Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 02, 2007

I've found my man

Congressman Ron Paul for President

With respect to Webster50B, I urge everyone to explore the material available at Texas Congressman Ron Paul's site. I doubt that Sen. Coleman's wafflings on expressions of opposition to the war are for reasons so sound and nuanced as Congressman Paul's forthright opposition. I understand the sound argument that we must clearly defeat the jihadists in Iraq or be seen as weak by a people whose worldview is strongly shaped by notions of honor and shame and whose ambition is to see us impoverished and bowing low before the Prophet. I am fully convinced that Saddam Hussein was a monster of the first order, and justice has been served on him--if late. This all makes sense to me. So, by urging the nomination of Congressman Paul, I do not exactly disagree with Webster50B's reasoning, below, urging Sen. Coleman to vote no on the Warner amendment.

On the other hand, it has never seemed like a conservative enterprise to me, despite all those sensible arguments, to attempt to defeat our enemies by process of exportation of democratic--or better yet, republican--ideals. From the first talk of war, I doubted we would succeed in Pres. Bush's grandiose plans of imposing freedom on the Arab world. The Iraqis may have that longing for liberty we like to believe all humanity feels, but if so, they are a minority in a group that refuses to see itself as a collection of nation states, instead insisting on viewing the world as the Muslim nation versus Infidel. It is mysterious, but apparently the fact, that a majority of Muslims are simply barbarians and barbarian sympathizers, at least those not living in the West, who do not wish for freedom, thinking it a breeding ground for immorality. Hence, the majority of anti-freedom Muslims see no difficulty in imposing their view of righteousness on their fellow (Iraqi) Muslims by using their land as a staging point in the international jihad, never mind the existence of a national border that ought to allow the Iraqis to work out their own national ideals in peace.

So Congressman Paul's reasoning on the war appeals to me. What's more, his understanding of our financial mess, especially the disastrous, deliberate expansion of the money supply, and his forthright manner of speaking, are a breath of fresh air, one that seems most necessary in the current age of strangulating ignorance and suppression of the facts. He is universally commended as a man who upholds liberty and the true understanding of the Constitution.

And please, please--nobody tell me he can't win. Voting for somebody who's not a real conservative because he or she can win is like losing your soul to gain the world. What good does it do? We swallowed that argument last time around and got a Republican President and Congress who can't stop spending to save their lives. Furthermore, a nation that would choose a Hilary over a Ron Paul deserves what it gets--I'd almost rather see that and the ensuing breakdown than another term of pseudo-conservatives in power. At least while we remain in the nomination phase, just let me argue for the best man, and don't give me any noxious national political calculus.

Now we just have to talk him into running.

2 Comments:

Blogger G-Man said...

Any candidate who thinks “a military victory in Iraq is unattainable” should never become Commander In Chief. Period.

President Clinton was right to bomb Iraq in 1998. In 2003, President Bush was right to finish the job that Clinton started. Saddam was a growing threat to his neighbors and to us. He had the materials, the will, and (thanks to the oil for food scam) the money to reinvigorate his WMD program as soon as the world looked away.

Contrary to the perception molded by Democrats and the MSM, we did find bio-chem materials and weapons. We found 500 munitions from the Iran-Iraq war era that were either filled with sarin gas or mustard gas. The sarin gas versions had a theoretical kill rate of 30,000. We also found evidence of a dormant nuclear program ready to be re-activated as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Now add to this mix the fact that Saddam aided and harbored terrorists. As illustrated in the NBC hit 24, the threat of these weapons in the hands of terrorists is very real. Just imagine what would happen if the MegaMall or the MetroDome were targets for any of these recovered 500 munitions.

Victory in Iraq is not only possible, it is necessary. Iraq is al Qaeda's last stand. If we turn tail and run away, Al Qaeda will surely follow us home. Peace will only prevail if this enemy is defeated. Surrendering Iraq and its 25 million citizens to tyrannical terrorist will certainly not lead to peace.

Moreover, al Qaeda's only hope is that we fall into the Vietnam trap of losing our will to win. I am convinced that one of the factors contributing to the length of this war has been the moral support that al Qaeda has garnered from American liberals. Sadly, Ron Paul is joining this hit parade. Based on this one speech, Paul is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and should NEVER be considered for the highest office in the land!

By the way, how has it come to pass that liberating 25 million people from the tyranny of Saddam is “imposing democracy”? Clearly, liberating the oppressed and introducing them to freedom is a conservative ideal. Given that 12 million Iraqi's risked death to cast ballots in their first free elections, I would hardly characterize this as an imposition of freedom.

2/08/2007 12:28 AM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

I've generally had a very favorable view on Ron Paul regarding his stands on original constitutional intent and limited government but, like G-Man, I was very disappointed in his position on the war.

While his reasoning may have been solid in the past, 9-11 changed things. The country was attacked and is in danger of future attacks. Iraq is the major front in an on-going multi-theater war and to concede defeat would be disasterous for the country.

While Congressman Paul would probably make a good president by most other criteria, his stand on the war in Iraq (and therefore on the entire war on Islamic terror) overshadows his otherwise good characteristics and, to my thinking, disqualifies him as a presidential candidate.

2/08/2007 9:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger