Are you sure you want to be self-identifying with racist rednecks?
Thank you, for proving my point.Comment Posted By Paul On 14.10.2008 @ 14:08
Go ahead and consider him your president; but, ask yourself what he will consider you.
Given the company he has kept and keeps......Comment Posted By Paul On 14.10.2008 @ 13:55
If he has shady dealings with shady people, and is a close associate with shady people, such as Muslims that are true to their faith and their commitment to jihad (read terrorism in the name of Allah), or is himself a closet Muslim, then he is not Presidential material in my book. No way!
Sure, that scrutiny should be placed on any presidential candidate.
So I ask you, Manning, have you scrutinized McCain to make sure he's not a Muslim who's committed to jihad? No? Why not? Could it be that McCain's middle name is not Hussein, and his skin is pink and not brown? I mean, it's been solidly shown that neither McCain nor Obama are Muslims, although unsupported claims to the opposite are regularly made about Obama. From what I can see, you're basing your special scrutiny on Obama either on his name, his skin color, or the unsupported claims, or perhaps a combination of the three. Can you explain that differently?
They need to spend time in the Koran, Haddith, and other valid documents of that faith, and stop having warm feelings for Muslims. Spent the time reading up or donâ€™t talk about it.
That is a statement about Islam, and not about Obama who is not a Muslim. Just to clarify.
What you would benefit from, clearly, is to meet some Muslims. It may be hard to fathom this, but the vast majority are not terrorists, but regular people living their lives just like you or me. I've married into a family of very moderate, professional Pakistani Muslims living mostly in the UK, and have spent a lot of time with their wider community. The percentage of them who are terrorists is infinitesimal, probably similar to how many Christians live by the word of Leviticus and how it recommends we treat our slaves, etc.Comment Posted By Paul On 28.02.2008 @ 15:25
I would say, Mr. Moran, that you actually DONâ€™T KNOW whether Obama is a Muslim or not at heart. Neither do I.
Keep in mind, the exact same could be said about anyone. Please explain why special scrutiny needs to be placed on Obama. His name, perhaps, or the color of his skin?Comment Posted By Paul On 27.02.2008 @ 16:32
Don't be embarrassed. Those people saying Obama is a Manhurian Candidate-type Mooslim are not conservative. They're authoritarians, and childish ones at that, using any type of silly playground invective in order to retain power for power's sake, which is all they stand for.
The reason for being embarrassed is for continuing to identify with the GOP, which is entirely controlled by people described above. That is, the GOP is not a conservative party, and has not been for quite some time. Sure, there are still a few conservatives lurking in the GOP, futilely clamoring for smaller government, advancement based on merits, and a few other old conservative chestnuts (with which I personally agree). However, it's clear from the past 7 years, and arguably well before that, that these people have no control of their party. For that reason, some conservatives who follow guiding principles of conservatism have switched to the libertarians, while others have decided to spend more time with their families.Comment Posted By Paul On 26.02.2008 @ 14:52
If any American deserves this singular honor, it is Washington. Quite simply, there would not be a United States of America without him.
The best that this "progressive" age can do is to make a movie depicting him as a cannibal (titled "The Washingtonians"). The depths to which our nation/society is descending never ceases to amaze me.Comment Posted By Paul On 18.02.2008 @ 11:49
This would indicate they used techniques that could be construed as illegal ...
Well, it might indicate that. And it might indicate that in a country where we've criminalized our policy differences -- for more, see Libby, Scooter -- agency officials feared a kangaroo prosecution on politically-motivated charges.
You yourself classify these tapes as "torture tapes," even though you have not seen them and do not know what, if anything, they show. You then proceed to describe the unknown as "a probable violation of the law." And yet you would apparently have us believe that only the guilty can fear "legal jeopardy."Comment Posted By Paul On 7.12.2007 @ 01:31
Obviously you crave attention. Neo-con.Comment Posted By Paul On 1.11.2007 @ 07:30
For Paul and others who have never visited here or who are not that familiar with this site, I have gone over many, many options discussing and debating the pros and cons over the last two years â€“ ever since it became obvious that we had to leave Iraq.
Excellent. Glad to see at least one republican has turned to this page.
The argument I am hearing from some is that because the Iraq War has been one clusterfu**k after another, the current strategy is bound to fail also.
Keep in mind, there is no new strategy. That's why the current strategy is bound to fail, because it's more of the same of what has happened all along. Oh, it has some new buzzwords ("the surge", etc), but you're forgetting that BushCo has a never-ending supply of new buzzwords ("stay the course", "stand up/stand down", etc) to describe the same 'ol same 'ol, which has never been different from what came before.
Of course, Bush does in fact have a new strategy, one that Patraeus didn't go into. It's to stave off an open admission of failure long enough that he can get out of office and the whole thing can be blamed on a democrat. That is Bush's singular focus regarding the war.
But the difference over just the last 90 days (and anyone who judges the success or failure of a military strategy after only 3 months is a peawit) is significant enough that at the very least we should give Petraeus and the Iraqi government a chance to continue making progress.
The surge was announced in January and began shortly thereafter. That's more than 90 days on my calendar.
However, regardless of how long it's been, if there had been progress, it might be prudent to wait and see where that progress might go. Trouble is, there has not been progress. Patraeus' claims were nothing more than a bad sales job.
For example, Patraeus was asked why his outlook was so much rosier than the outlook of the GAO and Jones reports. His claim was that those reports did not include August's numbers.
What were August's numbers? Well, the Pentagon just came out with a report that noted that "the security environment" took "a notable turn for the worse in August."
Can you understand how Patraeus can be called a traitor? The American public are looking to him to provide an unvarnished view of what's going on in Iraq, and all we get is Bush spin. That is true betrayal.
Granted, it's reasonable to expect that a military surge would have some positive effects on the level of violence, if only short-term. And if that were the goal of the surge, we might say we're getting somewhere. But that's not the goal of the surge. The surge's goal was to create an environment where political progress could take place. According to Patraeus and Crocker, as well as everyone else, that has not happened, and shows no signs of happening in the foreseeable future. Therefore, by its own standards as set by Bush, the surge is doomed to failure. The sooner we all accept this and do what needs to be done given this reality, the better.
I realize that US prestige and credibility will take a major hit for this. However, Rick, you have to understand that our prestige and credibility are in the toilet as a result of the Iraq disaster. Admitting our mistake and working to rectify the situation will actually enhance our credibility. Holding the Bush Administration accountable will enhance our prestige, and signal to our erstwhile allies that we have returned to sanity and the rule of law, and can now return to the dinner table.
On the other hand, Republican prestige and credibility will be doomed. That is what fuels this argument.Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 20:13
What are some of the options? The most obvious is partitioning, although I donâ€™t know if that would really work.
Yes, partition is an option with growing popularity. However, that option wouldn't necessarily be all puppydogs and roses either. Look at the partition of India, entailing the world's largest human migration in history and untold nasty bloodshed. That conflict still rages. They're fighting over beautiful places like Kashmir, which has historically been coveted by India's rulers. However, the Iraqis would be fighting over oil, which could get a lot nastier.
I'm thinking something short of partition, but a solution where the regions of Iraq have substantial independence, such as the Kurds have had for some years. Ethnic separation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and then a centrally-administered government that divides up the oil revenue.
Of course, such a solution would require a lot of agreement in a place where such agreement is pretty hard to come by.Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 19:33