fact of war. Get over it or die.”

        Then all the more reason to be extremely cautious/conservative when dealing with war.

        “Yeah, he sure was stupid to believe the US government’s own official words and statements, including the one by the US State Department stating that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ —> Source? Is that the ONLY statement made?”

        Here: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/gulf7307.htm However, I don’t really see the point of conflating Bush Sr.’s war with Bush Jr.’s war. Iraq invaded Kuwait and they were punished, at that time, for that action.

        “You really need to learn your history, but then you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul. LOL”

        I’m not the one claiming that the lack of evidence is somehow reason enough to go to war.

        “War is also on the books the world over under the Rules of War.”

        Ha, that’s a good joke. Bush Jr. did everything he could to avoid following the Rules of War. Otherwise, for example, the likes of the Taliban and al-Qaeda would get all the benefits of being a prisoner of war when captured and detained. I mean, why worry about old-fashioned and out-dated ideas like those found in the Geneva Conventions?

        “And it went nowhere. Ron has never led before, what makes you think he can lead now?”

        I guess you follow the philosophy of ‘If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.’

        “You could start by using facts, I’ve proven you WRONG on numerous occasions.”

        Huh? You made one inconsequential, point about who Obama’s advisers were. As I said, it doesn’t matter how many advisers he had or who they were, it is still the president call.

      • tex2 says:

        We already knew they had chemical weapons, we sold it to them and were perfectly okay when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians. —> We weren’t exactly friends with Iran, don’t you recall the U.S. State Department embassy people they kidnapped for over a year? Besides, that fits perfectly with Ron Paul’s position to not mettle in others’ affairs, so what’s your problem? Plus, the UN condemned it, what else would Ron have done? LOL

        “This is a stupid premise. We didn’t go into Iraq or Afghanistan because we “felt like it,” we did it because these countries posed a clear and imminent danger to the U.S.”
        Hardly. Neither of those countries posed close to such a danger. —> You don’t read much, do you? The events of 9/11 made it necessary for these rogue countries to cooperate or suffer the consequences. Saddam had used WMD on Iran and his own people, what makes you think he wouldn’t use them on us? Also, both countries had evidence of having terrorist training camps in them.

        Iraq had no nukes, only the chemical weapons we sold them, and they weren’t about to use them on us. —> Are you SURE they got them from us? http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-did-saddam-get-his-chemical.html LOL

        In regards to Afghanistan, that country wasn’t at war with us either. —> They trained terrorists. Therefore, they were at war with us.

        We don’t need a full scale invasion to take out relatively small criminal organization. —> We didn’t have a “full scale invasion.”

        It is a wrong idea that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism. —> And we’ve never used only overwhelming force.

        Torturing, terrorizing, or killing innocent civilians is also morally wrong. —> It’s also a fact of war. Get over it or die.

        “Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.”” Yeah, he sure was stupid to believe the US government’s own official words and statements, including the one by the US State Department stating that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ —> Source? Is that the ONLY statement made?

        “Saddam was very secretive. Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs. To think otherwise would be VERY naive.” Saddam might have done something someday… I guess that is as good as reason as any to invade a country and execute it’s ruler these days. —> You really need to learn your history, but then you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul. LOL

        “WRONG. He is an enemy combatant, the court of law doesn’t apply, the rules of war do.” Even though you disagreed with one aspect of Ben Swann’s report, he covered this argument as well. —> Not very well.

        “This guy had millions of witnesses to his “kill America” jihad videos. I think that is more than 2. LOL” The evidence needs to be presented in open court. Don’t speak about checks and balances, but then ignore the parts you don’t like. —> Again, how many U.S. soldiers are you willing to have die to capture this scumbag? Check out THAT balance.

        “Lots of people are still being captured and killed. We had the 2 largest office towers knocked down, a hole punched in the Pentagon, and another one that was thankfully overtaken that was headed for the White House or Capitol building, remember?” I thought you had someone specific in mind, since you said “to capture/kill him.” —> I did, we’ve captured or killed hundreds.

        And I’ve already dealt with your question of how to handle these people. Murder is on the books the world over under criminal law. —> War is also on the books the world over under the Rules of War.

        Although after 9/11, Ron Paul offered an alternative solution to that of warring against Afghanistan, and that is the constitutional method of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal. —> And it went nowhere. Ron has never led before, what makes you think he can lead now?

        “Tell that to the families and friends of those killed on 9/11. Your “propaganda” killed them.” No, a criminal organization of murderers did, but nice attempt at eliciting an emotional response. —> What these people did was NOT criminal, it was an act of war.

        “We’ve had numerous conflicts over the past few decades without declaring war. Hey, show me why the War Powers Resolution is illegal and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. LOL” If only I knew it would be so easy to persuade you. —> You could start by using facts, I’ve proven you WRONG on numerous occasions.

        The constitution deals with what powers the president has regarding war and already puts limits on the president’s authority to use force. —> The Constitution doesn’t operate in a vacuum, except in Ron Paul land.

        You cannot just write a law to amend these powers, and therefore the constitution. —> Unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution, it is an acceptable law. If Ron thinks otherwise, he should sue Congress.

        You’d need an official amendment ratified by the states. —> No you don’t, see above.

        For many more reasons, wikipedia seems to have compiled a list: [link removed] —> Looks like a good start on a lawsuit. Go for it. LOL

    • tex2 says:

      “Without guns and bombs (and poisons and cyber attacks, etc), terrorism is harmless.” You are admitting in this sentence that there can still be terrorism without guns and bombs (although you feel the attempts would be harmless). —> If it’s harmless, it’s not terrorism.

      Terrorism is using fear to reach your goals, weapons are just tools used to create the fear. —> That’s why terrorism isn’t JUST a tactic, it requires weapons of some sort, or it is harmless and not terrorism.

      A long time ago, people would use strategic assassinations to create such fear. —> They still do.

      On a less political level, organized crime uses fear to extort money through protection rackets and to extort silence from witness and those about to testify. —> And they have weapons to back up their threats.

      The Bush administration terrorized the American people with lies about Iraqi WMDs with the goal of overriding the widespread popular opposition to an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. —> Please put your Ron Paul recording away. Bush acted on the best intelligence from our country and other countries. Saddam had invaded another country and used weapons of mass destruction (chemical) on his own people, murdered at least tens to hundreds of thousands of others, had thumbed his nose to about 19 UN resolutions, including a no fly zone. If that is an “unprovoked,” then you should understand why Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president. Actually, since you support Ron, you probably DON’T understand. LOL

      And I did answer your question. You make the assumption that any person the president declares to be a terrorist, is in fact a terrorist instead of just a person suspected of terrorism. —> You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board. You also make the incorrect assumption these people are ONLY suspects. In fact, Al-Awlaki made it very clear he was an enemy of the U.S.

      I prefer the rule of law to your attitude that we should bring back the wild west. —> You prefer not answering my questions. How many of our soldiers do you think we should lose to capture/kill him on the ground? You also don’t understand the difference between a crime and act of war. There are reasons it is called the war on terrorism.

      It is important to realize that the federal government (TSA, FBI, etc) has not stopped one terroristic plot this past decade that wasn’t a plot of the government’s own creation. I’ll let the good judge [Andrew Napolitano] explain this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrxpLEuWjM4 —> The judge is exaggerating. Criminals and terrorists have been caught using this method for centuries, and even the judge said the courts have declared the practice legal, as long as they follow specific guidelines.

      “because you all parrot what Ron says.” Funny, because you are excellent in parroting the war propaganda pumped out by the administrations of both Bush and Obama. —> Better than parroting Ron Paul! LOL

      And even more humorously, you are parroting back my own words without even correcting the sentence to make sense. For example “I use of the term “Paulites,”” —> Forgive me for overlooking that error, as you may know I don’t spend a lot of time or effort responding to your Paulite propaganda. The corrected sentence is, “I use the term “Paulites,” along with the assumption that all Ron Paul supporters think alike and have the same motivations or reasoning, because you all parrot what Ron says.

      • Mike says:

        “That’s why terrorism isn’t JUST a tactic, it requires weapons of some sort, or it is harmless and not terrorism.”

        It is the threat of future violence that causes the terror. Bombing a bus, by itself, does not cause terror. It is the fear that there will be another attack that would cause people to stay off of buses. Terrorism is not something physical that you can break, kill, or wage war against. Even Rick Santorum admitted in the debate last night that terrorism is just a tactic, and that guy is a huge warmonger.

        ” Saddam had invaded another country and used weapons of mass destruction (chemical) on his own people, murdered at least tens to hundreds of thousands of others, had thumbed his nose to about 19 UN resolutions, including a no fly zone. If that is an “unprovoked,” then you should understand why Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president.”

        First of all, chemical weapons were not considered WMDs. That is not what anyone meant or thought, and it is dishonest to claim so after the fact.

        We substantially supported Iraq during their war with Iran, including supplying them with weapons. Then, we gave permission to invade Kuwait. April Catherine Glaspie was an American ambassador/diplomat appointed to Iraq following the Iraq/Iran war. During a meeting with Saddam Hussein, said is quoted as giving him this official statement regarding the conflict: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

        Additionally, another fear tactic used to push for war with Iraq was claiming that there was a operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This was also false. Therefore, there was no direct threat to the US.

        “You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board.”

        You are mistaken; I don’t think he makes these decisions on his own at all. Just because the list of who lives and who dies is formed with help from his cabal of advisers doesn’t legitimize the decision. I use the word cabal because these are hidden discussions, behind closed doors, and with secret proof. No one would recognize that as any form of liberal or constitutional democracy.

        “You also make the incorrect assumption these people are ONLY suspects. In fact, Al-Awlaki made it very clear he was an enemy of the U.S.”

        He is a suspect until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I do not want to in a society where one person can decide who is an enemy of the state and deemed acceptable for extrajudicial execution. Under our constitution, “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” The key words from that quote are ‘open court.’

        “How many of our soldiers do you think we should lose to capture/kill him on the ground? You also don’t understand the difference between a crime and act of war. There are reasons it is called the war on terrorism.”

        Who are we capturing or killing now? And yes, there are reasons it is called the war on terrorism, mostly due to propaganda purposes. Hey, show me the declaration of war and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. But as things stand now and as Ron Paul pointed out in the debate last night, both nationally and internationally, these acts are on the books under criminal law.

      • tex2 says:

        “That’s why terrorism isn’t JUST a tactic, it requires weapons of some sort, or it is harmless and not terrorism.” It is the threat of future violence that causes the terror. Bombing a bus, by itself, does not cause terror. It is the fear that there will be another attack that would cause people to stay off of buses. Terrorism is not something physical that you can break, kill, or wage war against. Even Rick Santorum admitted in the debate last night that terrorism is just a tactic, and that guy is a huge warmonger. —> You are parsing words/ideas. Even your bus example started with a bomb, whether the bus was empty or full, the terrorist STILL had to use a bomb first. THAT is the point I made.

        ” Saddam had invaded another country and used weapons of mass destruction (chemical) on his own people, murdered at least tens to hundreds of thousands of others, had thumbed his nose to about 19 UN resolutions, including a no fly zone. If that is an “unprovoked,” then you should understand why Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president.” First of all, chemical weapons were not considered WMDs. That is not what anyone meant or thought, and it is dishonest to claim so after the fact. —> Chemical weapons are weapons and they cause mass destruction. Therefore, they are WMDs. Even wiki agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction It’s a little tricky to accuse someone of using WMD before they use them…. LOL

        We substantially supported Iraq during their war with Iran, including supplying them with weapons. —> Point?
        Then, we gave permission to invade Kuwait. April Catherine Glaspie was an American ambassador/diplomat appointed to Iraq following the Iraq/Iran war. During a meeting with Saddam Hussein, said is quoted as giving him this official statement regarding the conflict: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” —> She also said, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie) In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had “repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait.” She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.” So please don’t try to parse the facts to your own advantage, we see that enough from Ron Paul. LOL

        Additionally, another fear tactic used to push for war with Iraq was claiming that there was a operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This was also false. Therefore, there was no direct threat to the US. —> Saddam was very secretive. Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs. To think otherwise would be VERY naive.

        “You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board.” You are mistaken; I don’t think he makes these decisions on his own at all. Just because the list of who lives and who dies is formed with help from his cabal of advisers doesn’t legitimize the decision. I use the word cabal because these are hidden discussions, behind closed doors, and with secret proof. No one would recognize that as any form of liberal or constitutional democracy. —> There are many secrets the public never finds out about, because doing so would be dangerous to our security. That’s why we have processes of checks and balances to manage this information.

        “You also make the incorrect assumption these people are ONLY suspects. In fact, Al-Awlaki made it very clear he was an enemy of the U.S.” He is a suspect until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. —> WRONG. He is an enemy combatant, the court of law doesn’t apply, the rules of war do.

        I do not want to in a society where one person can decide who is an enemy of the state and deemed acceptable for extrajudicial execution. —> You just admitted it wasn’t a single person, now you’re back to that idea. Make up your mind.

        Under our constitution, “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” The key words from that quote are ‘open court.’ —> This guy had millions of witnesses to his “kill America” jihad videos. I think that is more than 2. LOL

        “How many of our soldiers do you think we should lose to capture/kill him on the ground? You also don’t understand the difference between a crime and act of war. There are reasons it is called the war on terrorism.” Who are we capturing or killing now? —> Lots of people are still being captured and killed. We had the 2 largest office towers knocked down, a hole punched in the Pentagon, and another one that was thankfully overtaken that was headed for the White House or Capitol building, remember?

        And yes, there are reasons it is called the war on terrorism, mostly due to propaganda purposes. —> Tell that to the families and friends of those killed on 9/11. Your “propaganda” killed them.

        Hey, show me the declaration of war and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. —> We’ve had numerous conflicts over the past few decades without declaring war. Hey, show me why the War Powers Resolution is illegal and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. LOL

        But as things stand now and as Ron Paul pointed out in the debate last night, both nationally and internationally, these acts are on the books under criminal law. —> Then Ron should sue the government over this issue. LOL

      • tex2 says:

        “That’s why terrorism isn’t JUST a tactic, it requires weapons of some sort, or it is harmless and not terrorism.” It is the threat of future violence that causes the terror. Bombing a bus, by itself, does not cause terror. It is the fear that there will be another attack that would cause people to stay off of buses. Terrorism is not something physical that you can break, kill, or wage war against. Even Rick Santorum admitted in the debate last night that terrorism is just a tactic, and that guy is a huge warmonger. —> You are parsing words/ideas. Even your bus example started with a bomb, whether the bus was empty or full, the terrorist STILL had to use a bomb first. THAT is the point I made.

        ” Saddam had invaded another country and used weapons of mass destruction (chemical) on his own people, murdered at least tens to hundreds of thousands of others, had thumbed his nose to about 19 UN resolutions, including a no fly zone. If that is an “unprovoked,” then you should understand why Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president.” First of all, chemical weapons were not considered WMDs. That is not what anyone meant or thought, and it is dishonest to claim so after the fact. —> Chemical weapons are weapons and they cause mass destruction. Therefore, they are WMDs. Even wiki agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction It’s a little tricky to accuse someone of using WMD before they use them…. LOL

      • tex2 says:

        We substantially supported Iraq during their war with Iran, including supplying them with weapons. —> Point?
        Then, we gave permission to invade Kuwait. April Catherine Glaspie was an American ambassador/diplomat appointed to Iraq following the Iraq/Iran war. During a meeting with Saddam Hussein, said is quoted as giving him this official statement regarding the conflict: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” —> She also said, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie) In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had “repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait.” She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.” So please don’t try to parse the facts to your own advantage, we see that enough from Ron Paul. LOL

        Additionally, another fear tactic used to push for war with Iraq was claiming that there was a operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This was also false. Therefore, there was no direct threat to the US. —> Saddam was very secretive. Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs. To think otherwise would be VERY naive.

        “You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board.” You are mistaken; I don’t think he makes these decisions on his own at all. Just because the list of who lives and who dies is formed with help from his cabal of advisers doesn’t legitimize the decision. I use the word cabal because these are hidden discussions, behind closed doors, and with secret proof. No one would recognize that as any form of liberal or constitutional democracy. —> There are many secrets the public never finds out about, because doing so would be dangerous to our security. That’s why we have processes of checks and balances to manage this information.

        “You also make the incorrect assumption these people are ONLY suspects. In fact, Al-Awlaki made it very clear he was an enemy of the U.S.” He is a suspect until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. —> WRONG. He is an enemy combatant, the court of law doesn’t apply, the rules of war do.

        I do not want to in a society where one person can decide who is an enemy of the state and deemed acceptable for extrajudicial execution. —> You just admitted it wasn’t a single person, now you’re back to that idea. Make up your mind.

        Under our constitution, “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” The key words from that quote are ‘open court.’ —> This guy had millions of witnesses to his “kill America” jihad videos. I think that is more than 2. LOL

        “How many of our soldiers do you think we should lose to capture/kill him on the ground? You also don’t understand the difference between a crime and act of war. There are reasons it is called the war on terrorism.” Who are we capturing or killing now? —> Lots of people are still being captured and killed. We had the 2 largest office towers knocked down, a hole punched in the Pentagon, and another one that was thankfully overtaken that was headed for the White House or Capitol building, remember?

        And yes, there are reasons it is called the war on terrorism, mostly due to propaganda purposes. —> Tell that to the families and friends of those killed on 9/11. Your “propaganda” killed them.

        Hey, show me the declaration of war and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. —> We’ve had numerous conflicts over the past few decades without declaring war. Hey, show me why the War Powers Resolution is illegal and I’ll understand exactly where you are coming from. LOL

        But as things stand now and as Ron Paul pointed out in the debate last night, both nationally and internationally, these acts are on the books under criminal law. —> Then Ron should sue the government over this issue. LOL

    • tex2 says:

      Link correction – this is the one that confirms Barry didn’t make a decision to kill Al-Awlaki based soley on reading a letter by 2 lawyers: http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/10/06/if-the-legal-case-for-killing-awlaki-is-so-sound-then-why-maintain-presidential-plausible-deniability/ To suggest so makes you a PERFECT Ron Paul supporter, however. LOL

    • tex2 says:

      Ultimately, it was Obama that made the decision. —> Duh. That’s what a president is supposed to do. Make decisions. Nice try to change the subject, you said he got input from only 2 lawyers, which is patently FALSE.

      From the article you linked to me: “And the President gave the final order to pursue the operation…” So on one hand, Obama could have stopped it at any time by not giving the order. On the other hand, the president now has the new power to give said order. —> That’s YOUR opinion. His advisers took the Constitution and federal law into account and made an interpretation involving a situation that is not directly addressed by current law. To be more accurate, Barry made the final decision by not overturning the decision, he is very good at passing on actually MAKING a decision. The Congress could make a new law defining this situation, but Congress is also good at leaving things fuzzy. Has Ron Paul started a bill to do so?

      I was glad when Obama stopped the policy of torture, but who needs torture when you jump straight to the execution. —> Again, there is a lot of disagreement regarding what constitutes torture. Other countries have REAL torture that would make water boarding look like a swim in a pool! Who needs “torture” when there is little to nothing to be gained by “torture?”

      “Also, I have no idea why you’re not criticizing Barry, because while Newt merely TALKED about killing this guy, Barry actually DID it!!! LOL” I criticize him a lot and many times during our exchanges here, and I feel Obama is as bad as Bush in many areas. —> Good, at least you’re consistently stupid like Ron Paul.

      Although Bush may have instituted a lot of the troublesome policies, Obama’s had three years to stop them and hasn’t even tried. I am no Obama apologist. —> Neither am I, but Barry’s campaign talk was apparently overcome by learning some top secret national security facts after he got in office.

      “Chemical weapons are weapons and they cause mass destruction. Therefore, they are WMDs. Even wiki agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction It’s a little tricky to accuse someone of using WMD before they use them…. LOL” But no one was talking about chemical weapons back then, only nukes. —> You need the first paragraph of this link, and next time please verify your massively erroneous statements before typing such drivel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

      We already knew they had chemical weapons, we sold it to them and were perfectly okay when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians. —> We weren’t exactly friends with Iran, don’t you recall the U.S. State Department people they kidnapped for over a year? Besides, that fits perfectly with Ron Paul’s position to not mettle in others’ affairs, so what’s your problem? Plus, the UN condemned it, what else would Ron have done? LOL

      “This is a stupid premise. We didn’t go into Iraq or Afghanistan because we “felt like it,” we did it because these countries posed a clear and imminent danger to the U.S.”
      Hardly. Neither of those countries posed close to such a danger. —> You don’t read much, do you? The events of 9/11 made it necessary for these rogue countries to cooperate or suffer the consequences. Saddam had used WMD on Iran and his own people, what makes you think he wouldn’t use them on us? Also, both countries had evidence of having terrorist training camps in them.

    • tex2 says:

      “Duh. That’s what a president is supposed to do. Make decisions. Nice try to change the subject, you said he got input from only 2 lawyers, which is patently FALSE.” You are arguing against yourself. It doesn’t matter if he received input from 2 people or 20. My point was that I didn’t want one person to be able to make that decision. You replied “You just admitted it wasn’t a single person, now you’re back to that idea. Make up your mind.” You are the one changing the subject. —> First of all, YOUR original point was, “Obama’s so called panel was no more than two lawyers, whose job was not to determine if al-Awlaki was worthy of assassination or not, but, much like Bush’s torture lawyers, to simply determine the legality of such an action.” Then, I showed where the process involved FAR more than 2 people. In the real world, whether political, business, family, etc., the decision is usually made by one person, the person in charge of the subject being decided, hopefully with significant input and consideration of others’ ideas.

      “The Congress could make a new law defining this situation, but Congress is also good at leaving t hings fuzzy. Has Ron Paul started a bill to do so?” We don’t need any new laws. The laws we have already deal with these issues. We just need elected officials who will uphold their oath to the constitution and the rule of law. —> Bullshit. The situation we face is not directly addressed by the Constitution. If the law addressed the specific terrorist situation we are dealing with, there wouldn’t be a need for the 2 lawyers to give their opinion or for the various government agencies to discuss whether taking the action they took was proper.

      “Again, there is a lot of disagreement regarding what constitutes torture. Other countries have REAL torture that would make water boarding look like a swim in a pool! Who needs “torture” when there is little to nothing to be gained by “torture?”” Actually, it is pretty simple. If you purposely inflict pain, whether physical or psychological, you can probably consider it torture. —> Then you’re torturing everybody reading your posts! LOL

      And we did more than water boarding. For example, forcing detainees to sit in place for days, while they pee and defecate on themselves. —> Then why don’t YOU submit a lawsuit against the government?

      “You need the first paragraph of this link, and next time please verify your massively erroneous statements before typing such drivel” Sure, I read it. It says that “Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War.” This just further proves my point. —> No, it doesn’t, because YOUR point was we were only concerned about nuclear weapons being WMD, and chemical weapons are not WMD. Here’s what YOU said, “But no one was talking about chemical weapons back then, only nukes.”, and “First of all, chemical weapons were not considered WMDs.”

      We knew that that he had chemical weapons. No one was worried that he was going to acquire them, as he already had them for decades. —> That’s right, we were trying to take away his chemical weapons, which was a condition of allowing him to stay in power after the first Gulf War, and he wasn’t cooperating.

      Bush Jr. did not send troops into Iraq to search for chemical weapons; and Colin Powell did not give a speech in front of the UN about chemical weapons. —> Bush did send troops into Iraq to find the chemical WMD, as well as for several other reasons. In fact, he was given a hard time when they couldn’t find the WMD. I suggest you read Colin Powell’s speech, he mentioned chemical WMD several times: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa You know, it’s getting pretty disgusting to repeatedly shoot down your false statements so easily. Are you sure you’re a Ron Paul supporter, or trying to make him look stupid? LOL

      “We already knew they had chemical weapons, we sold it to them and were perfectly okay when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians. —> We weren’t exactly friends with Iran, don’t you recall the U.S. State Department embassy people they kidnapped for over a year? Besides, that fits perfectly with Ron Paul’s position to not mettle in others’ affairs, so what’s your problem? Plus, the UN condemned it, what else would Ron have done? LOL” I was pointing out that it was no secret that Iraq had chemical weapons. Also, that we didn’t care. —> Then why did we sign the UN resolution against Iraq having WMD?

      “You don’t read much, do you? The events of 9/11 made it necessary for these rogue countries to cooperate or suffer the consequences. Saddam had used WMD on Iran and his own people, what makes you think he wouldn’t use them on us? Also, both countries had evidence of having terrorist training camps in them.” Oh, I thought ‘we weren’t exactly friends with Iran,’ so why should Iraq be blamed for something we wanted. —> I have no idea what this means. What did we want?

      Regarding the humanitarian reasons, why aren’t we invading all of the other countries were citizens are being slaughtered, such as Syria. —> Simple. Other Arab countries appear to be taking care of Syria and Syria doesn’t have the strategic interest (oil) the other countries have.

      I don’t know whether to find it funny or sad when I see republicans bashing Obama for attacking Libya over the same humanitarian claims that democrats were bashing Bush Jr. over for attacking Iraq. —> It’s called politics. Many Republicans supported the actions in Libya.

      “They trained terrorists. Therefore, they were at war with us.”
      Then we should have had a declaration of war. —> Then get Ron Paul elected and HE can get Congress to declare war! LOL

      “It is a wrong idea that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism. —> And we’ve never used only overwhelming force.” I didn’t say it was the only thing we did, but it is a tactic that will just cause more hatred. —> It also killed or captured a lot of bad guys. You can cling to your myopic view of the Constitution and die, or use laws that permit actions to be taken without a full declaration of war and live. Your choice.

      “Torturing, terrorizing, or killing innocent civilians is also morally wrong. —> It’s also a fact of war. Get over it or die.”
      Then all the more reason to be extremely cautious/conservative when dealing with war. —> I don’t think you understand the great caution we take before attacking our enemy to minimize killing civilians, nor do you understand how the terrorists intermingle with civilians and use them as human shields.

      “Yeah, he sure was stupid to believe the US government’s own official words and statements, including the one by the US State Department stating that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ —> Source? Is that the ONLY statement made?”

      Here: [link removed] That link was one quote taken out of context. The same document also stated, “…the State Department stressed the strong U.S. commitment to “supporting the individual and collective self-defense of our friends in the Gulf….” and concluded, “The U.S. sent mixed and confusing signals to Iraq.” You like to parse one idea and pretend it is the entire discussion. Bad idea, especially with the internet giving me the ability to refute your bullshit.

      However, I don’t really see the point of conflating Bush Sr.’s war with Bush Jr.’s war. Iraq invaded Kuwait and they were punished, at that time, for that action. —> The point of conflating these two wars is Saddam did not live up to the agreement after the first one, and 9/11 made his situation even worse.

      “You really need to learn your history, but then you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul. LOL” I’m not the one claiming that the lack of evidence is somehow reason enough to go to war. —> Lack of what evidence?

      “War is also on the books the world over under the Rules of War.” Ha, that’s a good joke. Bush Jr. did everything he could to avoid following the Rules of War. —> Really? Then why didn’t he just drop a bunch of nukes on Iraq and turn it into a glass parking lot?

      Otherwise, for example, the likes of the Taliban and al-Qaeda would get all the benefits of being a prisoner of war when captured and detained. —> The Geneva Convention is clear terrorists are NOT prisoners of war, because they don’t fight for a sovereign country.

      I mean, why worry about old-fashioned and out-dated ideas like those found in the Geneva Conventions? —> See above. IDIOT.

      “And it went nowhere. Ron has never led before, what makes you think he can lead now?” I guess you follow the philosophy of ‘If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.’ —> No, I believe in the philosophy that if Ron has never led before, what makes you think he can lead now?

      “You could start by using facts, I’ve proven you WRONG on numerous occasions.” Huh? You made one inconsequential, point about who Obama’s advisers were. —> You need to go back and read again, there are several errors I corrected.

      As I said, it doesn’t matter how many advisers he had or who they were, it is still the president call. —> As it should be. Bush even wrote a book about it, “Decision Points.”

      • Mike says:

        “First of all, YOUR original point was, “Obama’s so called panel was no more than two lawyers, whose job was not to determine if al-Awlaki was worthy of assassination or not, but, much like Bush’s torture lawyers, to simply determine the legality of such an action.” Then, I showed where the process involved FAR more than 2 people. In the real world, whether political, business, family, etc., the decision is usually made by one person, the person in charge of the subject being decided, hopefully with significant input and consideration of others’ ideas.”

        No, you originally said ““You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board.” I replied “You are mistaken; I don’t think he makes these decisions on his own at all. Just because the list of who lives and who dies is formed with help from his cabal of advisers doesn’t legitimize the decision.” My point always was the same.

        “The situation we face is not directly addressed by the Constitution. If the law addressed the specific terrorist situation we are dealing with, there wouldn’t be a need for the 2 lawyers to give their opinion or for the various government agencies to discuss whether taking the action they took was proper.”

        I never said just the constitution. I said that we have laws addressing terrorism.

        “Then you’re torturing everybody reading your posts! LOL”

        Haha. Fine then, this will be my last post. Every time you are proven wrong or face the slightest challenge to your belief system, you turn to childish insults and demagoguery.

        “Then why don’t YOU submit a lawsuit against the government?”

        Wow, you must be obsessed with lawsuits. Usually, you can only file a lawsuit if you’ve been directly affected. For example, the ACLU and Anwar al-Awlaki’s father attempted to file a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki. The aim was to get him off the kill list. The case was thrown out by the judge on grounds that ‘Nasser al-Awlaki did not have standing to sue and that the officials were immune from such lawsuits anyway.’

        “Bush did send troops into Iraq to find the chemical WMD, as well as for several other reasons. In fact, he was given a hard time when they couldn’t find the WMD. I suggest you read Colin Powell’s speech, he mentioned chemical WMD several times.”

        He mentioned that Iraq had the banned material of chemical weapons, and that they couldn’t find these weapons. Then he talks about their history of chemical warfare. The whole speech is a build up to their nuke program and establishing a connection to al-Qaeda. Just because someone mentions something in a speech, doesn’t mean that is what the speech was about or what it’s purpose was.

        “Then why did we sign the UN resolution against Iraq having WMD?”

        Because, we got what we wanted. Iraq gassing people was perfectly acceptable as long as it was being done to our enemies.

        “I have no idea what this means. What did we want?”

        We wanted Iraq to defeat Iran. It didn’t matter if the Iranians were being gassed, at that time at least.

        “Simple. Other Arab countries appear to be taking care of Syria and Syria doesn’t have the strategic interest (oil) the other countries have.”

        If it all boils down to who has the oil, then stop using humanitarianism as an excuse to go to war.

        “It also killed or captured a lot of bad guys. You can cling to your myopic view of the Constitution and die, or use laws that permit actions to be taken without a full declaration of war and live. Your choice.”

        The concept of blowback has nothing with the constitution. It is a concept coined by the CIA. In fact, in 1998, Ron Paul predicted there would be blowback, including terrorist attacks against us, due to our use of force during the 90s.

        “That link was one quote taken out of context. The same document also stated, “…the State Department stressed the strong U.S. commitment to “supporting the individual and collective self-defense of our friends in the Gulf….” and concluded, “The U.S. sent mixed and confusing signals to Iraq.” You like to parse one idea and pretend it is the entire discussion.”

        I don’t pretend it is the entire discussion. It is just my opinion that if half of everything Saddam was hearing were things that agreed with his plans, it is no wonder he went ahead with said plans.

        “Lack of what evidence?”

        You wrote “Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs.” If there is no evidence, don’t go to war on the assumption that it is true regardless.

        “Really? Then why didn’t he just drop a bunch of nukes on Iraq and turn it into a glass parking lot?”

        what is this I don’t even

        “The Geneva Convention is clear terrorists are NOT prisoners of war, because they don’t fight for a sovereign country.”

        The Taliban was the dominant political force in Afghanistan, so they were fighting for that country.

        “As I said, it doesn’t matter how many advisers he had or who they were, it is still the president call. —> As it should be. Bush even wrote a book about it, “Decision Points.””

        Then stop using advisers as an excuse when the president ignores all checks and balances, throws out due process, and takes the power of judge, jury, and executioner into his own hands.

      • tex2 says:

        “First of all, YOUR original point was, “Obama’s so called panel was no more than two lawyers, whose job was not to determine if al-Awlaki was worthy of assassination or not, but, much like Bush’s torture lawyers, to simply determine the legality of such an action.” Then, I showed where the process involved FAR more than 2 people. In the real world, whether political, business, family, etc., the decision is usually made by one person, the person in charge of the subject being decided, hopefully with significant input and consideration of others’ ideas.” No, you originally said ““You make the incorrect assumption the president makes these decisions without any input from anyone else, and he just throws darts at a picture board.” I replied “You are mistaken; I don’t think he makes these decisions on his own at all. Just because the list of who lives and who dies is formed with help from his cabal of advisers doesn’t legitimize the decision.” My point always was the same. —> Let’s look at YOUR original statement, “You make the assumption that any person the president declares to be a terrorist, is in fact a terrorist instead of just a person suspected of terrorism.” This is a ridiculous statement, and one that Ron Paul has made in public. It is a massive distortion of reality.

        “The situation we face is not directly addressed by the Constitution. If the law addressed the specific terrorist situation we are dealing with, there wouldn’t be a need for the 2 lawyers to give their opinion or for the various government agencies to discuss whether taking the action they took was proper.” I never said just the constitution. I said that we have laws addressing terrorism. —> Great, then provide me the law that directly addresses this situation and tell me how they broke it.

        “Then you’re torturing everybody reading your posts! LOL”
        Haha. Fine then, this will be my last post. Every time you are proven wrong or face the slightest challenge to your belief system, you turn to childish insults and demagoguery. —> Good riddance to you and Ron Paul.

        “Then why don’t YOU submit a lawsuit against the government?” Wow, you must be obsessed with lawsuits. Usually, you can only file a lawsuit if you’ve been directly affected. For example, the ACLU and Anwar al-Awlaki’s father attempted to file a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki. The aim was to get him off the kill list. The case was thrown out by the judge on grounds that ‘Nasser al-Awlaki did not have standing to sue and that the officials were immune from such lawsuits anyway.’ —> YOU are the one who wants to follow the Constitutional process, I’m merely suggesting you take your own advice. al-Awlaki should have submitted the case on his own or pay with his life, which he did. You could easily submit a lawsuit under your own pretense that any U.S. citizen could be accused of being a terrorist and put on the kill/capture list, then watch how fast the judge would also throw it out of court! LOL

        “Bush did send troops into Iraq to find the chemical WMD, as well as for several other reasons. In fact, he was given a hard time when they couldn’t find the WMD. I suggest you read Colin Powell’s speech, he mentioned chemical WMD several times.” He mentioned that Iraq had the banned material of chemical weapons, and that they couldn’t find these weapons. Then he talks about their history of chemical warfare. The whole speech is a build up to their nuke program and establishing a connection to al-Qaeda. Just because someone mentions something in a speech, doesn’t mean that is what the speech was about or what it’s purpose was. —> WRONG. He talked about the evidence of chemical weapons and the lack of cooperation from Saddam. You can’t say (and have any credibility), “and Colin Powell did not give a speech in front of the UN about chemical weapons.” and then turn around and say it doesn’t matter what was in the speech when you are proven wrong. But nice try to prove a negative.

        “Then why did we sign the UN resolution against Iraq having WMD?” Because, we got what we wanted. Iraq gassing people was perfectly acceptable as long as it was being done to our enemies. —> Then why did we also sign off on a bunch UN resolution against the Iraq/Iran war, which would include the use of WMD? This is typical of Ron’s position on foreign affairs, just tell them to behave and let them do what they want to do and don’t interfere in the affairs of other countries. That didn’t work out too well, did it? Are you saying Ron would have stepped into the middle of that war because of the use of chemical WMD? You need to make up your mind.

        “I have no idea what this means. What did we want?” We wanted Iraq to defeat Iran. It didn’t matter if the Iranians were being gassed, at that time at least. —> Again, what would Ron have done?

        “Simple. Other Arab countries appear to be taking care of Syria and Syria doesn’t have the strategic interest (oil) the other countries have.” If it all boils down to who has the oil, then stop using humanitarianism as an excuse to go to war. —> AGAIN, you ignored the other part of the statement, that the other Arab countries are addressing this issue. Oil is PART of the issue, but not the entire issue. Paulites are fond of oversimplifying to make the decision look stupid. The rest of us see right through it.

        “It also killed or captured a lot of bad guys. You can cling to your myopic view of the Constitution and die, or use laws that permit actions to be taken without a full declaration of war and live. Your choice.” The concept of blowback has nothing with the constitution. It is a concept coined by the CIA. In fact, in 1998, Ron Paul predicted there would be blowback, including terrorist attacks against us, due to our use of force during the 90s. —> The concept of blowback doesn’t mean we should cower within the boundaries of our own country and wait for another 9/11 type attack, either. The concept of blowback means we should be careful and wise how we apply our strength (which we do in the vast majority of cases), not that we should be afraid to use it properly.

        “That link was one quote taken out of context. The same document also stated, “…the State Department stressed the strong U.S. commitment to “supporting the individual and collective self-defense of our friends in the Gulf….” and concluded, “The U.S. sent mixed and confusing signals to Iraq.” You like to parse one idea and pretend it is the entire discussion.” I don’t pretend it is the entire discussion. It is just my opinion that if half of everything Saddam was hearing were things that agreed with his plans, it is no wonder he went ahead with said plans. —> If you think it is a good idea for an evil dictator to take over another sovereign country in the middle of our national interests is a good thing, I suggest you keep supporting Ron Paul, because I don’t want your support behind any other Republican candidate.

        “Lack of what evidence?” You wrote “Just because our intelligence groups couldn’t find evidence of an “operational working relationship” doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t give them WMDs.” If there is no evidence, don’t go to war on the assumption that it is true regardless. —> It fit a previous pattern, the issue was too important to our national security to first collect enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt level of confidence.

        “Really? Then why didn’t he just drop a bunch of nukes on Iraq and turn it into a glass parking lot?” what is this I don’t even —> ???

        “The Geneva Convention is clear terrorists are NOT prisoners of war, because they don’t fight for a sovereign country.” The Taliban was the dominant political force in Afghanistan, so they were fighting for that country. —> We took out the Taliban because they refused to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban was clearly not in control of the country.

        “As I said, it doesn’t matter how many advisers he had or who they were, it is still the president call. —> As it should be. Bush even wrote a book about it, “Decision Points.”” Then stop using advisers as an excuse when the president ignores all checks and balances, throws out due process, and takes the power of judge, jury, and executioner into his own hands. —> You have a complete lack of understanding national security and imminent danger. It would take YEARS, if not DECADES, to get through our legal system, giving the terrorists plenty of time to conduct additional attacks against us. You’re CLUELESS. Just like Ron Paul.

  23. David Robertson says:

    As a citizen of the UK I support Dr. Paul because he would be the best U.S. President for the World. His opposition to the American Empire and the political elites’ determination to dominate the world is both principled and of long duration.

    It is my belief that there is an opportunity for Americans to awaken from their media and public education induced torpor and to learn how their republican form of government really works and how to take control of it from the bottom up as it is designed to be controlled…by the People.

    With this example in front of them perhaps other Peoples in other nations can begin to emulate the American form of government without the fear of being bombed out of existence because they decide to have a different banking system or decide to price their oil in gold dinars rather than US dollars.

    There is no national security need for Americans to have 900 military bases in 170 countries and use 70 black ops every day in 120 countries and inter alia to carry out targeted assassinations against political opponents in these countries.

    It is time for the BIS/IMF/Federal Reserve/Bank of England global central banking system to come to an end and Dr. Paul can bring that about.

    To all Ron Paul supporters I would say keep up the good work, you are an inspiration to others around the world who are also living under elected dictatorships.

    RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012

  24. Thank you Doug. You and Jack Hunter are articulating this message very clearly and effectively. It is a pleasure to read your comments.

  25. Kenn Jacobine says:

    Doug,

    Very inspirational article – You got me energized to do more.

  26. Paul says:

    A President Paul would be awesome if only for the fact that it would make the establishment (of both parties), corporate media, and greedy money-grubbing elitsits quake in their boots.

  27. sovereign says:

    I’m voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in. My state requires me to register my PARTY a month before I vote in the primary and voting in the primary/caucus is EXTREMELY important. If anyone wants to register to vote in their state’s primary/caucus (which allows you to vote in the general election as well) or change their party membership to Republican (which you must do), just go to: ( rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html ) If you aren’t registered as a Republican in some states then you won’t be able to vote for Ron Paul and we desperately NEED those primary/caucus votes. Just use the link to register to change your party if you have to or even to register to vote for the first time and get it over with so you don’t miss your state’s deadline.

  28. Ron Paul and his grassroot campaign off- and online are doing a great job at coalition building. The crossover appeal and organic outreach to younger voters, independents, blue republicans and social conservatives is impressive. A constitutional libertarian winning the Iowa caucuses would no doubt spill over to other states!

  29. rpsupporter says:

    Doug.

    If you’re serious about taking a message back to the campaign can you relay this for me.

    Ron has a problem getting the point across that foreigners hate america because of the occupation.

    I would like to hear it framed a little more like this.

    Joe Voter thinks that all of the people in the middle east want to come and blow up every city in America because you are free.

    Most Ron Paul supporters know and understand that this is not the case.

    Can Ron Point out that even in Ireland-one of America’s closest friends where Barack Obama recently addressed thousands of adoring supporters- even here there are people who disllike America’s Imerialism because of the way it runs ripshod around the world and thinks that its way of life is worth killing/injuring hundreds of thousands of people to spread.

    Take for instance this story

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/antiwar-protester-convicted-of-axe-attack-on-us-plane-152209.html

    Probably would be classified as a terrorist attack nowadays, but is nothing more than a pissed off average person in Ireland of all places watching the U.S military taking over a local Airport on the way to dropping cluster bombs around the world.

    I’m a young Irish guy who would love nothing more than to see Ron Paul as president and stop whoever is in charge of your military industrial complex from spreading their shenanigans to every corner of the globe.

    P.s when America has left our shores would the brits do likewise soon thereafter…I live in hope

  30. MW3 strategy guide…

    [...]Ron Paul can win the presidency « Doug Wead The Blog[...]…

  31. John Herr says:

    Dear Doug,

    We have a VERY SERIOUS idea you could use to support Ron Paul.

    He is just like William Wilberforce and William Pitt (youngest prime minister of England). These two guys are portrayed reasonably accurately in the film “Amazing Grace”

    We implore you to watch this film! Ron Paul is just like this and instead of standing up against the money barons regarding slavery “outright” of humans, Ron Paul is standing up for the abolition of “FINANCIAL SLAVERY”

    PLEASE incorporate this into the discussion and debate!

    The song “Amazing Grace” is the most recognized song in all of Christianity, at least they all know and sing it.

    Use this as a conscience weapon to support Ron Paul and do it NOW, PLEASE!

    LOL,
    John and Jude from Durango, CO
    (970) 903-6273

    • tex2 says:

      John,

      That’s PERFECT. God must have Amazing Grace to allow Ron into heaven even though his foreign policy is dangerous to the survival of our country!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: