Paul was a “flavor-of-the-month” candidate

More BS. He’s run as a Repub and a Libertarian in a 30-year political career. That’s hardly “flavor-of-the-month” you dolt.

Plus, you obviously did not take umbrage with my remarks that Paul was a “flavor-of-the-month” candidate so it is obvious that you agree with them, and my links show exactly that kind of proof.

I am not going to sit here and play Elisabeth to your Rosie and force you to interpret your own sayings. All I can say is that if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is in all probability a duck. So go take a flying leap.

Regards,
Peter H.

Oh and thanks for quoting Molly Ivins: if you’d bothered to read her piece you’d have seen her criticism was directed at the GOP establishment, not Ron Paul.

You tell us that planning and scenarios for hijacking jets and flying them into buildings were openly known and spoken about prior to 9-11.

Not just spoken about, an actual hijacking occurred but before the airplane could take off on its mission under control of the hijackers, it was successfully stormed by the authorities. It turned out that the hijackers planned to fly it into the Eiffel Tower or blow it up over Paris. This occurred in 1994. It was not just blather – it came close to fruition.

As for some Iranian general spouting off, it’s actually good he did – we should be watching Iran very closely. However, it has nothing to do with Condi’s incompetence.

And I too have to echo: Well done!

Regards,
Peter H.

Furthermore, leftist Ian has yet to explain why the Clinton administration supposedly knew exactly when, where, how, and by whom 9/11 was going to take place, since they allegedly told the Bush administration — yet did nothing about it.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1595008652884842880&q=What+the+West+Needs+To+Know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8MKvw

What the West needs to know about Islam

1. You tell us that planning and scenarios for hijacking jets and flying them into buildings were openly known and spoken about prior to 9-11.

2. It happened.

3. Vince demonstrates that an Iranian general has discussed specific plans for attacking sites in the US, possibly with nuclear.

4. But you insist this would never actually happen.

I know you’re going to whine and snivel about name-calling, but you’ve just screwed yourself using your own argument. Welcome to the short bus. Population: You.

The hijackers were in the country training well before January of 2001.

In short, the Clinton administration had a hell of a lot more time to uncover and put down the terrorist plot than did the Bush administration, but they didn’t.

And before you try your usual rant and whine about how the Clintonistas supposedly warned the Bush administration, answer me this; if the Clintonistas could give such a precise and complete warning about when, where, who, and how, why hadn’t they acted already to break it up?

That would be as unlikely as 19 Muslim fanatics hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Actually, that idea was not at all far-fetched, Condi’s pathetic “no one could have imagined” mantra aside. Instead it’s simply a reflection of the fact that the incompetent Bushco preferred to chase New Orleans whores rather than terrorists.

As for Iran, the idea that they are going to attack the West in the absence of a first strike by the US is about as realistic as were Iraq’s “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction.” We have to engage the Iranians in tough negotiations rather than bombastic blather from both sides.

Trite words from someone who is so anal-retentive. But(t) I digress.

Here’s your request for proof about Ron Paul and his “flavor-of-the-month” candidacy history:

“[Ron Paul] was a speaker at the founding convention of the Constitution Party (then the US Taxpayer Party) and is a featured speaker at many Constitution Party state events through out the country.”

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

And this gem from 1996 from the late Molly Ivins (herself no GOP cheerleader, that’s for sure):

“Ron Paul, the old Libertarian, made it into a runoff against incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin despite the nastiest set of campaign ads anyone has seen in years. The entire Republican establishment was supporting Laughlin, a party switcher, who accused Paul of everything short of eating babies for breakfast.”

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/96/03/15/ivins0315.html

And here’s the ringer – LaRouche’s own view of Paul from his OWN website:

“Republican Presidential candidates disgraced themselves as Cheney-style fascists, in the May 15 debate in Columbia, South Carolina, with the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul.”

http://larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/16/ron_paul_cheney.shtml

Did I also mention that these breakaway splinter parties mentioned above (except for the Libertarian Party) are connected with LaRouche?

Match, set, game…you know the rest.

Regards,
Peter H.

Ian and I think a lot of the people in both parties are stuck in a 19th century strategic mindset and don’t realize that dictators like the Mullahs and Chavez (who just revoked the broadcast license of the last opposition TV station in Venezuela {Our Democrats would call this “invoking the Fairness Doctrine}) are not interested in territorial conquest. They are consumed in the conquest of ideology.

The 21st century strategic mindset recognizes that in a war of ideology, holding and occupying territory is unimportant. The goal is simply to weaken and destroy the will of your enemy. The jihadis have been very successful on this front, at least with the blue half of our country. The ability to inflict massive damage through targeted nuclear strikes, for which Iran will soon have a capability, is far more relevant than ground armies or tactical capabilities.

Also, in a war of ideology, quitting the battlefield (as in Iraq) hands the aggressor a victory far greater than the square mileage of the territory ceded.

I don’t think Ian’s party has the slightest clue that we are in a war against two ideologies… Islamo-fascism and revolutionary socialism. Either that or they are rooting for the other sides, which in light of their behavior, is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.

The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.

Fascination with my butt notwithstanding (unless it is next to your face after I’ve eaten a few bean burritos), here are the “links” you requested after questioning my statement that Ron Paul has not only run under a variety of party labels but is affiliated with Lyndon LaRouche:

“He [Paul] was a speaker at the founding convention of the Constitution Party (then the US Taxpayer Party) and is a featured speaker at many Constitution Party state events through out the country.”

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

“Below is a speech by Dr. Ron Paul congressman from Texas. A most interesting man, I met him twice during his campaign for president
of the united states in 1988 when he was a candidate as a Libertarian.”

http://kvinamondo.blogspot.com/

And from the late Molly Ivins (no GOP darling, of course) in 1996:

“Ron Paul, the old Libertarian, made it into a runoff against incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin despite the nastiest set of campaign ads anyone has seen in years. The entire Republican establishment was supporting Laughlin, a party switcher, who accused Paul of everything short of eating babies for breakfast.”

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/96/03/15/ivins0315.html

And the zinger is LaRouche’s own coverage of Ron Paul on HIS OWN WEBSITE:

“Republican Presidential candidates disgraced themselves as Cheney-style fascists, in the May 15 debate in Columbia, South Carolina, with the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Rep. Paul (R-Texas) ripped into the war insanity..”

http://larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/16/ron_paul_cheney.shtml

Match, set, game. You know the rest.

Regards,
Peter H.

US/EU makes verbal threats

The US has done more than threaten, it has prepared for a preemptive strike on Iran. Like it or not, every country has the right to prepare for and respond to an attack, even Iran. It is undeniable that any attack by Iran would come as a result of a first strike by the US and its European allies.

According to you…

US/EU makes verbal threats, therefore Iran is legitimate in its getting prepared to attack Europe.

I’ve been holding onto these quotes for years… how come Iran’s verbal threats dont legitmize US/EU concern about Iran’s nuclear program?

It’s freakin amazing how you side with them. It’s unbelievable really.. You must not know sh1t abotu them or worse.. you support their program.

Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.

The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”

The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.