Time for Paul & Gingrich to STEP ASIDE.....

Bin Laden wasn't killed in Afghanistan, was he?

 

No he wasn't. Once again....what are you trying to get at with your posts?

 

So capturing/killing an international terrorist is not an exact science, is it?

 

He didn't want to invade Afghanistan in the sense of regime change. He wanted a police action in Afghanistan to capture a mass murderer. No one is arguing against self-defense, despite the straw man "isolationist" foolishness.

 

The only reason you refuse to admit that Ron Paul is an Isolationist, is because the Ron Paul Propaganda Machine has TOLD you that he's not an isolationist.

But not everyone is drinking the same Kool-Aid as all the Ron Paul Zealots.

 

Once again...he voted to go after Bin Laden...not to divert to Iraq...which had nothing to do with Bin Laden.

Had we stayed on course with the plan. Bin Laden would have been killed in Afghanistan years ago.

 

Whoever claimed it was? I just don't see the logic in unnecessarily killing thousands of innocent people to get one man because he unnecessarilly killed thousands of innocent people.

And anyway, what does Iraq have to do with al qaeda?

 

According to the Ron Paul Propaganda Machine, nothing.

 

First you talk about how Paul allegedly wanted to invade Iraq; then you argue he's an isolationist. Which is it?

 

You aren't making any sense at all now. What did going from tracking Bin Laden to diverting into Iraq to deal with Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden?

 

Did I say that Paul wanted to invade Iraq? Or is that just more lack of reading skills on the part of a Ron Paul Zealot?

 

You mean according to our own intelligence agencies?

 

So Ron Paul was against invading Iraq, but for invading Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was NOT captured nor killed. Now he's all for bringing all our troops home to America.

It looks to me like Ron Paul doesn't have the slightest idea what he wants.

 

Only in your imagination - the one filled with nonsense from the Paul campaign.

 

What part of tracking Bin Laden to diverting into Iraq are you having a hard time with? If we had stayed on course in pursuing Bin Laden, he would have been captured/killed in Afganistan. Remember Tora Bora?? We did nothing to capture him. Bush was too worried about Saddam at that point.

 

You have never read up about the Iraq War, then. George Tenet, director of the CIA, came out against the claims made by Cheney and Bush that there was any connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

The 9/11 Commission Report stated this: "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Or maybe you should just listen to Bush himself: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

 

I must say, you have a creative and unique view of foreign affairs!

 

I said, "I would never vote for someone who's going to go around dropping bombs on villages filled with children." to which you said "Did Ron Paul vote for invading Iraq?" What else does that mean?

 

Then I assume you believe there have been no innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan, correct?

 

What's so creative about it? That is a fact. I had family in the military in Afghanistan at that time. I think I have a better idea of what really happened over there rather than what you heard on the nightly news.

 

***MOD EDIT - personal attacks are not allowed*** Paul now has an approval rate of 12.2%, down from his peak, more of a pimple than a peak of 14.3%. This is his spectacular result competing in a weak field. If the Republicans had a strong field, Paul's approval would be in the very low single digits.


I assess things FACTUALLY, not emotionally. Anyone looking at the FACTS can see Paul is a footnote in this election just as he was in 2008 and before. A mere footnote in this election, and history will record his 12 terms in Congress as, "Ron Paul served 12 terms in Congress. Bills passed, nothing of any note." footnote: Paul ran unsuccessfully for president in 88, 08 and 12."
Immature dreamers like yourself 20 years from now can research Paul and that will be his history.
Believe it or not, I like the man, but he is IDEAS, not action. Never has been action, never will be action. And 30 years of inaction proves that premise regardless of your wild uncontrollable emotions.

Its exceedingly simple, If Paul is THE Nominee, you AND I will vote for him.

That he will not be the nominee is a fact awaiting confirmation. If he is the nominee then I'm wrong. No big deal, I've had an extremely active life, so I've been wrong before. Not often, but no cherry either. But as I keep asking you children, WHAT do you do if I'm right, as every possible indicator says I will be proven right.

What is your Plan B. Actual mature adults always have a plan B. Especially when the Plan A is so completely shaky. I keep asking what that Plan B is and I get vilified, but not answered.

The most common pseudo answer is you will vote FOR obama by commission or omission. That is stupidity personified. Anyone that believes obama is best for the nation SHOULD vote for him. That I don't understand how that's possible is not a factor in their vote. But NO ONE with a rational mind could be an ardent Paul supporter, and then by commission or omission, vote for obama.

 

Here you are, switching issues again. Is he an isolationist or a hypocrite because he's not truly an isolationist?

 

Hahahahahaha - and there's your conundrum. Ron Paul is against bombing innocent civilians. ...in some cases. Ron Paul is against war. ...in some cases. Ron Paul is against being militarily involved in foreign countries. ...in some cases. Ron Paul is against this, and against that. ...in some cases.

Kind of sounds like Ron Paul just blows a lot of hot air.

 

He is against undeclared wars that have nothing to do with our national security. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

Well, if that's the case, he's not an isolationist. You can't have it both ways