We Need To Really Think About Who Best Can Protect America
In light of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan being assassinated we had better think long and hard this election about who can best defend and protect America.
I'm thinking now about who has the most foreign policy experience on BOTH sides and this is who I think the choices are at the moment 'Foreign' Policy Experience wise because it seems to me unless we all elect someone who can keep up the war on terror and new leaders that want to be friendly with America somehow find a way to protect them from Al-Qaeda.
Democrat Side:
*Joe Biden
That's it for the Dems.
Republican Side:
*Fred Thompson
*Duncan Hunter
*Rudy Guiliani
*John McCain
That's it for the Reps.
We cant afford to have a Country almost out of control, filled with Al-Qaeda that is Nuclear Armed! I think this is our worst nightmare. And this situation in Pakistan is not one to be taken lightly. We all really must think about our choices in who best will protect America. First and Foremost.
There may be some other candidates that I didnt name that MAY be able to protect us, but let's face it. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will get us all killed!
Here is a clip from Hot Air on Raul Paul's Response to the Bhutto Asssassination: *snip*
But in Ron Paul’s world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops. There is, of course, at most a neglible possibility that we’ll send troops into Pakistan to do anything beyond taking on al Qaeda or securing the nukes. India might, but even that’s highly unlikely. And never mind that Pakistan’s history with democracy is sketchy, to say the least. Should we not have attempted to work with Musharraf against al Qaeda, Patriot Paul? Paul also tosses out the canard that we supported Osama bin Laden. Someone really needs to disabuse him of that notion one of these days. Someone should bone him up on the history of al Qaeda as well. It didn’t form because we support Musharraf, as Paul seems to think.
Paul doesn’t even offer a pro forma statement of condolences either for Bhutto or Pakistan. As a doctor, he must have had splendid bedside manner.
Ron Paul
If that doesnt make you think, I dont know what will. Ron Paul is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and this is our Country and our people at stake here!
I'm thinking now about who has the most foreign policy experience on BOTH sides and this is who I think the choices are at the moment 'Foreign' Policy Experience wise because it seems to me unless we all elect someone who can keep up the war on terror and new leaders that want to be friendly with America somehow find a way to protect them from Al-Qaeda.
Democrat Side:
*Joe Biden
That's it for the Dems.
Republican Side:
*Fred Thompson
*Duncan Hunter
*Rudy Guiliani
*John McCain
That's it for the Reps.
We cant afford to have a Country almost out of control, filled with Al-Qaeda that is Nuclear Armed! I think this is our worst nightmare. And this situation in Pakistan is not one to be taken lightly. We all really must think about our choices in who best will protect America. First and Foremost.
There may be some other candidates that I didnt name that MAY be able to protect us, but let's face it. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will get us all killed!
Here is a clip from Hot Air on Raul Paul's Response to the Bhutto Asssassination: *snip*
But in Ron Paul’s world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops. There is, of course, at most a neglible possibility that we’ll send troops into Pakistan to do anything beyond taking on al Qaeda or securing the nukes. India might, but even that’s highly unlikely. And never mind that Pakistan’s history with democracy is sketchy, to say the least. Should we not have attempted to work with Musharraf against al Qaeda, Patriot Paul? Paul also tosses out the canard that we supported Osama bin Laden. Someone really needs to disabuse him of that notion one of these days. Someone should bone him up on the history of al Qaeda as well. It didn’t form because we support Musharraf, as Paul seems to think.
Paul doesn’t even offer a pro forma statement of condolences either for Bhutto or Pakistan. As a doctor, he must have had splendid bedside manner.
If that doesnt make you think, I dont know what will. Ron Paul is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and this is our Country and our people at stake here!
Labels: Bhutto, Candidates, Pakistan, Ron Paul
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 2:26 PM
15 Comments:
"Ron Paul is not the sharpest knife in the drawer." Amen to that! In fact, I have spoons sharper than he is!
Happy New Year, Marie. :)
lol..great overview Marie..lets pray for 08!.HAPPY NEW YEAR FULL OF LOVE AND LAUGHTER!.:)..
Great evaluation Marie. The key word here being protect!
That is where any Dem falls short.
Happy New Year Okie!
Happy New Year to yall too :-)
I have been so darn busy I havent had any time to go visit, but my load will lighten up this week.
Ah I Love it when the Holiday's come to an end and people go home lol.
In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops.
That so-called "puppet" isn't allowing us to put our hand up his ass, and give us the green light to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Waziristan, let alone Osama bin Laden. Some "puppet".
And how does cutting off financial aid help our imperfect war-on-terror ally? If Musharraf falls, how does that safeguard his nukes from Islamic militants?
Word,
That's what I'm saying too. We cant afford to have a Country out of Control full of Al-Qaeda that is armed with Nukes!!
If Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich were to become President, they will get us all killed.
Parade Magazine reveals it will be publishing an interview with Benazir Buhtto on January 6th and this is the most interesting part:
What would you like to tell President Bush?
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf's government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.'"
http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html
Ya know the CIA man that Bin Laden mentioned in his last video?
The chance to see America benefit from a leader who strives to do what he has promised, while simultaneously thumping America’s self-serving political elite and camp-following media are two of the best of the many excellent reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. - Michael Scheuer, former Head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/scheuer7.html
Marie, great post and spot-on. Since Tancredo dropped out, I've been studying up rather closely in an effort to decide who I will support in his stead.
Ron Paul is obtuse.
Anon --
Scheuer was head of the Bin Laden Unit under the auspices of the Clinton Administration (1996-1999). We all saw how that worked out.
I've decided to back Fred Thompson, Marie. :)
Ron Paul is clueless, and so are his supporters. "America is to blame" is not a good foreign policy.
Anon,
Sometimes we have to back the lesser of two evils in some of these Countries. If not we will have another "Jimmy Carter" moment like we did with the Shaw of Iran. And we all know how that worked out, we have been paying for that ever since!
Had Bhutto not been assassinated we would have backed her because she wanted a stronger relationship with the United States. And would have allowed us to go get Bin Laden.
But as it stands Musharraf is all we have over there and he is the one who caught and handed over to the US, Kalid Sheik Mohammud dont forget, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.
But if you read above Wordsmith had it spot on when he said Musharraf wont let us get our hand up his ass lol to go up into the mountains of Waziristan
to go after Bin Laden and his cohorts.
Some Puppet eh?
**********************
Seth,
Thank's. I am studying myself and I know we are NOT going to get the perfect nominee. Fred Thompson is the most appealing to me because he and I are on the same wave length.
He isnt the most handsome man lol, but I dont need my President to be Pretty lol.
He has foreign policy experience, he has worked closely with McCain and has been to the region umpteen times and he understands what is at stake for us as a people and our Country.
If we get saddled with a Democrat of all Democrat's I know Biden is an asshole, but he has the most foreign policy experience out of all of them and he isnt even top tier.
And he's not stupid. He will NOT call for an immediate Troop withdrawl or put up with any nonsense. However he is still a Liberal, but he has been around the block and then some.
I wouldnt like it, but I could at least stomach a Biden Presidency (God Forbid) but hey if we had to choose from like Ron Paul or Biden? I'm going with Biden.
Hopefully it will be Thompson :-)
Gayle,
Fantastic :-)
But Thompson has GOT to pick up the pace and fast!!
*************************
Danny,
So true,
I dont want a President that blames his own Country for every mistake known to man.
Ron Paul is clueless!
'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.'"
anon, it sounds more like a political statement to me.
Musharraf relinquished his role as chief of the army. How many dictators would give up power like that? Apparently, Musharraf hasn't taken dicatorship 101.
And now, given light of the Bhutto assassination, which doesn't help Musharraf politically, he is in a far weaker position. From American Thinker:
With Musharraf out as Army Chief, his ability to manipulate promotions and bonuses in order to defend himself against further al-Qaeda assassination attempts is weakened. And without the cooperation of Bhutto his chance to widen the patronage-based political support of the regime is threatened.
Happy New Year, Marie and everyone else. :)
I must have missed it but what is Rudy Giuliani's "foreign policy" experience?
I hope it isn't that he happened to be in NYC during 9/11...can that really be considered "foreign policy" experience?
My guess is it stems from when he was a U.S. Attorney upholding the laws of the United States Constitution; a document which many neocons definitely consider a "foreign" policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home