Ace of Spades HQ

April 07, 2014

Rand Paul In 2009: Cheney Only Decided Invading Iraq Was A Good Idea Because He Made Millions Working For Halliburton
— DrewM

And scene.

"[Cheney's] being interviewed (in 1995), I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes Â— Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea," Paul said. "And that's why the first Bush didnÂ’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars Â— their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."
Paul also said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were used as a pretext for the invasion.
"It became an excuse," Paul said. "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

Video at the link. The Iraq stuff starts around 6:45.

As I said before, I wanted to support this guy but it was like running around with a live grenade with the pin pulled. You just knew it was going to blow up in your face at some point.

The one guy who was actually trying to reach out to voters who aren't already committed Republican voters and was good at finding ways to try and bridge the libertarian and traditional conservative wings on the party.

But he is who he is.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:10 AM | Comments (540)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Clearing the field for President Cruz.

Posted by: JWF at April 07, 2014 07:12 AM (1l37M)

2 Falls, apple, tree. He's his Daddy's boy, which is why I never really got on the Rand bandwagon.

Posted by: Country Singer at April 07, 2014 07:13 AM (L8r/r)

3 So Cheney wasn't at all profit-motivated? Who are these altruistic, selfless elected officials you refer to?

Posted by: nadavegan at April 07, 2014 07:13 AM (82xG6)

4 Party pooper Drew

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at April 07, 2014 07:14 AM (X7MMs)

5 He is who he is, and I yam whut I yam...

Posted by: Popeye the Sailor Man at April 07, 2014 07:14 AM (JyNPg)

6 We're done here, Randians. For good.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:15 AM (659DL)

7 Um, well, um, at least now I know that I'm not presuming he's going to say stupid crap about foreign policy because of his father so I've got that going for me. Yeah, that's about the best I can do with that. Oh wait, were there silver dimes? Because yay no silver dimes! Yeah. I've got nothing.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:16 AM (mf5HN)

Smoking too much of Colorado's finest.

Posted by: burt at April 07, 2014 07:16 AM (1+kJ5)

9 "As I said before, I wanted to support this guy" No you didn't. Why lie? But that's ok, because he was never going to get support from your kind in the first place.

Posted by: No, you really didn't at April 07, 2014 07:16 AM (EilFB)

10 He's still my favorite presumed horse in the 2016 race, and one of the few for whom I'd consider taking a leave of absence from work in order to help with his campaign.

Posted by: Swanny at April 07, 2014 07:17 AM (6y5a5)

11 Meh. My current political decision isn't going to be overly influenced by someone opinion on the Iraq War anymore.

Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 07:17 AM (9bPUR)

12 Rand Paul is his dad with better suits and table manners, same nut underneath.

Posted by: Max at April 07, 2014 07:18 AM (ndljJ)

13 I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about here. You don't show that he's wrong, and frankly, this seems perfectly feasible. Why are your panties so bunched about this?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:18 AM (EilFB)

14 I wonder how many voters agree.

Posted by: CJ at April 07, 2014 07:18 AM (9KqcB)

15 Ummm.... just a quick question for clarification... DID Dick Cheney say those things in 95? Did he then work for that company? Did he then change his mind? ie... is this a factual recitation of events?

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 07:19 AM (84gbM)

16 Yeah. I've got nothing.

I've got an extra spray bottle of vinegar if you need one for the chemtrails.

Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 07:20 AM (ZKzrr)

17 But that's ok, because he was never going to get support from your kind in the first place. Care to define that?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:20 AM (659DL)

18 No wonder he was a hit @ Berkley....he's nuts.

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 07:20 AM (j7iSn)

19 I'm not suggesting tat this was a political strategy, but dissociating ones self from Cheney is a pretty essential move when trying to get independents/young people/ those who previously voted for Obama and are now realizing how badly they fucked up.

Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 07:20 AM (9bPUR)

20 ie... is this a factual recitation of events?

Don't you know you're just supposed to believe whatever bad shit the WaPo says about conservatives?!

/

Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 07:21 AM (ZKzrr)

21 Why should anyone vote for Rand Paul when they can vote for Obama or Hillary and get Rand Paul's foreign policy PLUS lots of free gubmint money?

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 07:21 AM (kwc/t)

22 I've got an extra spray bottle of vinegar if you need one for the chemtrails. Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 11:20 AM (ZKzrr) Ohhhh thanks!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (mf5HN)

23 I never listen to what Rand says when he's on TV. I'm too mesmerized by that thing on his head. Hairpiece? Weave? Just a perm? Somebody please tell me, it's killin' me.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (OZmbA)

24 You don't show that he's wrong, and frankly, this seems perfectly feasible. Yes, we invaded IRAQ to fatten the bottom line of an individual company. Give it a fucking rest, you goddamn idiots.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (659DL)

25 I would be 11am EST without Drew being a gloomy Gus.

Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (9bPUR)

26 I'm so sick of this shit... Why I rarely comment here any longer.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (LSJmV)

27 The one guy who was actually trying to reach out to voters who aren't already committed Republican voters and was good at finding ways to try and bridge the libertarian and traditional conservative wings on the party. But he is who he is. Cray cray never strays far from the orchard.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (E7Zh9)

28 Care to define that? Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 11:20 AM (659DL) Those who time and time again, have dismissed him because of who his father is? How many times have we heard 'the apple does not fall far from the tree'? When I know from PERSONAL history, it can, and does.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (84gbM)

29 Mrs VIA and I were in the car yesterday talking about potential political candidates.

And I mentioned that Ron Paul was a NutBar basket case of crazy, and that it might have rubbed off on Rand.

And she suddenly said, "You're worried about my mother rubbing off on me, aren't you?".

We rode in silence for a while.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 07, 2014 07:22 AM (hDwVv)

30 "Yes, we invaded IRAQ to fatten the bottom line of an individual company" So, it can't be one of the reasons? Are you serious with that crap?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:23 AM (EilFB)

31 16 Yeah. I've got nothing.

I've got an extra spray bottle of vinegar if you need one for the chemtrails.

Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 11:20 AM (ZKzrr)

Oh boy! Afterwards, can we do some cloudbursting with my orgone energy generator?

Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 07:23 AM (DrWcr)

32 I don't think these quotes/views from Rand Paul will disqualify him with most voters -- especially the kind of swing voters we need. Remember, there are literally HUNDREDS of completely insane outrageous quotes from Barack Obama, mined from his books and pre-2008 speeches -- and yet those didn't disqualify him. Obama noted that he went out of his way to sit at the feet of "Marxist professors," praised known radicals, discussed snorting coke, spent 20 years listening to a rapid anti-white racist conspiracy monger, shared an office with a murdering terrorist, and on and on and on -- and no one cared. Furthermore, a distressing large portion of "non-committed" libertarian types DO believe the anti-Cheney and anti-Halliburton conspiracy theories, and if they see Rand Paul is a fellow conspiracy crank -- all the better. If it comes down to a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton for president, I'm voting for Paul -- and if his kooky former beliefs garner him more votes, then hey -- "whatever it takes."

Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (mizYg)

33 personally, I think any non-defensive war that lasts over 30 minutes is a bad idea for America. because that's about how long it will take dems to switch sides.

Posted by: X at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (KHo8t)

34 And she suddenly said, "You're worried about my mother rubbing off on me, aren't you?". We rode in silence for a while. Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 07, 2014 11:22 AM (hDwVv) Oh. Oh that's suboptimal.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (mf5HN)

35 Seriously, this is tinfoil-hat territory.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (DrWcr)

36 The crazy doesn't fall too far from the banana tree.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (DL2i+)

37 I would rather throw Dick Cheney under the bus than throw America under the bus. Please, please, please don't give us Jeb.....

Posted by: Dogbert at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (JfNy2)

38 Those who time and time again, have dismissed him because of who his father is? OK, so when he does say the same stupid shit that his dad does...what? Ignore? Try again. I'm up to here with the fucking idiots who try to forge a coherent anything out of what the Pauls (yes, now plural) say.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (659DL)

39 Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 11:19 AM (84gbM) Sure, as long as you leave out September 11th and how it changed a lot of people's minds about how to deal with existing security threats. But yeah, ignore that and go with the money thing.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (SgXEz)

40 And I mentioned that Ron Paul was a NutBar basket case of crazy, and that it might have rubbed off on Rand. And she suddenly said, "You're worried about my mother rubbing off on me, aren't you?". We rode in silence for a while. My condolences.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 07:24 AM (E7Zh9)

41 No no no, he's all wrong. Cheney decided to take advantage of the situation after we invaded and didn't find nukes. It's all in that documentary Oliver Stone made.

Posted by: LIV at April 07, 2014 07:25 AM (Aif/5)

42 Can I get my tin-foil hat lined with frosting and sprinkles please?

Posted by: johnd01 at April 07, 2014 07:25 AM (ukNFU)

DID Dick Cheney say those things in 95? Did he then work for that company? Did he then change his mind?

ie... is this a factual recitation of events?

Let's stipulate that it is a factual recitation of events. The problem is the implied causality. That Cheney was informing American military policy based on his own greed, rather than, say, that the world had changed by 2003 and our view of the danger of terror and WMDs changed his calculus.

It's lazy thinking to go from Fact A to Fact B means Cheney is a greed monger. And that's too bad, because Rand has been my biggest man-crush so far for 2016.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 07:25 AM (JtwS4)

44 Jeb Bush/Krispy Kreme '16 Yay team amnesty! Yay Dem lite! Woo! Woo! Woo!

Posted by: We're all doomed at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (pgQxn)

45 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:23 AM (EilFB) You are a fucking idiot. Next.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (659DL)

46 I just don't get what I'm supposed to be upset about there, Cheney is exactly the kind of fat corporate shill who'd see something like Iraq as a great idea for making money. That he may have had other reasons doesn't change that about him. So, again, why do I care that Rand Paul said something that is, at least in part, perfectly believable and probably true?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (EilFB)

I just don't think that throwing Cheney under the bus will move many conservative voters. Rand's whole appeal is on attracting new people to the party. If you are a big fan of Dick Cheney, you're already a Republican. Even among Republicans the decision to go into Iraq is becoming less and less popular. I think the Halliburton profit motive he attributes to Cheney is BS, but it's an easy shot to take. If you really want a conservative president in 2016, I doubt any of them will be defending the Iraq war as the best use of our resources in the war on terror. Short of Putin invading Poland, the average voter is averse to anything more than a few special forces boots on the ground anywhere.

Posted by: Amichel at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (aO1W9)

48 So, the Iraq War was a good idea? Really? Is that where we are?

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (JgC5a)

49 42 Can I get my tin-foil hat lined with frosting and sprinkles please?

Posted by: johnd01 at April 07, 2014 11:25 AM (ukNFU)

It won't reflect the alien mind-control rays anywhere near as well, but sure.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (DrWcr)

50 HALLIBURTON! !! 1! 11!!!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (qrJVS)

51 DNA's a bitch.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 07:26 AM (BZAd3)

52 19 I'm not suggesting tat this was a political strategy, but dissociating ones self from Cheney is a pretty essential move when trying to get independents/young people/ those who previously voted for Obama and are now realizing how badly they fucked up. Posted by: taylork I tend to agree.

Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (mizYg)

53 Well, Senator Paul just stuck his foot in his mouth and has seriously damaged himself in my view. I'm part conservative, part libertarian. But, what he said about Cheney is bullshit.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (HVff2)

54 I'd like an updated statement on Rand, to know if he still feels this way, or if he wants to recant. But Rand already had one strike against him, in my book, when he agreed with Eric Holder that felons that serve their time should be allowed to vote again. Um, how about no? IF you are in agreement with Eric Holder, change your mind fast. So this is strike 2. Clearing the way for Cruz or Walker...

Posted by: LizLem at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (yRwC8)

55 Hey, my net worth is almost a billion. I routinely party at the White House with Obama. Also, white people are a race of sub-human demon creatures. True story. http://t.co/7yruynNumK I'd worry I'd have to step down as CEO like that Mozilla dude, but not really. He stepped down because he's white, and white people are inherently weak pussies. I'm black, and therefore strong and literally divine. Which means I ain't stepping down from shit.

Posted by: Jay-Z And His Racist Cult at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (ZPrif)

56 48 So, the Iraq War was a good idea?
Really? Is that where we are?

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 11:26 AM (JgC5a)

We won it. Iraq was nearly pacified. BO threw it away.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (OZmbA)

57 But yeah, ignore that and go with the money thing. No, don't just ignore and go with the money thing...go with the money thing TO A SINGLE company. That is crazy as a shithouse rat, Paulbots.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (659DL)

58 "You are a fucking idiot. Next." You need my vote fuckwit. Keep this shit up. It's how you got Obama.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:27 AM (EilFB)

I would have thought DrewM would embrace Rand even more since he bashed a fellow Republican which served no purpose. Kindred spirit and all.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (m2CN7)

60 9/11 required an ass kicking of somebody somewhere, and if it turned out we were kicking the wrong ass, no apology, no recriminations. Just a vigorous pivot to kick the ass that should have been kicked in the first place, and then just to make the point we should have kicked somebody elses ass who was never involved just to make the point to every sentient being on the planet that it's never a good idea to eff with the United States of America. Instead, we wring our hands in anguished distress over fear we might hurt someone's feelings. after 9/11 we should have nuked half the planet just to make sure we got the right guys.

Posted by: Smith the Hawk at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (YbDja)

61 If he runs, I'm not going to let something that he said about the Iraq war, that is totally expected from someone of his pedigree, get in the way of us winding up with say Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney 3.0. We'll see who else runs, but anyone paying attention to his time working for his dads campaign prior to him running for office will have seen this stuff. There are I'm sure plenty of these type quotes out there. Here is why he's different than his dad. 1) The really dark, deranged skeletons in the closet do not exist. 2) He has the ability to actually deliver a libertarian type message without running off the rails like his old man, how many times did we see Ron Paul get a nice softball right over the plate on some economic issue, and then immediately run it off the rails. 3) Regardless of what he might actually believe, the guy is a realist... that is why he might succeed where his father could not. He has shown some willingness to compromise on the more hardline libertarian stuff in order to see some version of it get air play. For that matter you should be a realist too. What I mean by that last line is that we have a tendency to get all wrapped up in these candidates, and what they will do and what it will mean if they get elected. If you were to wake up tomorrow and there was some kind of time rift and Ron Paul was president, things would look pretty similar. You'd have a hostile Senate stopping him from doing much of anything, and likely a semi-hostile GOP house that wouldn't let him do much of anything, and he is who he says he is, he's not going to be side stepping the process with executive orders. Maybe we're out of afghanistan, and a few bases start rolling up overseas with operations coming home. That's' about all we'd get. Anything else that might happen, would likely fall in line with things that you wish the GOP would, but don't have the courage to actually execute.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (n/ogz)

So, again, why do I care that Rand Paul said something that is, at least in part, perfectly believable and probably true?

-----------

What's perfectly believable and probably true is that you're an Alex Jones nutter.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (PFy0L)

63 So, the Iraq War was a good idea? Really? Is that where we are? Good idea, poorly executed.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (659DL)

64 Oh, buy my records! Especially you weak, sub-human white people! http://t.co/7yruynNumK

Posted by: Jay-Z And His Racist Cult at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (ZPrif)

65 You are an idiot if you actually parrot a democrat talking point about anything. Using the halliburton stupidity to bash the Iraq war - friggan moron.

Posted by: Reality Man at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (obXkJ)

66 I agree with Zombie. I'd rather see Jindal or Scott Walker as my nominee (please, please, please someone with actual governing experience, and not just 4 years being a senator), but I'd take Paul over any of the dems in the field.

Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (9bPUR)

67 If you're expecting me to pick Cheney over Paul, you're going to lose another election.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:28 AM (EilFB)

68 Wow.... andddd... Conservatives doing Op research for the Dems... going back to 09.... how... interesting...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (84gbM)

69 Remember when Michelle Malkin went all primeval on Perry? How's that workin' out for you M?

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (pgQxn)

70 45 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:23 AM (EilFB) You are a fucking idiot. Next. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 11:26 AM (659DL) Yep...his next post cinched it.

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (j7iSn)

71 You know, it used to be the Democrats that preoccupied themselves with infighting.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (aDwsi)

72 Does Rand Paul have proof?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (IXrOn)

73 "My condolences."

It's all good.

She frequently uses this phrase with other people.

Oh...that's my mother.
But, I'm adopted.

(She's not)

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 07, 2014 07:29 AM (hDwVv)

74 Paultard gotta Paultard.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 07:30 AM (ZPrif)

75 please, please, please someone with actual governing experience, and not just 4 years being a senator Our thoughts exactly.

Posted by: Jeb Bush/Chris Christie 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:30 AM (pgQxn)

76 I think it's not true, but quite honestly I think it doesn't matter much anymore. For good or ill the Iraq War is over and it's unlikely the US will be committing ground troops someplace like it for decades. All our biggest issues are domestic and involve a giant, dangerous socialist government. I do believe Rand is sincere in trying to shrink it. I dunno, your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (5M5r7)

77 If that is what victory in Iraq looks like, you can have it. All we got out of it was heartbreak, scorn, debt, dead and broken soldiers.

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (JgC5a)

78 andddd... Conservatives doing Op research for the Dems... going back to 09.... ---------- Oh I agree. The WaPo is notoriously conservative.

Posted by: Jay Carney at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (Aif/5)

So, the Iraq War was a good idea?

Really? Is that where we are?

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 11:26 AM (JgC5a)

Unfortunately, we cannot prove what would have been the present state of affairs if we had not invaded Iraq. I am on the side that has surmised we would be in a much more unstable state of affairs.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (m2CN7)

80 This is pretty dumb. Not many people want to do Iraq again, even on the GOP side. Hell, if you'd told people in 1991 that we'd still be fighting there TWENTY YEARS LATER you'd have gotten maybe 10% approval for doing anything other than passing a few toothless UN condemnations.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (/s1LA)

81 This is also stupid, given that Cheney WAS ALREADY WORKING FOR HALLIBURTON in 1995. He would have made a lot more than the $0 he made off of the invasion in 2003 if they had done it during the Clinton administration ... when he actually had a financail interest in Halliburton (other than the deferred compensation which was fully insured).

Posted by: buzz at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (i27M5)

82 Does Rand Paul have proof? In the same way that Luapnor has proof of Halliburton complicity in the Ukraine.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (659DL)

83 I heard someone discussing Haliburton on the radio (so these facts may not be true). But with all the pissing and moaning that Cheney was linked to Haliburton and that is why they got the contracts. Haliburton is still getting 90% of the contracts how can that be?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (tf9Ne)

84 "Yep...his next post cinched it." Fuck you too. You keep running off people who mostly agree with you by saying stupid shit about Cheney, and then lose elections because of it, and I'M the one who's wrong? Again, fuck you, that's EXACTLY why Romney lost, and you can't take it.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (EilFB)

85 Well, Paul had me concerned, very concerned about immigration. Now this surfaces. I would be curious to see if he walks it back a bit. If he doesn't I have serious problems with him on this and immigration. Oh and don't tell me I wasn't going to vote for him in the first place. I just love all you fucking ESP savants here at the AoS.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:31 AM (HVff2)

86 I used to work in my father's real world apple orchard, here in western Colorado. I can verify from a series of reproducible observations that the apple indeed does NOT fall more than 1.37 (+/- 0.2) meters from the tree. The science is settled. (J. Orchard Science, Vol 13:6, 1986)

Posted by: S. Muldoon, fruity scientist at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (g4TxM)

87 "And that's why the first Bush didnÂ’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars Â— their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."

Hello, remember me? I created some mischief after George H.W. Bush left office, including the biggest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. Think maybe *that* factored into Cheney's support for invasion of the state that sponsored me?

Posted by: Zombie Bin Laden at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (udjuE)

88 23 I never listen to what Rand says when he's on TV. I'm too mesmerized by that thing on his head. Hairpiece? Weave? Just a perm? Somebody please tell me, it's killin' me. Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 11:22 AM (OZmbA) Heh. Yes, if he runs for prez he is going to need a big boy haircut...though maybe is supposed to be part of his charm? Like Donald Trump's Flock of Seagulls combover thing?

Posted by: LizLem at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (yRwC8)

89 I'm about a quarter of the way through the video, so far he's hitting all the expected notes, nothing controversial.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (ZshNr)

90 We need a silly post. This one is already ugly. Regarding Jeb's 'Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony'... We should have a post just to list all the illegal acts that are not felonies. Those we can now get away with. Because it's not a felony.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (IXrOn)

91 Can I get my tin-foil hat lined with frosting and sprinkles please? Posted by: johnd01 at April 07, 2014 11:25 AM (ukNFU) And with a propeller on top!

Posted by: ExSnipe at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (hzpoi)

92 ...Haliburton is still getting 90% of the contracts how can that be? Just like they did when Clinton was Prez

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 07:32 AM (pgQxn)

93 ***"[Cheney's] being interviewed (in 1995), I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes Â— Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea," Paul said. "And that's why the first Bush didnÂ’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars Â— their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."*** Sorry. Is there anything factually untrue about that paragraph?

Posted by: So Crates at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (wuOQ2)

94 I just want to know why Paul walks around with his hands clasped behind his back so much.

He looks like he's about to perform "Riverdance".

(shudder)

Posted by: Zippy at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (HFSaY)

Good idea, poorly executed.

Actually, the war part of the war was brilliantly executed. It seemed to me that nobody had a fallback plan for what to do in case we actually won.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (JtwS4)

96 I guess now I'll have to support the only perfect Republican candidate running for the nomination who is.............?

Posted by: Dogbert at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (JfNy2)

97 All it took was this statement, and the Horde is clutching pearls? Did I stumble into Democratic Underground here? Whom else are we not to bring up? What's the new purity test this week, Comrades?

Posted by: sithkhan at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (F7qjM)

98 In the same way that Luapnor has proof of Halliburton complicity in the Ukraine. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (659DL) Oh God. head/desk 4eva I was going to say you must be joking but I know you're not. head/desk 4 eva and eva

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (mf5HN)

99 Romeo: it's factual but it's a load of half-truths. This was back when we thought there was more states involvmented in 9/11; now we know that... well, there was state involvement in 9/11, but the American people know this and don't care. What evidence there is of Iraqi stuff is dwarfed now by evidence of Pakistani stuff the American public has DECIDED DOESN'T MATTER.

If that's the way they feel, that's the way they feel. I think that position is _eventually_ profoundly self-destructive. And given the choice between a Democrat advocating self-destruction and a Republican advocating the same thing, I'd probably stay home.

And I have to get to work now.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (kwc/t)

100 andddd... Conservatives doing Op research for the Dems... going back to 09.... ---------- Oh I agree. The WaPo is notoriously conservative. Posted by: Jay Carney at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (Aif/5) Here..... I for one would never have heard about this.... except for the OP...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (84gbM)

101 I think some of us are in a bad mood after seeing Jeb on TV this morning talking about the joys of amnesty

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 07:33 AM (pgQxn)

102 Cut to the Chase - if Rand Paul said crazy shit about Cheney, does that mean you're going to vote for Hillary instead??? Cuz Hillary is so much better? that's really what it comes down to. (supposing he gets the nom, which is obviously a long shot at this point)

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 07, 2014 07:34 AM (8Fa5Z)

103 So, apart from people calling me names, you have completely failed to explain why I should care. So, anything else, or is the name calling the extent of your explanatory abilities? No don't answer that, I really don't have any desire to be treated like shit by people who want me to vote for THEIR guy.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:34 AM (EilFB)

104 Heh. Yes, if he runs for prez he is going to need a big boy haircut...though maybe is supposed to be part of his charm? Like Donald Trump's Flock of Seagulls combover thing? Posted by: LizLem at April 07, 2014 11:32 AM (yRwC Unless some kind of push for War on Short People sweeps the nation, he can't win anyway.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 07, 2014 07:34 AM (IXrOn)

105 Derp de derp! Halliburton derp! Derp de oil! Oil de derp de Halliburton! Derp, derp, derp! Paultaaaaaard!

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:34 AM (ZPrif)

106 So Cheney wasn't at all profit-motivated? Who are these altruistic, selfless elected officials you refer to?

Posted by: nadavegan at April 07, 2014 11:13 AM (82xG6)

Dick Cheney was not motivated by greed. That's it, that's all. Not engaging in war for the sake of avarice does not make him an altruistic, saintly figure. He did what he did for the good of the country, and I admire him for it.

By the way, you Paulian 9-11 Truther bastards, Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush, a former President of the United States, which would be considered a casus belli in most countries at most times in history. He also bankrolled terrorists, bribed UN officials, and violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement from the first Iraq War on a daily basis when he fired at American and allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.

And WMDs? The French, Israeli, British, and American intelligence services were all convinced--with reason and evidence--that Saddam had them and he meant to use them. That they were not found in quantity only means they were taken somewhere else--a place, like, say, oh I don't know, Syria.

Anyway, Rand Paul is his father's son. He's just more adept at hiding the batshit craziness and paranoia.

Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 07:34 AM (O66NZ)

107 75 please, please, please someone with actual governing experience, and not just 4 years being a senator Our thoughts exactly. Posted by: Jeb Bush/Chris Christie 2016 at April 07, 2014 11:30 AM (pgQxn) Damn yoos. Any other two but you.

Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (9bPUR)

108 9/11 required an ass kicking of somebody somewhere, and if it turned out we were kicking the wrong ass, no apology, no recriminations. That. You get hit, someone has to pay. Immediately. It doesn't have to be exactly the right guy, you have to send a message that if you fuck with us, we'll put your entire country to the torch. Cry me a river, you fucking hippies.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (qrJVS)

109 Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq because, Haliburton, is no one to lead the free world. Done with Rand.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (oMKp3)

110 The lesson of this post: Buy Halliburton stock.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (OZmbA)

111 I dunno. I think what he says resonates with a lot of people, probably a majority, and I'm not so sure as all that that he said something wrong. What's our alternative in 2016? We need a new approach and a new message, and so far only Rand has offered that.

Posted by: Captain Canuck at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (UA63f)

112 I for one would never have heard about this.... except for the OP... ------------ Yes you would. Don't be naive.

Posted by: WaPo 2016 at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (Aif/5)

113 >>Sorry. Is there anything factually untrue about that paragraph?

Factually true, but incomplete. Cheney's Haliburton employment was not the only difference in America;s relationship w/Iraq between 1995 and 2001.

Posted by: Zombie Bin Laden at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (udjuE)

114 I think some of us are in a bad mood after seeing Jeb on TV this morning talking about the joys of amnesty Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 11:33 AM (pgQxn) He really should have listened to his mother. There have been enough Bush's.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (IXrOn)

115 Again, fuck you, that's EXACTLY why Romney lost, and you can't take it.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (EilFB)

Well, that and not placing blame for the world's woes on the Jews, but Paul will certainly fix that.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 07:35 AM (QFxY5)

116 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (EilFB) Who's saying stupid shit about Cheney?

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (j7iSn)

117 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (PYAXX)

118 Alex Jones is so smart. Rand Paul is so smaaaart. Cheney did it for the oil man!!! Halliburton, man!!! Derp, derp. Rand Paul, man!!!

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (ZPrif)

119 Maybe not a deal breaker, but I'm sure there are plenty of similar comments.

Posted by: Strange Bedfellow at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (QCc6B)

120 Rand Paul would *not* be a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor. Ergo: Rand Paul > TFG.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (PYAXX)

121 93 ***"[Cheney's] being interviewed (in 1995), I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes Â— Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea," Paul said. "And that's why the first Bush didnÂ’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars Â— their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."*** "Sorry. Is there anything factually untrue about that paragraph?" Bingo.

Posted by: Carl at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (nF4Jh)

122 Too Much Power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtiEQ7GNens

Posted by: Frank Underwood at April 07, 2014 07:36 AM (e8kgV)

123 after 9/11 we should have nuked half the planet just to make sure we got the right guys.

It might not be too late to drone to the Kaaba.

Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (ZKzrr)

124 Lots of nics I don't recognize. Isn't that always the way.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (oMKp3)

125 Seamus - Ah...., but now we must debate whether or not 1.37 (+/- 0.2) meters constitutes 'far' or not. Also, my studies of paleolithic soil samples indicate that in previous centuries, the apples fell much further from the tree..., or perhaps nearer. I'm going to need some grant money to pursue this.

Posted by: Michael Mann at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (aDwsi)

126 Dick Cheney invaded Iraq to steal oil for Halliburton! Prove me wrong, wingnuts! Rand Paul!!!!

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (ZPrif)

127 115 Again, fuck you, that's EXACTLY why Romney lost, and you can't take it. Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (EilFB) Well, that and not placing blame for the world's woes on the Jews, but Paul will certainly fix that. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 11:35 AM (QFxY5) As a gentile, I didn't want to state the obvious my friend. /Sark

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (HVff2)

128

Die in a brand-new poison gas

Afghanistan and Iraq

Making money for Vice President Cheney

Halliburton! Uber Alles!

Posted by: Dead Kennedys at April 07, 2014 07:37 AM (3ZtZW)

129 "Well, that and...Jews... " Wow, you're an antisemite. How disgusting,

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:38 AM (EilFB)

130 Is there ANY potential presidential candidate that hasn't said some crazy $h!t! Did you hear Shrillary's answer regarding her accomplishments as SoS? I can't believe anyone could take her serious as possessing presidential material, other than being a historic choice based on her lady parts.

Posted by: Travis McGee at April 07, 2014 07:38 AM (Ph479)

131 I said that he was unelectable because so many people would find ways to hold his beliefs against him. But as the campaign wore on, it became clear the depth of the man's character was really awfully (awesomely) impressive. I believe the best thing that could happen to this country would be for a person of incredible character to be elected president. Of the very few people out there who might possibly be the Republican nominee who I would vote for would be Romney. I put on my flame retardant suit before I decided to post this comment. Have at 'er.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 07:38 AM (BZAd3)

132 Haliburton is still getting 90% of the contracts how can that be? That number is too high for Halliburton alone...BUT...the same ususal suspects are getting that share of the support contracts and it goes back to how our procurement processes work. It's a separate, but related issues.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 07, 2014 07:38 AM (659DL)

133 All we got out of it was heartbreak, scorn, debt, dead and broken soldiers.

We did ok.

Posted by: Trillions of Iraqi flies feasting on hirabists[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 07:39 AM (DL2i+)

134 Done with Rand.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 11:35 AM (oMKp3)

I am too but I am not professing it to all of his supporters who I want to vote for the Republican nominee when its not Paul. I don't want them to stay home because we unmercilessly called Rand every name in the book.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 07:39 AM (m2CN7)

135 We should have a post just to list all the illegal acts that are not felonies. Those we can now get away with. Because it's not a felony.

A home still is only a misdemeanor in Indiana.

Posted by: HR at April 07, 2014 07:39 AM (ZKzrr)

136 I was never part of the "Save Saddam" club. I get it, he had to go. Could have done that without all of Colin Powell's / Condi Rice's nation building BS which, we all know how that turned out.

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 07:39 AM (JgC5a)

137 *sigh* He is his father's son after all.

Posted by: exdem13 at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (lJaja)

138 I put on my flame retardant suit before I decided to post this comment. Have at 'er. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 11:38 AM (BZAd3 Usually you are a bright guy. But a redux of Romney? You're killing me. UGH

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (HVff2)

139 Steve, winning friends, making copies! Derp, derp! No Blood For Oil! NeoKaaaahhhhn!

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (ZPrif)

140 "I am too but I am not professing it to all of his supporters who I want to vote for the Republican nominee when its not Paul. I don't want them to stay home because we unmercilessly called Rand every name in the book." Hey look, someone who's not an idiot.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (EilFB)

141 Wow, you're an antisemite. How disgusting, Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:38 AM (EilFB) --------------------------- He's a Jew, you ignorant bastard.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (qrJVS)

142

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 11:38 AM (BZAd3)

I've got your back and have the fire extinguisher ready.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (m2CN7)

143 "Steve, winning friends, making copies! Derp, derp! No Blood For Oil! NeoKaaaahhhhn!" Still waiting for something other than name calling.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:40 AM (EilFB)

144 Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 11:39 AM (m2CN7) The Paulians aren't going to vote for any republican candidate that isn't named Paul.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (oMKp3)

145 The issue here, which everybody gets all jumbled up, is the PRIMARY versus the GENERAL ELECTION. In the primary, currently I favor Scott Walker or Ted Cruz. Not Rand Paul. But they key is not to utterly destroy a primary candidate in the hopes of getting your guy the nomination, because what if they guy you destroyt then wins the nomination? Suddenly you've got a damaged candidate running in the general election against a Democrat, who is in almost every single case is going to be infinitely worse? Look at things in terms of a scale/spectrum. Here's how things are ordered currently (spaces count, and are intentional): -------------------------------------------- Presidential Preference Spectrum on a Logarithmic Scale Scott Walker Ted Cruz Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, reasonable Republicans Chris Christie Jeb Bush Hillary Clinton Joe Biden Any other Democrat -------------------------------------------- See how, suddenly, things are in perspective? Fight for you preferred primary candidate, but in the general election, vote like you country's life depends in it, and swallow all pride.

Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (mizYg)

146 Lone - I agree re Romney as a person. Totally. I'm afraid the ship has sailed, however. The MSM have poisoned the minds of the LIV's, and the damage is permanent.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (aDwsi)

147 "He's a Jew, you ignorant bastard." An antisemitic one. How disgusting.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (EilFB)

148

It's cool when you're in the Paul family and you can kind of invent history as you go along...kind of how Luap Nor knew what was Constitutional better than the guys who actually wrote it.

H.W. Bush didn't go into Baghdad and get rid of Hussein because the coalition he built didn't have that as its mission. The mission was to oust Iraq from Kuwait and that's why all those countries signed onto it. The political calculation was that the US would have fractured that coalition and all that goodwill if he went past the stated mission goals.

I personally think Hussein should have been done away with back then, but Bush's calculus was not unreasonable. And trying to say the subsequent invasion that was aimed at killing AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) was motivated by profit is just fucking insane. Insane as in pissing on the graves of the guys who liberated Iraq insane. Insane as that shithead in The Best Years Of Our Lives calling the vet amputee a patsy insane.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (PFy0L)

149 129 "Well, that and...Jews... "

Wow, you're an antisemite. How disgusting,

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:38 AM (EilFB)

You're apparently sarcasm-concept challenged.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (OZmbA)

150 So either the ChristieBush supporters will stay home or the Paul supporters will stay home.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 07, 2014 07:41 AM (4tAp3)

151 Zombie - Here's a mop and a bucket.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:42 AM (aDwsi)

152 Wow, you're an antisemite. How disgusting,

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:38 AM (EilFB)

Damned straight I am. Just ask around here.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 07:42 AM (QFxY5)

153 >>Haliburton is still getting 90% of the contracts how can that be?

IIRC, this is because in a lot of cases the services Haliburton provides are either not offered by any other company, or there may be one or two other options. Easy to get a job when you're candidate.

Posted by: Lizzy at April 07, 2014 07:42 AM (udjuE)

154 Just got here, drinking my coffee. It looks like Drew's job is done for the day. He's sown his seeds of repub discordance.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 07:42 AM (r+vgB)

155 "The Paulians aren't going to vote for any republican candidate that isn't named Paul." Not true, but the list is short. Justin Amash, for example, but he isn't going to run.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:43 AM (EilFB)

156 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:41 AM (EilFB) Wow, what a dumb fuck. Go back to class, your sociology major is calling.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:43 AM (HVff2)

157 He stops short of Trutherism, but the story as reported is pretty much true. He obliquely blames Cheney/Halliburton for our soldiers being electrocuted in faulty showers, which I'm sure happened, but I don't remember it.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 07, 2014 07:43 AM (ZshNr)

158 Steve's kicking ass and taking names. Tell us about the oil and the neocons, Steve. C'mere trolly, trolly troll.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (ZPrif)

159 You're thick as a brick, Steve. By the way, no Carlyle Group ties to the Bush family to explain their willingness to invade Afghanistan? Fucking Ronulans are slipping.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (qrJVS)

160 Rand Paul talking like a Paul. So what?

Don't get your dander up.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (OZmbA)

161 Yeah, CBD is a regular goose-stepper. /Sarc

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (aDwsi)

162 zombie, I get the point, but that log has its place... ...in the barrel.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (naUcP)

163 >>See how, suddenly, things are in perspective?
Fight for you preferred primary candidate, but in the general election, vote like you country's life depends in it, and swallow all pride.

Amen!!

Posted by: Lizzy at April 07, 2014 07:44 AM (udjuE)

164 Rand appeals to the left on this, but he'll never get their votes because of other positions he's taken. It's lose-lose because he uses lefty talking-points to appeal to righties who dig that stuff (paleos, hyper-libertarians) and it turns the rest of the right off without appealing to the center-left either.

Posted by: JJ Stone at April 07, 2014 07:45 AM (plL8t)

165 Ok, so I guess the moral of the story here is that 6 years of Obama haven't taught some of you that it's time to stop acting like assholes and build bridges. It amazes me that some of you would rather hug Cheney's nuts till they fall off rather than find common ground with Paul. That's sick in the head territory.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:45 AM (EilFB)

166 That's my boy!

Posted by: Ron Paul at April 07, 2014 07:45 AM (ZPrif)

167 So either the ChristieBush supporters will stay home or the Paul supporters will stay home.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 07, 2014 11:41 AM (4tAp3)

Its not in the nature for the moderate Republican to refuse to vote or at least make it a public decree that they will not vote. Its part of the ongoing argument at aos.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 07:45 AM (m2CN7)

168 150 So either the ChristieBush supporters will stay home or the Paul supporters will stay home. Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 07, 2014 11:41 AM (4tAp3 I could, could vote for Paul. I can not and will not vote for Fat Fuck or Bushie 3. Since our little college kid will probably call me a hater and racist, I'll be up front Jindal interests me. My governor Walker intrigues me. I would vote for Cruz in a heart beat. Oh and the Rubio guy blew it on immigration.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (HVff2)

169 Anybody remember how Romney had the giant fire hose of slime to use against any Republican who dared contest the nomination with him? Anybody remember how confused we were when that fire hose of slime was turned off during the general election? Yeah that. How about we save our real stuff for the general election.

Posted by: Dogbert at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (JfNy2)

170 151 Zombie - Here's a mop and a bucket. Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 11:42 AM (aDwsi) I believe that was intentional to show the spectrum.

Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (fWAjv)

171

"Still waiting for something other than name calling."

-------

Perhaps if you went back to your Daily Paul womb site, you'd find the coddling you want.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (PFy0L)

172 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:45 AM (EilFB) Steve...do you have a Mexican wife, perhaps?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (5M5r7)

173 "You're apparently sarcasm-concept challenged." And you're one of those people that thinks it being sarcasm doesn't also make it antisemitic.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (EilFB)

174 Rand is a good ally on some points, but he was never going to be good as the be-all and end-all of what we need. (And I posit nobody can, and that's as it should be, but that's a discussion for another time.) And like I say...page me when we're starting up the Replacement Party.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (naUcP)

175 Those little factoids may be factual, but there may be hundreds in between a and b and c that also influence decisions that are left out. It's easy to add selected data nuggets up and lead someone to a conclusion. Doesn't mean it's the whole story. I knew the second we stopped the first Iraq war, started packing up all our shit and coming home, that someday, we'd end up packing up our shit and going back to finish. I never understood not finishing the job. We were already there. Maybe it took a decade for our betters to realize they fucked up, that would be par for the course for government.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (agLwc)

176 Steve's here to build bridges you war criminal wingnuts!! Now vote for Rand or he'll be forced to insult you again!

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:46 AM (ZPrif)

177

Ok, so I guess the moral of the story here is that 6 years of Obama haven't taught some of you that it's time to stop acting like assholes and build bridges.

----------

Just like Randy Paul is building bridges by calling us patsies in some grand conspiracy theory?

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 07:47 AM (PFy0L)

178 Its not in the nature for the moderate Republican to refuse to vote or at least make it a public decreethat they will not vote.

We just publicly badmouth the candidate and withhold all support (money, outreach, infrastructure). And then donate to the Dems.

Posted by: Obama's Favorite Republican Senator, Dick Lugar at April 07, 2014 07:47 AM (ZKzrr)

179 I believe that was intentional to show the spectrum. Posted by: RWC ---------------- Got it. Thnx :: recovers mop and bucket ::

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:47 AM (aDwsi)

180 I can trash whatever republican I want to but if you say one negative thing about Rand you're hugging Cheney's nuts!

Posted by: Paultard at April 07, 2014 07:47 AM (Aif/5)

181 Cheney! Cheney! Cheney! He da man! Greatest President we never had!

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 07:48 AM (j7iSn)

182 Ah, so Steve hates the Jews, huh? Typical.

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 07, 2014 07:48 AM (ZPrif)

183 shit. well all i can think to comment on is . !HALLIBURTON !strikes again. hahah sigh

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (nqBYe)

184 "The Paulians aren't going to vote for any republican candidate that isn't named Paul." I think this is true for a very small percentage of possible voters... sure we want them to vote for the eventual nominee too, but likely they won't. I and most people in my political circles have supported Ron Paul in '08 and '12 during (a largely meaningless in NJ) primary). We all voted for the eventual nominee... it was tough voting for McLame in 2008... Romney, while I wasn't enthusiatic about, I really think he's a good man, and would have made an adequate POTUS, even to just maintain status quo until the wrecking crew could come in to clean house, Mitt Romney a competent Steward of Gondor.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (n/ogz)

185 The funny thing is I didn't even say I'd support Paul. I don't think he can win. It's the fact that I'm not reflexively defending Cheney that clearly pisses some of you off.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (EilFB)

186 "Sorry. Is there anything factually untrue about that paragraph?" Factually untrue? No. But there is often "nothing factually untrue" about conspiracy theory thinking- it's just that the dots the conspiracists insist link up don't actually. Is it factually true that Cheney argued against invading Iraq in the 1990s? Yes. Is it factually true that Cheney went to work for Halliburton afterwards? Yes. Is it factually true that, after 9/11 Cheney supported an invasion of Iraq? Yes. But there are so many dots in between that Paul's statement is designed just to make you forget. 1- The Gulf War of the 90s was specifically a war of defense- to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein- and having made the point, nothing was going to be gained by invading Iraq (I actually dispute this, but it's certainly what way more people than just Dick Cheney believed at the time). 2- Cheney wasn't exactly hurting for money when he became Halliburton's CEO. It's not like they made him a rich man. And he had cut ties with them (including selling his stock) when he ran with GW in 2000. 3- After 9/11, it was clear that Suddam Hussein supported terrorist organizations, and he himself claimed to be working toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Meaning that even if one *still* believed that nothing could have been gained by invading Iraq in the 90's, that analysis was moot by 2003. It was *certainly* moot by 2009. So, no, what he said was not "factually inaccurate." It was however, either stunningly naive (too naive for someone who would like to be President) or deliberately designed to mislead.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (PYAXX)

187 Really getting tired of Drew M's daily "everybody give up and go die" bullshit.

Literally every fucking morning, it's post after post designed to do nothing except demoralize, disqualify candidates, attack the GOP (which obviously deserves a watchful eye, but not on the relentless level of monochromatic negativity seen here), etc. It's one of the major reasons I've had pretty much enough of this place after ten years.

I don't even mind the thrust of this post, taken in isolation, actually. It's just the pattern of posting that disgusts me. I don't want to have smoke blown up my ass and be falsely told that everything's hunky-dory...but I also don't want to load up AoSHQ every morning to yet another stupid screed about why the GOP (the only existing opposition party to Obama and the Democrats/progressives, I might point out) is horrible and unworthy of any support, and why there isn't a single acceptable conservative out there as a Presidential nominee worth even the slightest bit of enthusiasm from me.

I'm sure it all comes from an honest emotional place within DrewM's psyche. That doesn't make it any less toxic and unbearable. Nobody likes the guy who insists on shitting in the punchbowl at every single party he attends.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (ewYO6)

188 anyway i believe he had dumped all his assets from halliburton prior to the war. but i might be misremembering

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (nqBYe)

189 I want to buy EoJ a drink.

Posted by: sinmi at April 07, 2014 07:49 AM (JBSrk)

190 Usually you are a bright guy. But a redux of Romney? You're killing me. UGH Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 11:40 AM (HVff2) He's not the only one, and I know that this isn't the olympics, but this country is failing, in my weak minded opinion. Reagan was broadly considered not to be smart enough to be president. He lost the first time he ran, and came back to win. Argue with me if you will, but this country is a long way from the foundation of values that some of the founders stated emphatically were necessary for this country to succeed. Romney, to me at least, demonstrated that he epitomizes those values in all aspects of his life. I was impressed with that. I think the country would do well (if there is any chance for this country to succeed) with a leader like that. Again, he's not the only one. But none of the others have proven it to me that they possess this depth of character - yet.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (BZAd3)

191 Willow? * checks for new thread *

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (aDwsi)

192 Putting aside the fact that this crap is coming out of Rand's mouth.... Didn't Cheney and Halliburton part ways in an unfriendly manner?

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (bCEmE)

193 "Wow, what a dumb fuck. Go back to class, your sociology major is calling" This is what happens when you don't reflexively defend Cheney. People who need your vote try to run you off.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (EilFB)

194 He called CBD anti-Jew? Oh for the love of pete

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (oMKp3)

195

I am so looking forward to the primary season.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (TOk1P)

196 173 "You're apparently sarcasm-concept challenged."

And you're one of those people that thinks it being sarcasm doesn't also make it antisemitic.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:46 AM (EilFB)

Your adherence to PC-think leads me to believe you're a Prog. True that?

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (OZmbA)

197 Nut hugging? D@mn, I just don't visit the Urban Dictionary web site enough.

Posted by: Travis McGee at April 07, 2014 07:50 AM (Ph479)

198 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:46 AM (EilFB)

You aren't very bright, are you?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 07:51 AM (QFxY5)

199

I just don't get what I'm supposed to be upset about there, Cheney is exactly the kind of fat corporate shill who'd see something like Iraq as a great idea for making money.

Care to offer any, you know, evidence when tossing out that asinine bit of nickelfuckery? Or are you just intent on fucking the "Halliburton EEEVILL!" strawman today?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at April 07, 2014 07:51 AM (zF6Iw)

200

Those little factoids may be factual, but there may be hundreds in between a and b and c that also influence decisions that are left out.

This. Correlation = causation only when you already know the explanation you want.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 07:51 AM (JtwS4)

201 The best about this though, is that you're all fucking liars. Drew is a lair, and every single one of you lying mothefuckers who has claimed you wouldn't vote for Paul would absolutely do so in a heartbeat if he was the R vs a D in the Presidential election. The rest of this is... I don't know, being pissed about not getting your way?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (EilFB)

202 I really don't care. My main concern is domestic issues. Give me a fiscally conservative who will actually cut spending and lower taxes and I don't really give a fuck what he thinks of Haliburton or Iraq.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (0LHZx)

203 That's just such a damn stupid argument devoid of any sense or evidence. He was out of Haliburton, the invasion was based on many clear and factual problems, it was a response to unfinished business and a cease fire that Iraq had violated hundreds of times, its just ridiculous how incredibly fact-free people's memories of those years are.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (zfY+H)

204 "Maybe it took a decade for our betters to realize they fucked up, that would be par for the course for government." That is because it was "War via Committee". We had to have a "coalition" to save Kuwait. And those Kuwaitis have been so gracious to us ever since, have they not? The whole affair is a study in how not to do a war.

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (JgC5a)

205 I mean, don't get me wrong: what Rand Paul said here was stupid and wrong. Sounds like his dad, and I mean that as an insult.

But you know what? I just don't care to hear this message right now from someone (DrewM) who has both endorsed other candidates who said/did far worse (see: Newt Gingrich) and whose past behavior suggests that there really isn't anyone the GOP could reasonably put up or anything the party could plausibly do to garner a non-negative response from him. I might as well be reading Markos Moulitsas.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (ewYO6)

206 First anyone who does not recognize that invading Iraq was an uneccessary waste of blood and trease and set the environement for the election of the scoamf has not been paying attention. I do disagree with paul intimating that cheney was motivated by profit over an erroneous belief that we had to invade iraq to prevent the dissemination of wmd, but at this point I am willing to allow paul to venture into hyperbole over this. Dick cheney is no longer relevant to anything that is currently happening today.

Posted by: Kreplach at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (BNuW6)

207

194 -

It's one of those scroll up type situations where you read something in the latter half of the comments, and can't possibly imagine how somebody could say something that dumb... but there this Steve fellow was, being that dumb.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 07:52 AM (TOk1P)

208 Dick Cheney is not a war criminal who invaded Iraq for oil money. Anyone who says that is a lying, evil dirtbag. Or they are an unmedicated nutter.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (ZPrif)

209 "Your adherence to PC-think leads me to believe you're a Prog. True that?" Nope. I just know that things can be other things too.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (EilFB)

210

If Rand Paul were to be the nominee, I'd vote for him. He's still in the catagory of being so much better than Hillary or Cuomo or anyone else we know the dems are going to foist upon us.

Perspective, people. Please.

We aren't going to get the perfect candidate.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (r+vgB)

211 Haliburton is still getting 90% of the contracts how can that be? I think this was already pointed out, but there are like 2 other companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does on the scale it does. Of those, I think Halliburton is the only one that willingly walks into war-zones.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (PYAXX)

212 So if it boils down to <your perfect guy>/Rand Paul vs Hillary/<anybody> should I assume you'll support Hillary?

(Above directed at the venom. If the shoe fits, ... )

Posted by: jwb7605 [/i][/u][/s][/b] at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (ZALPg)

213 So, we are supposed to not pay any attention to the actual PNAC documents, Saddam accepting Euros for oil payments, and the fact that Iraq didn't have a proper central bank and instead focus on Rand Paul making factually accurate statements and ridicule him for being honest. Makes sense. Seriously, now ten years later, what was the actual point of the Iraq war that you care to defend? I can't anymore.

Posted by: @koenigjojo at April 07, 2014 07:53 AM (2wawf)

214 Nobody likes the guy who insists on shitting in the punchbowl at every single party he attends. Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 11:49 AM (ewYO6) I mean, it SEEMS sentient, but the total lack of self-awareness argues against itn

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (qrJVS)

215 I don't think Rand Paul is the same as his dad, he's clearly not as much of a crank. But he's still got some of that Paulite crankiness in him, clearly.
That said, if it mattered - and it doesn't, there's no turning this train around - a President Paul would still be a better choice than anyone the Democrats are going to throw at us.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (zfY+H)

216

Drew is a lair, and every single one of you lying mothefuckers who has claimed you wouldn't vote for Paul would absolutely do so in a heartbeat if he was the R vs a D in the Presidential election.

------------

Then you're ignorant too.

I've said many times, not just on this site but on others, that if the 2012 vote ever came down to Luap Nor v. Obama, I'd vote for the guy who was OK with shooting Bin Laden in the face.

Nothing I've seen from Aqua Buddha makes me think he's all that different from Dad.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (PFy0L)

217 The rest of this is... I don't know, being pissed about not getting your way? Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:52 AM (EilFB) So the nomination is sewn up?

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (j7iSn)

218 Speaking of primaries, this weekend was apparently the beginning of the period when candidates are allowed to post signs in NC. Drove across town Friday night, didn't notice any, Saturday morning all the major roadways were lined. The big race is the GOP primary for Senate. I saw more Brannon signs than Tillis signs, but Brannon's were largely on public ways, Tillis' were more often in front yards. A few just say "Fire Kay Hagan" with no candidate/Party mention.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (ZshNr)

219 But steve-O the sad troll got some attention in his otherwise empty life. Well done, sir!

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (ZPrif)

220 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:52 AM (EilFB) Please do not call me a fucking liar. I'm asking you nicely. Once.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (oMKp3)

221 CBD hates teh Joooooos????? I KNEW IT!!!! His whole "I'm Jewish" schtick was a false flag!!!11!!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (da5Wo)

222 The rest of this is... I don't know, being pissed about not getting your way?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:52 AM (EilFB)

Can we get back to the fun topic of my anti-Semitism?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (QFxY5)

223 I'm sure it all comes from an honest emotional place within DrewM's psyche. That doesn't make it any less toxic and unbearable. Nobody likes the guy who insists on shitting in the punchbowl at every single party he attends. Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 11:49 AM (ewYO6 Don't fucking read it then. I am not aware of any hobos holding a gun to your head. I, as a matter of fact enjoy reading DrewM. Another fact, he is one of my favorite cobs. So read Gabe. He is so uplifting.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (HVff2)

224 Anyone else sick of the "Haliburton!! Cheney is a warmonger!!!" crap?
Didn't we get enough of this during Bush's presidency? A LOT has changed since Obama took office, both domestically and with America's position as a super power. I'm more interested in a prospective Republican's take on that stuff (while obviously keeping in mind any historical statements that may be informing the candidate's actions on current challenges).

I denounce myself in advance for being a stupidhead.

Posted by: Lizzy at April 07, 2014 07:54 AM (udjuE)

225 "Drew is a lair, and every single one of you lying mothefuckers who has claimed you wouldn't vote for Paul would absolutely do so in a heartbeat if he was the R vs a D in the Presidential election. " I think you are probably right in most cases, but I really think there are some of us here that would torpedo the chance to have him in the white house, because he was on Alex Jones show or something, or because he Dad is a bit over the edge.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (n/ogz)

226

Breathe, Steve. I believe the consensus is "gosh, it's too bad he's showing signs of Luapnorishness, because we're inclined to like him".

Also, everyone is welcome to unlurk and post opinions about anything, but if you're going to go ad hominem it's best to hang out a while and get to know the homos.

Posted by: AoSHQ Style Guide Compliance Division at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (JtwS4)

227 its just ridiculous how incredibly fact-free people's memories of those years are. Posted by: Christopher -------------------- All that they accept to be true, is what the MSM have fed them.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (aDwsi)

228

Paul's not going anywhere, for various reasons, but this certainly confirms that the dumbing down of America is not limited to the "educated" NPR types. Why, right here in these comment pages, we have (non-lopnortard troll) commenters echoing the dumbest shit about Iraq that you'd expect from a Dem Senator or "journalist".

And, it's worse than that. Others will surely chime in with the standard, rock-stupid crap about "if only we had finished the job in 1991". Which completely substitutes what was known and knowable, logical, and sensible in March 1991 for magic hindsight - and even then, makes no sense. There was no reasonable expectation that the Iraqi regime would survive in March 1991. It in fact had to disgorge Kurdistan (permanently), and hung on by the skin of its teeth in the south (and helicopters had nothing to do with it, contrary to the bizarre and stupid comment by Schwarzkopf). Saddam's survival was a very unlikely and disastrous event - but balanced against the risks and costs of "finishing" the job, in the pre-9/11 world ..... did not in any way dilute the accomplishment of the first Gulf War. Iraq was defanged in the respect of concern at that time - its capacity for bullying backed by conventional force and reckless audacity.

And I'm sure those who ignorantly rant about "going to Baghdad" in 1991 have a ready answer for what Bush would say when asked - by just about everyone from every camp, including an outraged congress ready to freeze funds, probably - why Americans should be dying to take over Iraq when the very clear defined mission that was popular and authorized had been swiftly and brilliantly accomplished.

But it's really much worse than just geopolitical idiocy on display here (again, not by the obvious trolls, but by some regulars). The ridiculous, baseless demagoguery against Halliburton by loathsome offal like "representative" Waxman mirrors a much wider ignorance of actual contracting practices, and a bizarre bigotry that seems to know no political colors any more.

Posted by: non-purist at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (afQnV)

229 Yes I skipped all the comments and ran to here. Rand may running around with a grenade with the pin pulled but he is correct. I'd like a guy running around with a live grenade right about now getting rady to lob it, in contrast to the Pussies the GOP seems to nominate. Yes and unlike the Republican voters I actually got up off my ass and voted for that asshole. Do you have any idea how hard it is to vote from a foreign country in US elections?> Get off your asses and vote. People died for this! There was no reason for us to get into this war. Rand is correct! Building democracy's for Muslims? You idiots have to be freaking kidding me!

Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (6hJhC)

230 Your move, Senator Cruz.

Posted by: Mr. Powerstroke Super Duty 4X4 King Ranch Edition at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (LSJmV)

231 Non-story. Iraq was unpopular in retrospect, therefore all is forgiven. If this country cared we wouldn't have elected Obama TWICE.

Posted by: Phelps at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (wdjv2)

232 Jeff good, I am glad to see you will enthusiastically fully get behind a Palin/ run if she chooses to throw her hat in the ring?

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 07:55 AM (nqBYe)

233 >>Really getting tired of Drew M's daily "everybody give up and go die" bullshit.

I'm not. Giving up on the GOP is the best step in the right direction most people can make right now. The party as it's currently constituted is controlled opposition.

Posted by: kartoffel at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (sWwJZ)

234 >>>I mean, it SEEMS sentient, but the total lack of self-awareness argues against itn

No, I get it. Hey: why do you think I'm basically retired from here?

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (ewYO6)

235 Jeff B... making ArthurLMendez seem sane and rational since 2008.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (TOk1P)

236 I said he's an antisemite because he acted like one. He can stop saying antisemitic shit (that is also apparently sarcastic) and he won't have to worry about it.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (EilFB)

237 His whole "I'm Jewish" schtick was a false flag!!!11!!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 11:54 AM (da5Wo)

Fuck!

I have been revealed.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (QFxY5)

238 .... So read Gabe. He is so uplifting.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 11:54 AM (HVff2)

Nah. Monty (DOOM).
That right there is uplifting.

I never miss his stuff.

Posted by: jwb7605 [/i][/u][/s][/b] at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (ZALPg)

239 NEXT.

Posted by: Y-not from her sick bed at April 07, 2014 07:56 AM (zDsvJ)

240 "First anyone who does not recognize that invading Iraq was an uneccessary waste of blood and trease and set the environement for the election of the scoamf has not been paying attention. "
Not paying attention. Irony.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (zfY+H)

241 227 - Hmm. A new term: Homomoronic It's almost musical.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (aDwsi)

242 Look at Presidential hairstyle potential in terms of a scale/spectrum. Here's how things are ordered currently (spaces count, and are intentional): Romney John Edwards Tie- Chris Christie, Hillary, Scott Walker Rand "Curly" Paul Donald "Wild Muskrat" Trump Joey "Plugs" Biden

Posted by: S. Muldoon, koiffure-klatch kommenter at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (g4TxM)

243 Yikes. I'm sensing a lot of micro-aggression being triggered here. Think I'll check back next thread.

Posted by: Citizen X at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (7ObY1)

244

234 -

And there it is. The BeffJ whine about how the AoSHQ left him.

Good show. Good show.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (TOk1P)

245 Literally every fucking morning

He didn't post anything yesterday.

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (PplzR)

246 Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 11:42 AM (r+vgB) Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 11:49 AM (ewYO6) You guys caught me. I had one chance to use my time machine and because I wanted to screw over the guy I was leaning towards supporting. I understand you guys aren't very bright but you're confusing a person sharing news and a person liking that news. Or you simply don't think there's a problem with supporting a guy who buys into into Nancy Pelosi/Alex Jones conspiracy theories. Either way, you assholes need to grow the fuck up.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (SgXEz)

247 Posted by: AoSHQ Style Guide Compliance Division at April 07, 2014 11:55 AM (JtwS4) By calling CBD an anti-Semite, I think "Steve" has already outted himself as nothing more than a Troll. I, personally, will just sit back with my popcorn and Dr. Pepper (I'm a Texan, after all) and watch the Troll-Stomping.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (PYAXX)

248 I'm a fan of Cheney and I still think the decision on Iraq was the best possible path out of a bad situation. That said,

1) No one cares about this
2) It's really easy for Rand to characterize this as a species of pork-busting, even if that is somewhat unfair

Remember, the Tea Party is post-Iraq and pushed to allow the defense sequester cuts. The GOP is going isolationist, and maybe that's a good thing. Defending South Vietnam was the right decision too, but look what it led to.

What people remember about Reagan is that he kept us out of the shit without being a pussy about it. That's the Rand Paul strategy.

Posted by: TallDave at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (/s1LA)

249 Jeb Bush in 2016! yo

Posted by: Barack H. Obama at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (W6iIX)

250

How far can you go in stating agreement with something many (most?) voters agree with, but undermines the efforts of Bush-era GOP supporters, and still gain support in a GOP primary? WeÂ’re about to find out.

Posted by: CJ at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (9KqcB)

251 OK, Steve, if you're on the level and not a rabble rousing trouble making concern troll, then I'm sorry you got jumped on so badly.

I support your having your say. Your opinion about Cheney is crap, though.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 07, 2014 07:57 AM (OZmbA)

252 That's why he's so "good at outreach". He says the same things as the Dems. Let felons vote. Legalize weed. Open borders. Economic empowerment zones. War for oil.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 07, 2014 07:58 AM (Y92Nd)

253

This is a sad sad day for me. I'm finding I'm actually agreeing with JeffB.

Forgive me, God.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 07:58 AM (r+vgB)

254 all the people crying deal breaker are no different than a seminar caller. they were never going to vote for him anyway. and they're the same ones who say they will take their marbles if they don't get their way.

Posted by: X at April 07, 2014 07:58 AM (KHo8t)

255 Well, it seems that namecalling and crying is the sum of your arguiments. So, Cheney's a scumbag, Paul is right about him, you'll all vote for Paul if you get him as the R in the presidential, and many of you act like children when your buddy gets taken down a peg. No wonder you lost to Obama.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (EilFB)

256 that's it, taking away Charlie Browns mothers Matzo Ball soup recipe.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (nqBYe)

257 *waves to Empire of Jeff*

Posted by: Y-not from her sick bed at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (zDsvJ)

258 >>>Jeff good, I am glad to see you will enthusiastically fully get behind a Palin/ run if she chooses to throw her hat in the ring?

Of course I wouldn't, and I would vote for nearly anybody else in a GOP primary, and volubly encourage others to do the same while there was still a choice to be made. Which is my right, obviously. But god forbid she were to get the nomination, at that point I would probably just go silent and keep my head down. If you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what I've done around here lately.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (ewYO6)

259 I'd still support him for veep, and I think he'll win NH.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (Y92Nd)

260 And let's not forget his incessant haranguing of the Republican base as racists because they think that illegal immigration is a bad thing.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (1j40q)

261 Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 11:58 AM (r+vgB) That *might* be the first sign you need to reevaluate your position. That said, it has happened to me a time or two. It never stops being embarrassing, though.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (PYAXX)

262 Hmm, do I vote for Hillary! or Rand? Give me a minute...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 07, 2014 07:59 AM (0HooB)

263 236 I said he's an antisemite because he acted like one. He can stop saying antisemitic shit (that is also apparently sarcastic) and he won't have to worry about it. Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:56 AM (EilFB) Steve, you ignorant slut. If you had spent even three minutes of time at AoSHQ, you would know that CBD is one of the staunchest supporters of Israel and the Jewish faith here. He is dearly loved and respected.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (oMKp3)

264 Rand or Jeb Bush. Despite the grenade with pulled pin, I'd vote for Rand over that doughy Bush POS any day of the week.

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (iWMba)

265

Completely OT (mostly)

I have trouble understanding details about your pollies - and I'm sure you have the same problems understanding our Aussie ones if any of you ever read some stuff from here Down Under

After doing a bit of research about this Rand Paul bloke - he sounds slightly strange to me, just a little bit off - that's all

I don't think he's the bloke you're looking for somehow....but what would I know, not living in your great country

Anyway goodnight from here on Tuesday morning! And have a lovely yesterday....

Posted by: aussie at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (7bNcL)

266

It's a tax, yo

Posted by: Justice Roberts at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (W6iIX)

267 My problem isn't even that he's ripping Cheney. It's just a dumb statement. Nothing else changed from 1995-2003 other than Cheney working for Haliburton that could have altered his worldview?

Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (Aif/5)

268 ok so now we have ; Rhino! Stupid Social Cons! Fkn Libertarians!

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (nqBYe)

269 You know, I wish these kos/huff/du klowns actually saw this shit. Lockstep zombie sheep rebublicraps my ass. They're clueless as to actually caring for a country as opposed to caring for a celebrity. I will fight like hell to not see a Jeb democrat on the ticket, but yeah - I'll vote for it in the general. And then fight like hell to keep it from killing itself with amnesty and whatever other idiot ideas it manages to come up with. Kind of like a retard with power tools.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 08:00 AM (pgQxn)

270 This is beautiful. A Paultard troll calls CBD anti-semetic. JeffB. A cob telling people to grow the fuck up. I may need a cigarette soon. Someone pass the fucking popcorn.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (da5Wo)

271 I agree it was a dumb thing to say, but I will say there is a crooked relationship between military contractors and politicians. For some reason conservatives have a blind eye if it's related to the military.

The fact that Cheney went from Defense Secretary to Halliburton making tens of millions securing government contracts and then as VP giving Halliburton no bid contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars is slimey. But do I believe Cheney went to war in Iraq for Halliburton? of course not

Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (JVlsa)

272 What part of what Rand said wasn't true?

Even *we* know that 9-11 gave us our justification (i.e. pre-text) for Iraq invasion. The idea the that best defense was a good offense really started to make sense....especially when one looked at the rubble still smoking. Are we now pretending it didn't? Are we now pretending Iraq war would have happened without 9-11?

How does one go from --- it's a horrible idea to we have to do it?

And I love Cheney as much as the next guy. But you know, maybe there's a point there about a conflict of interest.

Maybe there will be a grenade. This is not it.

Posted by: Edwin H. Anger IV at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (ihRMJ)

273 He called CBD anti-Jew? Oh for the love of pete A wise old indian, casino, not 7-11, once told me, "When you find yourself in the bottom of a hole, stop digging!"

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (E7Zh9)

274 aussie, have lovely sweet dreams.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (nqBYe)

275 Interestingly, this is something the left does really well right now...

Oh, voters, you didn't like this thing that another liberal did a few years ago? Me neither! So you should totally vote for me.

Obviously this is disappointing, but it would probably help him to the extent that it makes any difference in a general election.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (78TbK)

276 I, personally, will just sit back with my popcorn and Dr. Pepper (I'm a Texan, after all) and watch the Troll-Stomping. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you were a Texan, you would know that there's no period after the Dr in Dr Pepper. Allen, have you been lying to us and actually posting from Vermont?

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (LSJmV)

277 Scott Walker for president.

Posted by: MTF at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (F58x4)

278 Keep this shit up. It's how you got Obama. Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:27 AM (EilFB) Yeah, vote another Marxist/fascist in, out of spite. See you in the queues!

Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (2oU2+)

279 That *might* be the first sign you need to reevaluate your position.

That said, it has happened to me a time or two. It never stops being embarrassing, though.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 11:59 AM (PYAXX)

-----------------------------------------

Heh.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (r+vgB)

280 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 11:57 AM (PYAXX)

Well, according to steve's world-view, you are for the 10th Amendment, so you and I must be birds of a feather.

I'll see you at the next German-American Bund meeting.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (QFxY5)

281 I am too but I am not professing it to all of his supporters who I want to vote for the Republican nominee when its not Paul. I don't want them to stay home because we unmercilessly called Rand every name in the book.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 11:39 AM (m2CN7)

The libertarians call themselves Republicans when it suits them to use GOP party affiliation as a veneer of mainstream respectability. Ron Paul's political career, for example, wouldn't have gone far if he had remained a big 'L' libertarian. So Ron Paul (and possibly his son) wear their Republicanism like a magic cloak of invisibility and use it to obscure the absolutely batshit crazy crankery and kookery hidden beneath.

Mitt Romney was the GOP nominee in the last presidential election. I'm guessing not many (if any) true blue libertarians voted for him. They either voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary 'Hot Tub' Johnson, or they stayed home.

Useless, in a word. There are reasons why the Libertarian Party typically only garners 1-3% of the vote in any given election anywhere.

Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 08:01 AM (O66NZ)

282 Fuck! I have been revealed. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 11:56 AM (QFxY5) Now that I think about it, you've never posted a matzoh ball soup recipe....hmmmm.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:02 AM (bCEmE)

283 Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 11:41 AM (mizYg)

------------------------------------------

Hillary before Biden? Hell, I'm half-tempted to actually vote for Joey. As we slide into the abyss, at least we'll get a few chuckles.

Posted by: irright at April 07, 2014 08:02 AM (pMGkg)

284 Oh yeah Babe, the next three years are gonna be great!

Posted by: Smith the Prophetic at April 07, 2014 08:02 AM (YbDja)

285 Jeff good, I am glad to see you will enthusiastically fully get behind a Palin/ run if she chooses to throw her hat in the ring? Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 11:55 AM (nqBYe) That right there is a thing of beauty. Also sekrit to AllenG. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to take 50 of your Texas points for referring to Dr. Pepper and not Dr Pepper. (protip - blame autocorrect because otherwise dude, dude no)

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 07, 2014 08:02 AM (mf5HN)

286 Not really sure how this is a strike against Paul, if he was running in 2008 yeah, probably would hurt him, now? Not so much. Most people don't care about Iraq anymore and those that do probably see it as a failure, criticizing it or the reasons for getting into it won't hurt him.

Posted by: booger at April 07, 2014 08:02 AM (xRDdL)

287 Speaking of primaries, this weekend was apparently the beginning of the period when candidates are allowed to post signs in NC. Drove across town Friday night, didn't notice any, Saturday morning all the major roadways were lined. The big race is the GOP primary for Senate. I saw more Brannon signs than Tillis signs, but Brannon's were largely on public ways, Tillis' were more often in front yards. A few just say "Fire Kay Hagan" with no candidate/Party mention.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 07, 2014 11:54 AM (ZshNr)

and so it begins...

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (yh0zB)

288 None of you would vote for a Democrat over Paul. Don't be fucking stupid.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (EilFB)

289 Another look at my girl Sarah P?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (MMpL5)

290

Iraq War? Really? Is Rand part of the GOP or is he a Manchurian Candidate? Right now I'm leaning towards the latter because bringing up the Iraq War is something every Democrat wants.

Any GOP candidate for 2016 should be looking forward, concentrating on the last eight years of Obama's ineptitude and figuring out a way to fix the mistakes.

Posted by: MacGruber at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (sWgE+)

291 Soon to be headline: "Ted Cruz Forced Church To Perform Gay Wedding Ceremony For His Illegal Alien Gardner"

Posted by: physics geek at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (MT22W)

292 ok so now we have ; Rhino! Stupid Social Cons! Fkn Libertarians! Posted by: willow Morning Ms. Willow.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (E7Zh9)

293 All this talk about 2016. We still have 2014. Let's not forget exactly where we are in time. First things first.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (r+vgB)

294 We know they used 9/11 as the excuse for Iraq. So let us continue down this line of reasoning.......

Posted by: Troofer at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (Aif/5)

295 The fact that the Iraq war led in sequence to President Obama's election does not mean the Iraq war was wrong or a mistake.
Because the war its self didn't lead to Obama's election, the hateful, lying, ranting response by the left did. The left became traitorous, hateful, and screamingly insane to get rid of Republicans in government, and they succeeded, at the price the entire world is still paying.
Had the left not become such bitter, lunatic traitors the war wouldn't have been has long, hard, and damaging, and Obama never would have made it out of Illinois. Don't blame the war for what took place. That was just an excuse.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (zfY+H)

296 DrewM is tiresome but he throws out the red meat to feed the horde . The horde must feed or they die. They live on the carcases of eleventy!!!

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (m2CN7)

297 I like Cheney. He shot a lawyer, a LAWYER! And the lawyer took the blame. In fact Karl Urban as Judge Dredd, in Dredd, recently said this about the sequel: "Dick Cheney will be my sidekick. I know it will upset some. But hey, how could I not have him? He shoots lawyers."

Posted by: ExSnipe at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (hzpoi)

298

Someone called CBD anti-joo?

yea, that'll fly

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (W6iIX)

299 This post will change everyone's mind!

Oh wait, no.
Saddam had a WMD program, was tight with terrorist actors,
and had a mad on for us.Given that the glass house of the USA was
broken by the 9/11 attacks, and there was no longer a good reason
for terrorists to not attack the US in the USA (fear about what
we might do), Saddam's threat to the United States was such
that removing him was the right thing to do.

Glossing over 9/11, not mentioning the Clinton policy of regime
change in Iraq, and Reid like levels of baseless accusations,
all make Rand Paul unacceptable as a nominee.

Posted by: Cowboy Wally at April 07, 2014 08:03 AM (OpRsd)

300 "...you've never posted a matzoh ball soup recipe..."

Posted by: Tami at April 07, 2014 12:02 PM (bCEmE)

It's the little details!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (QFxY5)

301 That's why he's so "good at outreach". He says the same things as the Dems. Let felons vote. Legalize weed. Open borders. Economic empowerment zones. War for oil.

In short, he's a democrat with less Free Shit on offer. Somehow I doubt it's going to win an election.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (kwc/t)

302 Like, who is Dick Cheney anyway?

Posted by: LIV at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (OZmbA)

303 Bush/Paul 2016

Because your betters know better than you.

Posted by: dananjcon at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (NpXoL)

304 Oh, and btw, I'll just post this here because it's not like I'll be around the next time it comes up: this whole Jeb Bush thing? It's bullshit.

He's not going to run. And if he does run (I'd give odds of less than 20%), he won't win the nomination. There is no way in hell that GOP primary voters are going to vote for Another Bush. It's all just noise, a way of filling column inches during relative political doldrums. I don't even know why people around here bother talking about it as if it's a serious possibility.

All the money and establishment backing in the world would not be enough to get Jeb Bush across the finish line of the GOP nominating process, not unless every other candidate got hit by a series of trains. It's silly to worry about.

Me? I'm still "Scott Walker or bust" right now.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (ewYO6)

305 The White House ‏@WhiteHouse 5m Obama: "Businesses and foundations around the country want to help fund more CareerConnect programsÂ—because itÂ’s in their interest." ----- Moar training!

Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 08:04 AM (fWAjv)

306 From Weasel Zippers Alan Grayson's wife says he has abused her for years. It seems she wouldn't shut up about his mistresses which, if it became known, would not be good for his job plus they are his mistresses and none of her business so he had to give her a few taps as an act of love. Alan Grayson reeks of class.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (WvLIA)

307 alex, i've been so having a bad week and might have a little snide slip out, and tea. rick, ty , and hope your day is doing well.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (nqBYe)

308

267 -

It's a dumb statement because, no matter how twisted Paul's supported want to twist it, Rand Paul still feels the tug of his father's evil nazi anti-semitic constituency.

Unless and until he renounces it, he's going to have many more dumb statements coming out of his mouth.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (TOk1P)

309 You know, I wish these kos/huff/du klowns actually saw this shit. Lockstep zombie sheep rebublicraps my ass
***
This is yet another case of simple projection.

The left is harshly heirarchical. So when the leadership decides that the left will be X, all the lower level members get on board or get kicked out of the movement.

This sort of organization is consider negative though, so the left looking at itself decides that since it is morally better then the right, the right must be even more lock step.

And since they are willfully ignorant of what the right believes, the left can persuade itself that all this is true because it MUST be true...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (78TbK)

310 I may need a cigarette soon. Someone pass the fucking popcorn. Extra butter? And, no, I can't blame auto-correct. I instead blame no coffee.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (PYAXX)

311 "Hillary before Biden? Hell, I'm half-tempted to actually vote for Joey. As we slide into the abyss, at least we'll get a few chuckles."
There's a lot to be said for picking the worse, most goofy candidate from now on.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (zfY+H)

312 1. Are we arguing about the Iraq War? Seriously?

2. If what WaPo reported libertarian Rand Paul said is accurate (not a forgone conclusion), who cares? He's impugning Cheney's motives, which does not logically impugn the entire war. The war was not fully predicated on Cheney's advice.

3. I'd take Rand over what we have or over Christie of Jeb in a heartbeat, even with this story.

Posted by: shillelagh at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (hRzu2)

313 Iraq had been violating UN mandates for years, violating no-fly zones, basically begging for a scrap. It's no surprise we had to go back. Was the timing affected by 9/11? Probably. Did Halliburton dictate our defense policy? I doubt it. Saddam was doing a fine job of that all on his own.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 07, 2014 08:05 AM (ZshNr)

314 Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:59 AM (EilFB) Dick Cheney called.....wants to know if you'd like to go hunting?

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 08:06 AM (j7iSn)

315 Washington would say he could not tell a lie, and that the fruit never even fell off of that tree.

Posted by: Roy at April 07, 2014 08:06 AM (VndSC)

316 Math problem: # of people (non-Republicans) who will be turned off by Paul for saying this vs. # of people (non-Republicans) who either don't give a fuck or will be turned on by Paul for saying this I think Group 2 is bigger than Group 1

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:06 AM (0LHZx)

317 I'll call CBD anti-jooooo, but only because of the self-abuse.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 07, 2014 08:06 AM (LSJmV)

318 Like, who is Dick Cheney anyway? - He's like the Coke brothers except worse.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 07, 2014 08:07 AM (WvLIA)

319 Extra butter? Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 12:05 PM (PYAXX) And salt. Thank you. Aw come on. A Cob directly insulted a couple of you. And it was Drew ffs. Fire back!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 08:07 AM (da5Wo)

320 318 Like, who is Dick Cheney anyway? - He's like the Coke brothers except worse. Posted by: WalrusRex at April 07, 2014 12:07 PM (WvLIA) With a new bionic heart!

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:07 AM (bCEmE)

321 There is no way in hell that GOP primary voters are going to vote for Another Bush. Despite how many of us were quite vocally saying "No More Bushes!" George P. won the nomination for Ag Commissioner (or was it Land Commissioner? Can't remember- I just know I voted for the other guy) with something like 70+% of the vote. Don't tell me that GOP primary voters won't vote for another Bush.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:07 AM (PYAXX)

322 My first choices would be: Cruz, Perry, Walker. But- At this point, I would even take Paul if that's all we could get besides Jeb or Christie or Rubio. Sad... but on the bright side- The one thing you can say about Paul is that he speaks just enough of the language of the nutballs and ignorant who make up the Democrat party and LIV libertarian types to get those guys to at least look at voting for a Republican and who knows maybe even look at conservative ideas. That's the upside. Plus, he actually setting up operations in multiple states which indicates a will to win. (unlike McCain and Romney) Other than that, I got nuthin'.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 07, 2014 08:07 AM (0cMkb)

323 I'll just post this here because it's not like I'll be around the next time it comes up: this whole Jeb Bush thing? It's bullshit. What's not bullshit is that there are a lot of GOP donors who want him to run after fatass Christie collapsed. And he has expressed some covert interest in the idea. And see Jeff, the fact that there are any so-called 'realists' out there pushing this - and that these guys are held in higher esteem than those crazy purists - is a legitimate topic of discussion.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (5tpzF)

324 All this talk about 2016. We still have 2014. Let's not forget exactly where we are in time. First things first.

--

Exactly. We still have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory long before we hash out 2016. And amnesty and the R's fervent attempts to "fix" Barrycare just may get us there.

Oh, and Nikki Haley for President, 2016.

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (iWMba)

325 None of you would vote for a Democrat over Paul.

Don't be fucking stupid.

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 12:03 PM (EilFB)

Let me get this straight: you are telling us not to be fucking stupid.

Heh.

Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (O66NZ)

326 Damn!!! It's turned into a RINO war all up in here Silly rethugiKKKants Dance for me!!

Posted by: Navycopjoe at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (aYJgz)

327 Republicans are war criminals! Vote for Rand Paul! American soldiers are just dupes, too stupid to get a real job! Prove me wrong, wingnuts! (But please don't use mean words or insult me. No need to be rude, you war-mongering sheep.)

Posted by: Paulian Defendor! at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (ZPrif)

328 Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 12:01 PM (O66NZ) Uhhh.... you do realize that by Federal Law, the two major political parties have HUGE legal advantages over any other party? And that the Republican party, at least in its platform, is more Libertarian than the Dem party platform? Hell... the TEA folks were told to join the GOP and change it from within.... and you've seen how well that worked with the GOPe still at the helm...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 08:08 AM (84gbM)

329 He's not going to run. And if he does run (I'd give odds of less than 20%), he won't win the nomination. There is no way in hell that GOP primary voters are going to vote for Another Bush. It's all just noise, a way of filling column inches during relative political doldrums. I don't even know why people around here bother talking about it as if it's a serious possibility. All the money and establishment backing in the world would not be enough to get Jeb Bush across the finish line of the GOP nominating process, not unless every other candidate got hit by a series of trains. It's silly to worry about. Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 12:04 PM (ewYO6) _______________ That's what I kept hearing about Romney around this time in 2011....no way a RINO like that can possibly win. Remember all it takes is 30% of the vote in a 4 way race to win. I'm not saying Bush will win, but I wouldn't be shocked if he does.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:09 AM (0LHZx)

330 The left is harshly heirarchical. So when the leadership decides that the left will be X, all the lower level members get on board or get kicked out of the movement. Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 12:05 PM (78TbK) It's funny. Over at the shithole known as DU message boards TFG himself could post something but if his nic only has a couple of posts attributed to it he would be a right wing troll.

Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 08:09 AM (fWAjv)

331 It all depends on what the meaning of "we" is.

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 07, 2014 08:09 AM (g4TxM)

332 I was against conspiracy theories before I was for them

Posted by: Randi Paul at April 07, 2014 08:09 AM (Dwehj)

333 Seriously, people: *I* have a better chance of securing the Republican nomination for President in 2016 than Jeb Bush. (Jeff B. '16! Slogan: "You're All A Bunch Of Idiots Who Know Nothing Of Politics.")

It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 08:09 AM (ewYO6)

334 There's only one way to resolve this CBD thing: pants iff selfie.

Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (zDsvJ)

335 282 Fuck! I have been revealed. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 11:56 AM (QFxY5) Now that I think about it, you've never posted a matzoh ball soup recipe....hmmmm. Posted by: Tami at April 07, 2014 12:02 PM (bCEmE But, I liked the Ale Cheddar Soup receipe,.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (HVff2)

336 Rand spelled backwards is D-nar. Dinar!!! Wow.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (CMkNk)

337 Posted by: Navycopjoe at April 07, 2014 12:08 PM (aYJgz) Hey, did you see the Cubbies won yesterday? First time they got to sing Go Cubs Go at Wrigley this year.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (oMKp3)

338 I'd love the next election to be Ron Paul vs Joe Biden. That would be entertaining as hell.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (zfY+H)

339 I think Group 2 is bigger than Group 1 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 12:06 PM (0LHZx) Yup. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was at least split down the middle with Republicans.

Posted by: booger at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (xRDdL)

340 Like, who is Dick Cheney anyway? - He's like the Coke brothers except worse. Posted by: WalrusRex at April 07, 2014 12:07 PM (WvLIA) With a new bionic heart! Posted by: Tami at April 07, 2014 12:07 PM (bCEmE) stolen from a wee lass.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:10 AM (nqBYe)

341 One of the saddest things about the time period of the 00s is just how out of whack the current "historical record" is with the actual facts.

So, for example, in 2002, just before the invasion all of the following were true:

1) Iraq had a working relationship with Al Qaeda and some Salafists had specifically fled to Iraq.

2) Iraq had chemical weapons (it had *not* destroyed all of its stockpile).

3) Iraq had recently tried to acquire more uranium from Africa (Bush's "16 words")

4) Iraq had routinely engaged in acts of war, after the 1991 war ended, against the United States, including trying to assassinate the president and firing on American planes.

But ask your average LIV or liberal and they don't know any of this...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (78TbK)

342 And here I thought it was just me. On one hand, it's nice to see the mob out chasing someone else for a change. On the other hand, it's a shame every fucking conversation has to be such a bloodsport.

Posted by: jwest at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (u2a4R)

343 stolen from a wee lass. Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 12:10 PM (nqBYe) No, the little girl's heart is kept on his desk. It's an easy mistake to make, though.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (PYAXX)

344 >>>Despite how many of us were quite vocally saying "No More Bushes!" George P. won the nomination for Ag Commissioner (or was it Land Commissioner? Can't remember- I just know I voted for the other guy) with something like 70+% of the vote.

I think it's safe to say that there's a difference between the Bush Brand in Texas versus nationally. And the position was Agriculture Commissioner, not Governor, or LG, or Senator.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (ewYO6)

345 And may I just add that fire can't melt steel?

Posted by: Randi Paul at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (Dwehj)

346 335 282 Fuck! I have been revealed. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 11:56 AM (QFxY5) -------------------- Now that I think about it, you've never posted a matzoh ball soup recipe....hmmmm. Posted by: Tami at April 07, 2014 12:02 PM (bCEmE ------------------- But, I liked the Ale Cheddar Soup receipe,. Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 12:10 PM (HVff2) As long as he stays away from martini recipes....

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 08:11 AM (da5Wo)

347 334 There's only one way to resolve this CBD thing: pants iff selfie.

Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 12:10 PM (zDsvJ)

The real question is where does he go to lunch on Christmas and Easter?

Posted by: buzzion at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (LI48c)

348 I don't see a future for Jeb Bush in the presidential race, either. He might win a state, but heck even Santorum did that.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (zfY+H)

349 It will be a "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME" moment if the race is 2016 is Clinton vs. Bush. Fashion trends come back every 2 decades, I guess presidential trends do as well. And in 2036 it will be Sasha Obama vs. One of the Bush Twins.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (0LHZx)

350 DrewM is tiresome but he throws out the red meat to feed the horde . The horde must feed or they die. They live on the carcases of eleventy!!! Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 12:03 PM (m2CN7 --------------------------- Lest you're assuming that the universe owes you a happy ending, let me remind you of the ground truth: There are more Free Shitters who vote than there are of us who vote. We don't have a candidate problem, we have a demographic problem. It doesn't matter who runs on which ticket. Free Shit is the winning platform. Spend your time and energy getting bulletproof and secure your family's future. Hoping for some conservative resurgence is a synonym for hoping government will fix the mess it created. The only, and inevitable corrective, is a crash. It will burn.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (qrJVS)

351 I'm writing in Sean Sorrentino for President, cause he's Not The Boss Of Me.

https://www.facebook.com/PresidentNotTheBossOfYou?ref=profile

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (yh0zB)

352 338 I'd love the next election to be Ron Paul vs Joe Biden. That would be entertaining as hell. First debate question: do you believe we have been visited by people from other worlds, and that they walk among us now? Hearing a kook and an idiot give their answers would be the most legendary moment in all of politics.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (5tpzF)

353 well, we sure as hell didn't go into iraq for freedom.

Posted by: obamuh at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (rNS5g)

354 > I'd take Rand over what we have or over Christie of Jeb in a heartbeat, even with this story. How did you know I was of Jeb?

Posted by: Christie of Jeb at April 07, 2014 08:12 AM (SCcgT)

355 Like, I finally got a job and they took a lot of money out of my first paycheck.

I'm going to write President Obama and see if he can fix that.

Posted by: LIV at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (OZmbA)

356 stolen from a wee lass. Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 12:10 PM (nqBYe) He used a bigass HALLIBURTON!!eleventy!! backhoe to rip it outta her chest.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (bCEmE)

357

FWIW ... I've heard that Rand Paul line of reasoning alot. Mostly from working class voters disenchanted with their particular party, be it Dem or GOP.

Like him or not, Rand Paul has his finger on the pulse of a larger demographic that just pro-pot Libertarians.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (nsUkS)

358 you're an antisemite.... Steve ...

Damned straight I am. Just ask around here.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

His recipes have killed more Jews than?
Wait a minute, that's not killing him, you sneaky.

/sarc

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (DL2i+)

359 None of you would vote for a Democrat over Paul. Don't be fucking stupid. Posted by: Steve ----------------- That may be true, but it doesn't that Paul merits promotion.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (aDwsi)

360 Agriculture Commissioner, not Governor, or LG, or Senator.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 12:11 PM (ewYO6)

Land Commissioner.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (m2CN7)

361
eh, no enemies to the right of me or to the more libertarian to me as far as I am concerned.

all of the candidates have flaws, I put this statement way the hell down there.

and his whackjob father and he are right about the endless wars.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (hUf/y)

362 We hate the NeoKaaaaahns! But the Neo-confederates actually make some good points. Subscribe to our newsletter! Vote Rand Paul! Avenge the South!!

Posted by: Paulian Defendor! at April 07, 2014 08:13 AM (ZPrif)

363 But ask your average LIV or liberal and they don't know any of this... Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 12:11 PM (78TbK) Don't forget the aluminum tubes. Anyone who thought those were rocket motor casings is insane.

Posted by: jwest at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (u2a4R)

364 Dick Cheney called.....wants to know if you'd like to go hunting? Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 12:06 PM (j7iSn) *** Duck?

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (g4TxM)

365 Posted by: Christie of Jeb at April 07, 2014 12:12 PM (SCcgT) It's like a fat blue-blooded RINO borg.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (5tpzF)

366 "after 9/11 we should have nuked half the planet just to make sure we got the right guys." Posted by: Smith the Hawk

First post here that made sense.

In 20/20 hindsight, the proper response to the 9-11 attack should have been the nuclear obliteration of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

If the Saudis are removed, you pretty much have to leave Saddam in place against Iran.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (c6N69)

367 LOUD NOISES!

Posted by: Brick Tamland at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (vgIRn)

368 344. No more bushes Yep That why I support Teh SARAH You know she trims

Posted by: Navycopjoe at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (aYJgz)

369 344 Texas Land Commissioner

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (R8hU8)

370 That may be true, but it doesn't follow that Paul merits promotion. Posted by: Mike Hammer

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (aDwsi)

371 I fault Paul for his week amnesty/immigration stance, not this.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum (now with chrome clone Iron) at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (AWmfW)

372 Posted by: non-purist at April 07, 2014 11:55 AM (afQnV Yea, and after all your bloviating about how stupid we were, we ended up going back! If a guy is worth punching, you knock his ass out. Brilliant minds conjecturing on the survivability of the Hussein regime all turned out to be wrong.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (agLwc)

373 In 2002/2003 I was all gung ho for Iraq. I didn't give a shit who it was really. I wanted revenge for 9/11 and if it had to be Iraq, great. Bomb the fuck out of them. And I think a lot of us felt the same way. Looking back on it 10 years later, I realize going into Iraq was a mistake. Even not knowing all the shit that happened after the invasion, it was a bad idea with just the facts we had pre-invasion.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (0LHZx)

374 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 12:12 PM (qrJVS) Yeah, but we loves our denial.

Posted by: BignJames at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (j7iSn)

375 Buzzion Wan Huang Lo Noodle House

Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 08:14 AM (zDsvJ)

376 In 2016 I fail to see why I should give a shit what anyone said about the Iraq war in the previous decade. Past is past - where are we going from here? What candidates will actually do more than claim to favor more limited government?

Posted by: radar at April 07, 2014 08:15 AM (eNZFc)

377 Hell... the TEA folks were told to join the GOP and change it from within.... and you've seen how well that worked with the GOPe still at the helm...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 12:08 PM (84gbM)

While the two-party system in our country may be immutable, that doesn't mean either party will remain part of that system forever. Remember the Whigs.

Secondly, I don't mind that aspects of libertarianism have crept into the GOP. 'Leave people alone to lead their lives as they see fit' is a very Republican message and deserves propagating. However, that evil Jewish banker 9-11 Truther fluoridated water chem trail mind control Alex Jones Ron Paul conspiracy bullshit needs to stay the hell outside, thanks.

Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 08:15 AM (O66NZ)

378 The only, and inevitable corrective, is a crash. It will burn. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 07, 2014 12:12 PM (qrJVS) Fuck. Math.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 08:15 AM (HVff2)

379 Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 12:11 PM (78TbK) Don't forget the first attack to bring down the World Trade Center in the 90's was the sole provence of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 07, 2014 08:15 AM (0cMkb)

380 so now should we have jewish purity war? reform!conservative!orthodox!

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:15 AM (nqBYe)

381 There are some that I would rather just stay in Congress and there are others that I would rather just stay in Kenya.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (gdGJ1)

382 This is not the Hill of Stoopid to die on, people!

Posted by: Randi Paul at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (Dwehj)

383 I thought pulling your dress over your head and squealing Halliburton was Edwards position?

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (DL2i+)

384 If Scott Walker came out and said we went to war in Iraq because of Cheney and Halliburton, would you think more of him or less of him?

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (oMKp3)

385 The real question is where does he go to lunch on Christmas and Easter? Posted by: buzzion at April 07, 2014 12:12 PM (LI48c) You go home now! You been here 4 hour!

Posted by: Ho lee Fuq [/i][/b][/u][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (bCEmE)

386 Are we having fun yet? I am almost ready to register as a democrat, just to vote for the worst piece of crap that comes along. I hope Jesse Jackson jr runs after rehap and Jail..family legacy and all. I would vote for his dumb, felonious butt.

To face whoever. Our party, who freed the slaves seems intent on grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory! Then I get to vote again for a Republican as a 5th columnist! Sound like a plan? My idea is everyone register democrat and vote for the most screwed up asshole they offer. You need not worry about the Republican patry, they always choose the worst asshole in near sight. Then when the main election happens..vote for whichever asshole the party stands up. The republican party is worse than the damn NRA, They (both) are always asking for me money. Hell, I am lifetime member of the NRA. I already gave my money. Stop being telemarketing Wussies!

Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at April 07, 2014 08:16 AM (6hJhC)

387 That may be true, but it doesn't that Paul merits promotion.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 12:13 PM (aDwsi)

Come on Mike. . It was not a demand for promotion of Paul but to comment on its intended purpose as a hit piece about comments five years ago. Paul is one of the Senators we rely on to block or help pass much of what we all agree on. I see this as a hit piece by the left to garner futher discord in the GOP.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (m2CN7)

388 I have no idea what was in those newsletters under my name that were written by me. Seriously. I've never even heard of this "Southern Avenger" guy. I was surprised as anyone to learn he was a close associate of my son, Rand. Shocked face all around, I tell you.

Posted by: Ron Paul at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (ZPrif)

389 I love how anytime libertarians are mentioned, the tru-con knee jerk reaction is pot legalization. Because pot is the ONLY reason someone is libertarian.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (0LHZx)

390 384 If Scott Walker came out and said we went to war in Iraq because of Cheney and Halliburton, would you think more of him or less of him? Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 12:16 PM (oMKp3) He wouldn't and you know that. Scott is too kind to say what he thinks.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (HVff2)

391 Exactly. We still have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory long before we hash out 2016. And amnesty and the R's fervent attempts to "fix" Barrycare just may get us there. Oh, and Nikki Haley for President, 2016. Posted by: Lady in Black at April 07, 2014 12:08 PM (iWMba) lol, and so true.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (nqBYe)

392 "Hearing a kook and an idiot give their answers would be the most legendary moment in all of politics."
I would vote for both of them just to see it happen.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:17 AM (zfY+H)

393 JeffB calling someone else a liar? Oh, but that's rich.

Posted by: [/I]KG at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (p7BzH)

394 "The one guy who was actually trying to reach out to voters who aren't already committed Republican voters and was good at finding ways to try and bridge the libertarian and traditional conservative wings on the party.

But he is who he is."

Don't discount that there are conservatives like myself who also feel that the Iraq war was ill-conceived and executed, and that it distracted from the real need to focus efforts in Afghanistan.

I don't find the notion that 9/11 was used as a pretext for a war that "they" already wanted all that objectionable.

Plus, it may pick up the crazy anti-war at all costs loonies in the middle/left. Not a bad play, all things considered.

Posted by: flounder at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (Kkt/i)

395 I'm not big on Rand Paul either, but I too note the ire directed at him by a former cheerleader for Newt Gringrich. Seriously, Newt Frigging Gingrich, Drew? That alone should make you ineligible for posting on such a highly trafficked site. So if you'll excuse me I'll take your critiques of other's political acumen with a grain of salt.

Posted by: srsly? at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (HD3d3)

396 I would pay good money that I don't have a lot of to be in the audience for a LuapNor vs ChooChoo debate.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (da5Wo)

397 Tinfoil futures are up!

Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (zDsvJ)

398 Or, more accurately, he is who he WAS. Interesting. When its Rick Santorum and his comments from years ago about birth control are dug up, those are off limits. But when Rand Paul's comments from 5 years ago are dug up and reflect a lot of people's thinking in one form or another (and Rick Santorum's did not, BTW), now THAT is a deal breaker. Rand Paul made insinuations. He did not, actually, say anything not factual. I supported the war and still do, but I don't doubt for a second there were people in the gov't who wanted a war with Iraq the entire time. And not necessarily for bad reasons. Attempting to end a tyranical gov't and bring freedom to Iraq is a noble, worthwhile pursuit even if you end up using 9/11 as a pretext to do it. I'd be curious to know if there was anything that came AFTER those comments. That, to me, is important.

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:18 AM (b2D8X)

399 ok outside to look at how the new koi are handling the pond .

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (nqBYe)

400 Linking to a WaPo piece that will inevitably come up if Paul decides to pursue the nomination is really horrible Drew. I'd like to leave the wool over my eyes a little while longer.

Posted by: Some Idiot at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (Aif/5)

401 Even not knowing all the shit that happened after the invasion, it was a bad idea with just the facts we had pre-invasion. I disagree. Saddam was a supporter of terror who wanted to get his hands on nukes. Post 9/11, we can't just allow regimes to do that. And remember that Bush's ultimatum to Saddam ALSO encouraged several other countries to very visibly (if only temporarily) give up their own WMD programs. The problem was much more on that stupid "You break it, you bought it" philosophy. The correct way to wage war is to kill enough of the other guy's side that he's forced to admit he can't hurt you. And THEN you say, "And don't make me come back here." Had we done just that, we'd have been fine. Instead we stayed for nearly 10 years trying to turn a 3rd World S-Hole (or at least 2nd World) into a functioning 1st World Democracy/Republic. THAT was the bad plan. Once you get away from using the Army to kill people and break things, you've got problems.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (PYAXX)

402 Oh, and good job, Drew, taking the Washington Post's opposition research and running with it. Very self aware.

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (b2D8X)

403 389. . Because pot is the ONLY reason someone is libertarian. Shit, you guys want cocaine now too?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (aYJgz)

404 You tru-con-socon types make me want to cash in my skyrocketing 401K.

Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (Dwehj)

405

I actually think this may cement his credentials, not necessarily tarnish him.

Is it so crazy to think that Cheney, who has serious connections to defense industry, may be motivated to go to war.

Weren't we all motivated to go to war after 9/11.

My personal theory is that we could do so with a faux UN blessing because of all the sanctions they were in violation of, so they were the easy target - Iraq - and I think GWB was going to kill sadaam for being behind a plot to try and assassinate his dad.

It may have made sense for other reasons, but those three are also factors I think.

Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 08:19 AM (tVTLU)

406 I will vote for somebody who will fix the country, not fuck it up more. Some of what Paul says fits in the second category.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 08:20 AM (BZAd3)

407 I finally waded through the comments and I got to see the answer to a question that has long bothered me: whatever happened to the guy who used to lick the windows on the school bus? Apparently the answer to that question is "Steve".

Posted by: physics geek at April 07, 2014 08:20 AM (MT22W)

408 All this violence and bloodshed is making me sleepy. I'm going to go take a nap.

Later roonz and roonettez, fear no evil!

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at April 07, 2014 08:20 AM (yh0zB)

409 Can we have a flame thread plz? Or do I just have to keep watching this and wait for my opportunity to stab a fool in the throat?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at April 07, 2014 08:21 AM (naUcP)

410 Ya know what, I like shooting people in the face with a shotgun. Damn sure do. Where are your puppies?!?! It's lunch time!

Posted by: Dick Cheney at April 07, 2014 08:22 AM (gOoFi)

411 Five years ago was an important time in this country's political history and Rand chose to smear one if the highest profile people in his own party. That's unforgivable. It is at least as bad as what Christie did to Mitt.

Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 08:22 AM (zDsvJ)

412 404 You tru-con-socon types make me want to cash in my skyrocketing 401K. Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 07, 2014 12:19 PM (Dwehj) Yuckity, yuck, yuck.....The bloviator bovine has spoken.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 08:22 AM (HVff2)

413 77: "If that is what victory in Iraq looks like, you can have it.
All we got out of it was heartbreak, scorn, debt, dead and broken soldiers.

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 11:31 AM (JgC5a"

Well, to the extent that we got only what you claim above, that is due ENTIRELY to the left. From the first claims of "QUAGMIRE!!!" that came during -- what? week 1 of the invasion? -- when we halted in place for a couple days to let a 100-yr sandstorm pass; right on through and beyond Harry Reid stating on the Senate floor that the war was lost at a time when we still had men fighting in the field.

We defeated the shit out of them, and had it thrown away by the Left. Just like Vietnam.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 07, 2014 08:22 AM (1j40q)

414 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 12:19 PM (PYAXX) ____________ I still think Saddam was just fucking with Bush thinking there's no way another Bush war with me again.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:22 AM (0LHZx)

415 one more thing Iraq Liberation document written in 1998 clearly laid out why Saddam had to be ousted. after 9-11 a good pretext could be had that Saddm was supporting terrorists and at that point pretty much everyone wanted to send the terrorists to a place they beelonged.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:23 AM (nqBYe)

416 If Scott Walker came out and said we went to war in Iraq because of Cheney and Halliburton, would you think more of him or less of him? Less. A lot less. Even if he sincerely believed that (and believed it at the time). One of the other things this does is helps Democrats reinforce their own "National Security" position- by allowing them to continue to Blame Bush. Now, on the flip side of that, Paul said it in 2009 (still should have been off-limits), so I'm not quite sure why this is coming up now, but if Scott Walker said it tomorrow? Totally germane and I would think a lot less of him.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:23 AM (PYAXX)

417

Looking back on it 10 years later, I realize going into Iraq was a mistake. Even not knowing all the shit that happened after the invasion, it was a bad idea with just the facts we had pre-invasion.

There was a meta-fact. Saddam's demeanor was to say "you're big sissies and you won't attack just because we dick around with the WMD inspectors". He acted as if he had WMD. He played a very bad hand of poker.

And that was at a point in history where we had to prove that we absolutely would fuck you up if you deserved upfucking.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 08:23 AM (JtwS4)

418 Maybe 9/11 had an effect on Cheney, you know, like it did with Dennis Miller and Ron Silver, and perhaps millions of others. Also, why would Cheney care about Halliburton in 2001? He wasn't their CEO then. Halliburton is so evil that Clintern AND Hussein Obama used them. But no, Rand has to stoke the conspiracies of a great American successful company.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at April 07, 2014 08:23 AM (9Bdcz)

419 k now out.

Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 08:23 AM (nqBYe)

420 Empire of Jeff: The only, and inevitable corrective, is a crash.
It will burn.

The current rate of deliberate monetary inflation is mathematically unsustainable.

It HAS to burn. It cannot be prevented from burning.

There is a reason folks like JP Morgan, and the Rothschilds ( yea I know is sounds like teh crazy ) are holding a bunch of physical metal, and not paper gold and silver futures.

After the Wiemar Republic crashed, entire city blocks of downtown Berlin ( 3 and 4 story building blocks ... ) were purchased for as little as 25 ounces of gold. The next crash will haul ALL of the western country's currency down with it, since they use US dollars as their reserve, and not metal.

The only folks standing will be those with physical metal. Everyone else will be living in Obamavilles.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 08:24 AM (c6N69)

421

398 -

I don't have a problem with Rand Paul being in the Senate, but if I were supporting him for President, I would count on many many many more comments like these being unearthed.

The guy had to rely on his rotten father's constituency to get elected.

Fine. Whatever. So the question is, will he shake those people off, now that he wants higher office? If not, he doesn't deserve higher office.

The Wapo isn't so much doing opposition research as it is showing you the way things will be. They're doing you a favor if they dig all this up now.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 08:24 AM (TOk1P)

422

I remember Ann Coulter saying "Of course we invaded Iraq for oil!" and people still take her seriously.

But yeah, fuck her and Rand.

Posted by: extendo-man at April 07, 2014 08:24 AM (qPxLX)

423 ok outside to look at how the new koi are handling the pond . Fish fry at willow's!

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 08:24 AM (E7Zh9)

424

9/11 was the go-ahead signal for the left and the MFM in this country. That's when the massive upheavals started. The war, as it was/is, is just an excuse for the marxists in this country start their final campaign, or I should say, their coup over the Constitution and America.

This country was ripe for it. 9/11 changed everything.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 08:25 AM (r+vgB)

425 Posted by: troyriser at April 07, 2014 12:15 PM (O66NZ) Ahhh.... but there is a vocal part of the GOP, who will paint ANYONE who says they have Libertarian leanings with that broad brush... Because in their minds... Libertarian = Whacko... IMO there is a huge opportunity right now... because people are afraid of their own Government... but NEITHER of the two existing Parties are doing a thing to actually solve that problem.... they are just arguing which one of them gets to control us next.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 08:25 AM (84gbM)

426 Let's stipulate that it is a factual recitation of events. The problem is the implied causality. That Cheney was informing American military policy based on his own greed, rather than, say, that the world had changed by 2003 and our view of the danger of terror and WMDs changed his calculus. It's lazy thinking to go from Fact A to Fact B means Cheney is a greed monger. And that's too bad, because Rand has been my biggest man-crush so far for 2016. Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 11:25 AM (JtwS4) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indeed. Can't have a candidate for president ever being guilty of "lazy thinking". Much better to be a full on marxist.

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:25 AM (b2D8X)

427 If Iraq were a country in the middle of Africa, with no oil, would we have invaded?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 08:25 AM (0LHZx)

428 Interesting. When its Rick Santorum and his comments from years ago about birth control are dug up, those are off limits. Wait...what? I would question the existence or efficacy of any group shutting down negative stories about Rick Santorum.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 08:25 AM (uXvLX)

429 "Take The Long Way Home" Supertramp bringing back some memories of happier times.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 08:26 AM (BZAd3)

430 I don't understand all this, "he would still appeal to voters" and that what he said was just playing to the crowd.

Isn't anyone at all terrified that he really IS his father deep down inside? He's tried to play down his views on immigration but it's obvious he's for it. Suppose he believes in no borders? Maybe he really does believe we brought on 9/11 ourselves and wants to do away with most of our military. Ron Paul used the GOP for his ends. Is it so far-fetched to think Rand Paul might be doing the same?

The Reason people still support him - they think he's 100% lying when he talks conservative-ish yet we believe him.

Posted by: jeannebodine at April 07, 2014 08:26 AM (2LJqa)

431 I still think Saddam was just fucking with Bush thinking there's no way another Bush war with me again. That's his own fault then. If a guy claims he's going to go get a gun and come murder my family, that's enough justification to defend myself with deadly force (in most jurisdictions, anyway). I don't see how that would have been significantly different. However, you're wrong. The papers that we found in Iraq showed that Saddam desperately wanted a Nuke, and was quite frustrated at his scientists "lack of progress" (which turned out to be them embezzling his money to enrich themselves instead of Uranium.)

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:26 AM (PYAXX)

432 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 12:19 PM (PYAXX) ^^^^THIS Plus the complete elimination of the Saudi and Emirate royals who had directly funded the 911 operation and are still wondering around fat, dumb, and sassy would've done wonders for the collapse of islamic jihad.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 07, 2014 08:26 AM (0cMkb)

433 Liberals win b/c they're not afraid to throw people under the bus in order to get the PR they need. (Cf. Obama, Clinton, etc.)

Conservatives lose because we feel we have to defend the honor of the historical record every fucking time, and then it all gets hung around our necks like an albatross.

Rand is giving a golden opportunity to shed that albatross. If the price is throwing Cheney under the bus, I'm ok with that.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at April 07, 2014 08:26 AM (kQOYH)

434 Rand lied to smear Cheney and a large part of the Republican base in order to curry favor with the Left and the Media. This is not a new phenomenon. Rand Paul is a lying fuckstick. And don't give me the insinuation defense. He knew what he was saying -- he implied exactly what he intended to imply. To say, or imply, that Cheney took us to war so he and Halliburton could profit is a lie. It's a lie believed by the Left and assorted nutbars on the diseased libertarian fringe. The same diseased fringe the Paul's have been milking for cash with the neo-confederate, goldbug, race war fantasy newsletters for decades.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 08:27 AM (ZPrif)

435

McAdams. Please. If you're going to soak up pernicious ignorant stuff and let it influence your views, you are under-achieving. Because you are a smart, thoughtful, non-ignorant citizen, as often displayed here.

"No-bid" contracts are not what you (or most) think they are, and certainly not in this case. Small ones are often granted under "notwithstanding any other provision of law" authority, for emergency activities in very difficult circumstances (participated in many of these, for very small humanitarian operations in remote difficult climes).

Halliburton/KBR. LOGCAP. Look into them, if you want to be informed. KBR pretty much *invented* global logistics support, in its current form, as part of the oil business. They really have only real peer competitor - no surprise, as barriers to entry + limited end-market for this sort of service business do not make for many players. First LOGCAP (six-year) contract was let under Clinton, late 90s, I think.

Under this sort of umbrella contract, sub-tasks and orders not foreseen in the original contract are issued as the need arises (this of course would encompass many of the Iraq and A'stan activities). So, for example, you need gasoline tankers to drive route Tampa north from Kuwait into Iraq to support US forces. Oops, security issues develop and suddenly your regular local contractors won't do the job (dangerous). So you issue short-term contracts to get the job done, and they're costly. Duh. They're short-term, emergency, involving risk to the contractors. You're gonna pay, or you're not gonna get your gasoline to the forces.

Just one example. I know - "in the weeds". But this is exactly the sort of inversion of factual reality that makes up today's dumbed-down America, today's bizarre unreal public square where common sense and history and facts are rarely seen. Instead, we get bigotry, and demagoguery, and distortion, and Rep. Waxman and his vile ilk sliming good people operating under legitimate contracts and risking their lives to get the national job done. I never worked for KBR but I benefitted greatly from their support. Which has exactly nothing to do with my understanding of war, economics, contracting law, and emergency procurement.

Posted by: non-purist at April 07, 2014 08:28 AM (afQnV)

436 This country was ripe for it. 9/11 changed everything. Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 12:25 PM (r+vgB) **** I agree. You might say 9/11 unveiled the schism that was there under the surface. Now it is playing out more in the open.

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 07, 2014 08:28 AM (g4TxM)

437 I'll see you at the next German-American Bund meeting.

I'll take sauerkraut and mustard on mine thanks.
Oh you said bund.
Must be lunchtime.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 08:28 AM (DL2i+)

438 why is Drew M digging up 5 year old shit on the only libertarian republican? are you in DC Drew M?

Posted by: X at April 07, 2014 08:28 AM (KHo8t)

439 Rand is giving a golden opportunity to shed that albatross. If the price is throwing Cheney under the bus, I'm ok with that. If the price is showing you're a fruit loop, I'm not okay with that.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 08:28 AM (oMKp3)

440 And that was at a point in history where we had to prove that we absolutely would fuck you up if you deserved upfucking. Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 07, 2014 12:23 PM (JtwS4) Andddd.... Iran has not been bombed.... WHY? Iran has a REAL nuclear program... it HAS armed our enemies... its weapons have directly killed many of our soldiers.... Hell... the 83 Beirut bombing was done at their behest... Or.... how about Saudi Arabia... you know... where Bin L and almost all the 9/11 guys came from???? There were worse actors out on the world stage at that time...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 08:29 AM (84gbM)

441 If Iraq were a country in the middle of Africa, with no oil, would we have invaded?
***
If you replace Africa with Asia...well...then yes...see the war before the Iraq war.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:29 AM (78TbK)

442 427If Iraq were a country in the middle of Africa, with no oil, would we have invaded?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 12:25 PM (0LHZx)

If Africans had flown planes into skyscapers, probably. Do you think we get a bunch of oil from Iraq?

Posted by: extendo-man at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (qPxLX)

443 Hell, if you'd told people in 1991 that we'd still be fighting there TWENTY YEARS LATER you'd have gotten maybe 10% approval for doing anything other than passing a few toothless UN condemnations.

And if in 2001 you had told me that in 2010 we'd have discovered who was sheltering Bin Laden but we still sent money to them in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc., I would not have supported action in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (kwc/t)

444 Jesus. I'm reading this link and seeing CBD (a fellow member of the tribe) being called an antisemite? What the fuck? I like Rand Paul, but if he is stating that Dick Cheney supported the Iraq War out of a profit motive for Halliburton, that's insane. And if you are echoing that bizarre argument, Steve, go fuck yourself. Scott Walker 2016.

Posted by: Throat Wobbler Mangrove at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (sZBpq)

445 The Republican party is doing a good enough job of becoming the democrat party without... you know... becoming the democrat party. Winning isn't important enough to cheat just because the other side cheats. Wow. That really sounds old fashioned.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (BZAd3)

446 338 I'd love the next election to be Ron Paul vs Joe Biden. That would be entertaining as hell. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 12:10 PM (zfY+H) I like the way you think. That's the #1 reason Republicans should go for impeachment. Biden becomes president and deprives Hillary of her coronation. Rand v. Biden would rule!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (Y92Nd)

447 I. Me. Mine.

Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (Dwehj)

448 If Iraq were a country in the middle of Africa, with no oil, would we have invaded? So, you mean, if Iraq were a county with no tactical/strategic significance and no resources with which to pursue weapons of mass destruction or support global (as opposed to regional) terrorists, would we have invaded them? No, probably not. However, Iraq was not any of those things- they occupy a geographic area of incredible strategic/tactical significance; their oil and command of the Gulf give them resources with which they could seriously pursue WMD; and they did support Global Terrorists. If Congo announced tomorrow that they wanted to obtain nukes, I wouldn't be terribly alarmed because Congo has no wherewithal to obtain nukes.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at April 07, 2014 08:30 AM (PYAXX)

449 How many conservatives are still gung-ho about the US invading Iraq? I would guess you're talking about a tiny sliver.

I will admit to having egg on my face, I supported it wholeheartedly after 9/11 and now look back that it was an incredibly dumb decision. 9/11 had absolutely nothing to with going to war in Iraq, unless you just want to go to war with all Muslim nations, in which case there's still a pretty long list.

I'm certainly not a pacifist, I just don't believe in nation building.

Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 08:31 AM (JVlsa)

450
I also think math will also be the "solution".

for a political solution we would need an anti-obama, someone who says one thing to get elected but then gets in and totally does whatever they like but from a conservative viewpoint. but that is a far fetch.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 07, 2014 08:31 AM (hUf/y)

451 I completely agree with Navybrat. Thousands of dead Americans, more crippled physically and emotionally, for life, and Iraq is, and always will be, a shit hole (maybe not the shit hole Afghanistan is) because it was a state (not a nation) created by the British so that they could have a foothold in the Middle East. It should never have existed and cannot exist.

Posted by: SFGoth at April 07, 2014 08:31 AM (60/Ls)

452 As an aside, Greenies should be celebrating global warming this week. United States Steel has had to idle their Indiana plants. No taconite shipments because of frozen Great Lakes. Thus..., global warming (which is causing the frigid weather) has halted the generation of nasty CO2 generation, which causes global warming, which freezes the lakes, which halts CO2....., something, something.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 08:31 AM (aDwsi)

453 451: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/apr/05/icy-winter-idles-us-steel-forges/

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 08:32 AM (aDwsi)

454 OMG!!!! Drew is doing opposition research by linking to a WaPo piece that never would have been brought up during a primary fight if not for Drew. OMG!!!!!

Posted by: Yep at April 07, 2014 08:32 AM (Aif/5)

455 Even my contrary is being contrarian today!

Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 07, 2014 08:32 AM (Dwehj)

456 New thread yet?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 07, 2014 08:32 AM (Y92Nd)

457 Andddd.... Iran has not been bombed.... WHY?
***
Iran has a REAL nuclear program... it HAS armed our enemies... its weapons have directly killed many of our soldiers....

Members of the Iranian military also specifically murdered American soldiers in Iraq.

As to why? Do you remember the discussions in late 2005/6? The left's narrative had won the day by that point and we could not extend the war into Iran for anything short of a formal invasion of Iraq by them.

I remember there was a real argument as to whether we were and/or should be arming various separatists in Iran. It was never clear if we did or not though.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (78TbK)

458 *Looks around. Hmm. Willowed again..?*

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (aDwsi)

459 Even my contrary is being contrarian today! Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 07, 2014 12:32 PM (Dwehj) The cat ate my contrary this morning. I loved that bird.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (BZAd3)

460 Moo moo: Iraq was invaded because they overran Kuwait, a British client state.

Once Sadaam pulled that one, he was completely off the reservation, and no longer a US ally, and was going to be put down. Unfortunately, EU poltroonery prevented Bush the Elder from finishing the job, and installing a more tractable dictator.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (c6N69)

461 Nood

Posted by: rickb223 at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (E7Zh9)

462
I had no problem with going to Iraq as part of the 9/11 response, it was the staying in Iraq that I had a problem with.

We should have broke everything and told Colin Powell not only were we not going to buy it, but if they rebuild it we will break it again.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (hUf/y)

463 I will vote for somebody who will fix the country, not fuck it up more. Some of what Paul says fits in the second category.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 07, 2014 12:20 PM (BZAd3)

---------------------------------------------

Sorry. I'm not looking for a messiah. I'm just looking for someone that'll force DC to leave me the fuck alone. He doesn't have to be perfect and he doesn't have to agree with my views 100% of the time. He just has to start rolling back the marxist leviathon that's in power right now.

No politician is going to fix this country. The people of this country will.

Posted by: Soona at April 07, 2014 08:33 AM (r+vgB)

464 New Ace thread

Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 08:34 AM (oMKp3)

465

439 -

Iraq was violating the conditions of a U.N. ceasefire agreement.

Bush and Co. wanted to take on a "terrorist" state with U.N. support. They would not have gotten support of an operation against Iran or Saudi Arabia.

You know this.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 08:34 AM (TOk1P)

466 One does not simply get standing ovations at Berkely.

Posted by: blaster at April 07, 2014 08:35 AM (4+AaH)

467 There was no reasonable expectation that the Iraqi regime would survive in March 1991.

Sure, they only had tanks and planes and helicopters and the complete willingness to use them on anyone who disagreed they were in charge.

Now granted, it was a magical time -- the Berlin Wall had just come down and regimes were falling all over Eastern Europe -- so they might be forgiven for some wishful thinking in that regard. OTOH the Mideast is not Eastern Europe, and we'd been watching N Korea and Cuba hold on for decades.

disgorged Kurdistan ... hung on by the skin of its teeth in the south

Nonsense. That was entirely the result of the no-fly zones, another failed half-measure. The Shia were never in any danger of winning.

Iraq was defanged in the respect of concern at that time - its capacity for bullying backed by conventional force and reckless audacity.

If that were true we would have gone home in 1992 and never returned. In reality, he was sitting on trillions in oil to rearm with, and still had considerable conventional utility as well as a continued willingness to develop WMD.

It's true that sending tanks to Baghdad and rewriting their constitution would not have been popular. But the best choices were that, or doing nothing (which might have been better in the long run), and those were the only options that the international community should have been presented with. In 1991 we needed another MacArthur, instead we got Colin Powell and his strategic consensus-driven half-measurism, and as a result we were still fighting there twenty years later.

Posted by: TallDave at April 07, 2014 08:35 AM (/s1LA)

468

461 -

I know everyone has disembarked onto the new thread, but a-freakin-men.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 07, 2014 08:35 AM (TOk1P)

469

Moo Moo, you're kidding, right?

Ever heard of 9/11? Ever read the Duelfer/Kay report? How about the UNSCOM reports? Ever looked over the Iraqi record on terrorism? How about the Ba'athists regime's direct (multiple) contacts with AQ Central prior to 2003? Ever wonder why the only non-American/non-Soviet engineer ever to master the process of making VX spent time in Khartoum - of all places - in the late 90s? Are you aware of the three red lines contained in Bush's 1991 letter to Saddam for which the clear implied sanction was a nuclear response, and what transpired in the war that followed?

But not to pick on you. Behold, up-thread, the widespread ignorance that dooms us. The hallucinogenic distortion of events and reality and history that led to the disgraceful national hysteria about Iraq is the SAME phenomenon that led to the ascendance of the affirmative action non-entity of a president - yet some here seem to believe that "throwing Cheney under the bus" to conform to the deluded fashions of the day can be part of reclaiming common sense at home? Right.

It's a fundamentally unserious country, and not just on "the left".

Posted by: non-purist at April 07, 2014 08:36 AM (afQnV)

470 >>>JeffB calling someone else a liar? Oh, but that's rich.

1.) Where did I call anyone a liar in this thread? What are you even talking about?

2.) Let's assume I DID call someone a liar (which I didn't...erm, why would I?). Why would that be "rich," per se? Such a locution as that suggests that it would be an act of hypocrisy on my part, which makes no sense at all. Of all the things people fault me with around here, being a "liar" has never been one of them. An asshole, a RINO, a bloviating gasbag -- now those I understand. (All have a measure of merit!) But fuck you if you're going to call me a "liar." And in addition, either point out where I accused anyone here of being a "liar," or admit that you're just making shit up.

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 08:36 AM (ewYO6)

471 Liberal groups were targeted also!!! Well, no they weren't. http://tinyurl.com/jwgux4n IRS agents testified before Congress that the agencyÂ’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa. IRS agents testified before Oversight that ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations applying as new ones. Emerge America was scrutinized for potential Â“improper private benefit.Â” No evidence exists that the IRS requested additional information from any Occupy Wall Street group. Â“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word Â‘progressive,Â’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,Â” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 08:36 AM (fWAjv)

472 Actually, the war part of the war was brilliantly executed. It seemed to me that nobody had a fallback plan for what to do in case we actually won.

The famous episode where the coyote actually catches the Road Runner and holds up a sign "Now what?" comes to mind.

How many conservatives are still gung-ho about the US invading Iraq? I would guess you're talking about a tiny sliver.

I tend to agree, Iraq is one of W.'s top 5 mistakes. Pakistan should always have been the target.

Unfortunately, EU poltroonery prevented Bush the Elder from finishing the job, and installing a more tractable dictator.

Don't forget that Colin Powell basically did everything in his power to make sure there was no political will to continue.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 07, 2014 08:36 AM (B/VB5)

473 And if in 2001 you had told me that in 2010 we'd have discovered who was sheltering Bin Laden but we still sent money to them in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc., I would not have supported action in Afghanistan.
***
Down the street from the Pak equivalent of West Point. The balls on the Pakistan government are amazing...

Then again, in 2001 we told the Pakistani government that if they didn't help us agains the Taliban we would level their cities.

By 2011 everyone knew that America wasn't going to do a damn thing to Pakistan no matter what they did...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 08:36 AM (78TbK)

474 why is Drew M digging up 5 year old shit on the only libertarian republican? Posted by: X at April 07, 2014 12:28 PM (KHo8t) You caught me. Let me tell you how I went about "digging" it up...about 30 people I follow on Twitter tweeted about this story in an obscure publication called "The Washington Post". You probably haven't heard of it because it rarely covers political stories. I'm so busted. I am the King of Opposition Research

Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2014 08:37 AM (SgXEz)

475 19 guys with boxcutters justified going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? What would have happened if instead of being cowed, the passengers rushed the perps? We're talking 5 guys per plane (well, 4 on the 4th). 9/11 never happens.

Posted by: SFGoth at April 07, 2014 08:37 AM (60/Ls)

476 "Is it so crazy to think that Cheney, who has serious connections to defense industry, may be motivated to go to war. "
Crazy? Not necessarily. Ignorant? Yes. He was in the defense industry back when he said it was a bad idea, too. I wonder what changed... what was different between the 1990s and 2003, something significant...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:37 AM (zfY+H)

477 More Rubble. Less Trouble.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 07, 2014 08:37 AM (ZPrif)

478 Guy Mohawk @ 461--- That is the way you do it. Romans added salt to the equation, but close enough. I would add that we needed to stay long enough to find Usay, Kusay, and Saddam, and make sure they got what was theirs. Then, it's AMF, don't make us come back.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at April 07, 2014 08:39 AM (agLwc)

479 124 Lots of nics I don't recognize. Isn't that always the way. Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 11:37 AM (oMKp3) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yeah that must be it. Anytime you see an opinion different from your own, it MUST be a coincidental invasion by concern trolls or some such bullshit. You guys and your purity bullshit will absolutely get us Chris Christie or Jeb Bush in 2016. It really is almost a forgone conclusion

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:40 AM (b2D8X)

480 201 "The best about this though, is that you're all fucking liars.

Drew is a lair, and every single one of you lying mothefuckers who has claimed you wouldn't vote for Paul would absolutely do so in a heartbeat if he was the R vs a D in the Presidential election.

The rest of this is... I don't know, being pissed about not getting your way?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:52 AM (EilFB"

They -- we -- wouldn't vote for him in the PRIMARIES, dipshit.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 07, 2014 08:40 AM (1j40q)

481 " Behold, up-thread, the widespread ignorance that dooms us."
Yeah people with a memory and a dedication to the truth are rare these days, I think. Its sad how completely even those claiming to be on the right are easily manipulated by the press and popular culture. Its not cool to support Iraq any more, so boo on the invasion!

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 08:40 AM (zfY+H)

482 "I will admit to having egg on my face, I supported it wholeheartedly after 9/11 and now look back that it was an incredibly dumb decision. 9/11 had absolutely nothing to with going to war in Iraq, unless you just want to go to war with all Muslim nations, in which case there's still a pretty long list." Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 12:31 PM (JVlsa) At the time, it was the smart move. Everyone knew (and the Bush administration was absolutely clear on this point) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam had been a problem for a decade, the UN was in line and the potential threat he posed if he gained WMD was far more than some cave dwellers. Also, Iraq was a great target on paper. It had an educated populus, not overly islamic-crazy, had women integrated into the workforce and had a source of money to allow dramatic change. If any arab country was going to be transformed, it was Iraq. You've got to admit, right after the war when the first elections were being staged, it looked like a winner. And it could have been a winner except for some incredibly stupid decisions in the post war leadership.

Posted by: jwest at April 07, 2014 08:40 AM (u2a4R)

483 Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 12:30 PM (kwc/t)

It arguably would have made more sense -- and have been a lot easier -- to invade Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: TallDave at April 07, 2014 08:40 AM (/s1LA)

484 SFGoth:

Is wasn't until the passengers of flight 93 got the news on their cellphones that anyone figured out that the objective of hijacking had changed.

When they got the news, they rushed the cockpit.

It ain't just 19 guys with boxcutters. It was Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan giving AQ the nudge nudge, say no more, as long as they continued to direct angry young men at infidels instead of at their own governments.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 08:43 AM (c6N69)

485 I'm having flashbacks to the 2012 campaign reading this post. It reminds me of Newt Gingrich, one of the most flawed men in the history of American politics--so much so that he's unelectable to national office--speaking American better than any other candidate who is. Rand may be finding his bearings, he may be adopting a persona to hide what he really believes, but in the end he's Crazy Uncle Ron's kid and not to be trusted with elected office, sharp instruments, or anything else that matters much.

Posted by: Ed Snyder at April 07, 2014 08:44 AM (2IGjm)

486 I want to return to sensible, sane, boring presidents who understand America. No more freaks. Paul is fading fast in my book.

Posted by: rrpjr at April 07, 2014 08:44 AM (s/yC1)

487

>> If you were a Texan, you would know that there's no period after the Dr in Dr Pepper.

BOOM

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 07, 2014 08:45 AM (WvXvd)

488 Just like Randy Paul is building bridges by calling us patsies in some grand conspiracy theory? Posted by: @JohnTant at April 07, 2014 11:47 AM (PFy0L) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Another with a problem with tense. Rand Paul is not "calling" you anything. Opposition research courtesy of the Washington Post circa 2009 led you to that conclusion on your own.

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:47 AM (b2D8X)

489 It arguably would have made more sense -- and have been a lot easier -- to invade Saudi Arabia.

W. actually believed the "religion of peace" bullshit though, which would make invading the country containing Mecca and Medina problematic.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 07, 2014 08:47 AM (B/VB5)

490 Yeah - but here's the thing. I have about zero interest in re-litigating post-9/11 foreign policy crap. There is no way anyone who agrees with Paul is going to persuaded otherwise. So why make a thing of it? Domestic policy precedes foreign policy and right now our domestic policy is a mess. Paul is about the only candidate that is likely to reign in the bureacracy in any sort of meaningful way. The upcoming election is about more than simply wresting power away from the Democrats. Although that alone would be an improvement. It is utterly necessary to devolve the powers wielded by the bureaucratic state against the people in such a way that when the Democrats next gain power that mechanism cannot simply be re-trained upon the people again. No other candidate is likely to as much in this regard as Paul. Bottom-line, we will -- as usual -- have to take one for the team. So may as well take one for the candidate most likely to send some bureaucrats to the unemployment line.

Posted by: The Emperor Cletus Augustus at April 07, 2014 08:48 AM (xvN0P)

491 Ian S. at April 07, 2014 12:47 PM (B/VB5)

Oh I agree, obviously the geopolitics was totally untenable too, as the Saudis are nominally friendly and don't go invading anyone (except with madrassas). Practicality pretty much fell off the map after Korea, though.

Posted by: TallDave at April 07, 2014 08:49 AM (/s1LA)

492 1.) Where did I call anyone a liar in this thread? What are you even talking about?

Posted by: Jeff B., RINO emeritus at April 07, 2014 12:36 PM (ewYO6)

Oops, mistook the idiot Steve for you. My apologies.

Posted by: [/I]KG at April 07, 2014 08:52 AM (p7BzH)

493 Rand Paul is not "calling" you anything. Opposition research courtesy of the Washington Post circa 2009 led you to that conclusion on your own. -------- Now apply those standards to Paul's statement regarding Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 08:52 AM (Aif/5)

494

TallDave - wrong on all counts. Nonsense, in fact. You misunderstood the Kurdistan comment - the point was that Kurdistan was lost to the Ba'ath. It was. Because of our actions, both before/after March 1991.

And I've actually personally visited mass graves in the south that would disagree with your assessment that the Baghdad regime was not on the ropes in that region. And the documentation supporting that particular case against the former regime by the Iraqi tribunal makes it quite obvious that in fact the regime had lost control in many places. Your insouciance about the regime's future was, curiously, not to be found in the RCC or the military command in Baghdad in early March 1991.

And what's your intended point about tanks and guns? Regimes with tanks and guns have never fallen?

And of course Iraq was sitting on trillions of dollars in oil, and was a very dangerous regime (uniquely dangerous, since WWII, in fact). But dangerous in a conventional sense. And Iraq's conventional abilities had been both degraded and shown to be far below that needed to give the US and its key allies any real trouble when push came to shove.

"Unpopular"? Right, and going ahead with Operation Olympic after the emperor's speech would have been "unpopular" with a congress already extremely restive after Iwo and Okinawa. Uh huh. That's the word.

And taking over Iraq in 1991 would have been just a matter of re-writing their constitution? Huh? Wasn't there a bit of trouble there in 2003-2007 that would have faced us? 9/11 made the second Iraq war a sound decision, as the least-worst option (running the risk of an Iraq in the 9/11 world, vs. the costs of taking the regime down). But in March 1991 "going to Baghdad" was not a sound call. It was not the least-worst option.

And the idiot Powell did not make this call. His unwise counsel was rejected (with some degree of disbelief) when he absurdly argued for standing pat in Saudi/Kuwait after we had built up and issued the deadline. He didn't sway anything towards the end of the war, either. How he ever survived his idiotic stand-pat advice before the start of the war is a mystery.

Posted by: non-purist at April 07, 2014 08:53 AM (afQnV)

495 121 93 ***"[Cheney's] being interviewed (in 1995), I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes Â— Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea," Paul said. "And that's why the first Bush didnÂ’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars Â— their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."*** "Sorry. Is there anything factually untrue about that paragraph?" I don't know if there is anything factually wrong about it (did he really make "hundreds" of millions of dollars; I don't know, maybe he did). There is certainly something logically wrong with the statement. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. As others have pointed out, there were certain intervening events which might have caused Cheney to be more favorable to taking out Iraq. Instead, you ascribe a profit motive. Which would make Cheney a monster, if true. So how about some evidence before making that kind of charge; rather than rank speculation. And that's not conservatives "clutching the pearls," that's conservatives justified concern that someone who would take such an unsubstantiated and leftist shot at Cheney without evidence would do it again. And again. Love the, "so you would vote for Hillary and give them the election" argument. We're trying to figure out who is best to run against her. Rand needs to be vetted.

Posted by: duke at April 07, 2014 08:53 AM (d3clc)

496 427 "If Iraq were a country in the middle of Africa, with no oil, would we have invaded?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 12:25 PM (0LHZx)"

uh....no. Because without the oil, Iraq wouldn't have had the power to cause the trouble it had caused, wouldn't have had the fourth(?) largest standing army on earth, wouldn't have been able to support terrorist causes the world over. etc. etc. etc.

Oh. Sorry. That isn't what you meant, is it?

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 07, 2014 08:53 AM (1j40q)

497 Either way, you assholes need to grow the fuck up. Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2014 11:57 AM (SgXEz) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I suppose that's one interpretation.

Posted by: deadrody at April 07, 2014 08:59 AM (b2D8X)

498 Rand Paul: The TROOF Comes Out.....

Posted by: TXMarko at April 07, 2014 08:59 AM (/VN0S)

499 I may not be totally on board with Rand about every little thing, but he is one of about exactly two senators that are even attempting to bring the heavy lumber out swinging against the Marxist juggernaut.

Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 09:03 AM (JgC5a)

500 To the people who are arguing in favor of the factual truth:

Look at who our current re-elected president is. Do you think the majority of American people care about finding the nuanced truth of a situation and complicated and inflammatory as the Iraq War?

If Rand can open up the ears of new voters to get more votes, I'm happy to have him do so, esp. if the alternative is giving the Democrats a gold-plated Talking Point gift of associating the GOP nominee with defending Bush/Cheney/Halliburton.

I'm not saying it's right or sane or whatever--I'm saying we need to play more realpolitik with PR ships that have long-since sailed.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at April 07, 2014 09:03 AM (kQOYH)

501 It will be interesting for Rand Paul to go up against Hillary that threw her lot in with the Iraq War.

My guess is you could see a new libertarian/conservative coalition emerging with that matchup.

Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 09:07 AM (JVlsa)

502 So, no real refutation of his position on Cheney, just a knee-jerk reaction of "boohoo, he's talking about one of ours", our glorious, golden neocons.

As others have already pointed out in this thread, I guess this is the best we could expect from a Newt fucking Gringrich supporter.

Posted by: oh at April 07, 2014 09:12 AM (Uf2JW)

503 Knew there was a Son Of Ron libertarian darling in there.

Posted by: gracepmc at April 07, 2014 09:17 AM (rznx3)

504 You misunderstood the Kurdistan comment - the point was that Kurdistan was lost to the Ba'ath. It was. Because of our actions, both before/after March 1991. No, it wasn't, and it's extremely stupid to say that it was. Saddam had a perfectly workable genocide program already in operation that involved moving the Kurds away from the oil and replacing them wth Sunni Arabs. And I've actually personally visited mass graves in the south that would disagree with your assessment that the Baghdad regime was not on the ropes in that region. Hello? Fox Butterfield? And Iraq's conventional abilities had been both degraded and shown to be far below that needed to give the US and its key allies any real trouble when push came to shove. Again, if that were true and relevant, why didn't we just go home? Wasn't there a bit of trouble there in 2003-2007 that would have faced us?[\i] That's a terrible, terrible argument. First off, we ended up having to do 2003 anyway, so why not get it over with 12 years sooner? Second, AQ had much less reach in 1991. Third, bombing and starving Iraq for 12 years was definitely not a great policy to lay the groundwork for liberating the place for democracy. But in March 1991 "going to Baghdad" was not a sound call. It was not the least-worst option. The least worst option was staying out of the mess entirely and letting the feckless international community issue some strongly worded memos. The option we took was definitely worse than going to Baghdad -- obviously, since we ended going to Baghdad 12 years later anyway.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 07, 2014 09:29 AM (/s1LA)

505 (fixed) You misunderstood the Kurdistan comment - the point was that Kurdistan was lost to the Ba'ath. It was. Because of our actions, both before/after March 1991. No, it wasn't, and it's extremely stupid to say that it was. Saddam had a perfectly workable genocide program already in operation that involved moving the Kurds away from the oil and replacing them wth Sunni Arabs. And I've actually personally visited mass graves in the south that would disagree with your assessment that the Baghdad regime was not on the ropes in that region. Hello? Fox Butterfield? And Iraq's conventional abilities had been both degraded and shown to be far below that needed to give the US and its key allies any real trouble when push came to shove. Again, if that were true and relevant, why didn't we just go home? Wasn't there a bit of trouble there in 2003-2007 that would have faced us? That's a terrible, terrible argument. First off, we ended up having to do 2003 anyway, so why not get it over with 12 years sooner? Second, AQ had much less reach in 1991. Third, bombing and starving Iraq for 12 years was definitely not a great policy to lay the groundwork for liberating the place for democracy. But in March 1991 "going to Baghdad" was not a sound call. It was not the least-worst option. The least worst option was staying out of the mess entirely and letting the feckless international community issue some strongly worded memos. The option we took was definitely worse than going to Baghdad -- obviously, since we ended going to Baghdad 12 years later anyway.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 07, 2014 09:29 AM (/s1LA)

506 I'm not sure what the problem is here. This could sway a whole pile of kooks to vote our way instead of Hillary and it changes nothing on the policy front. He's talking about a past foreign policy decision. Who cares?

Posted by: james at April 07, 2014 09:30 AM (1PqiV)

507 Who cares? Obviously the Cheney fanboys care. Can't have a decent candidate impeaching the character of that fine, beloved gentleman.

Posted by: oh at April 07, 2014 09:33 AM (Uf2JW)

508 2013 Fortune 500 Berkshire Hathaway #5 $162.5B revenue/$14.8B profit GE #8 $146.9B revenue/$13.6B profit Fannie Mae #12 $127.2B/$17.2B profit Freddie Mac #31 $80.6B revenue/$11.0B profit Walt Disney #66 $42.3B revenue/$5.7B profit Halliburton #106 $29B revenue/$2.6B profit So we're worried about Halliburton why? Fannie & Freddie doesn't concern anyone? Soros Fund mgmt (private company)not at all? Way to stay relevant Rand and focus on the things that John Q Public worries about every night; that evil Dick Cheney!

Posted by: aka.john at April 07, 2014 09:33 AM (zPa3K)

509 "It became an excuse," Paul said. "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

I don't necessarily disagree with that.

In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration managed to convince itself that Saddam was hoarding WMDs, even though some experts (e.g., Scott Ritter) strongly disagreed. I think they saw Saddam as an ongoing threat and wanted to get rid of him. They also believed it would be easy to topple his regime (true) and easy to stabilize the country afterward (false). And they saw strategic advantages in stationing US troops permanently in Iraq, rather than in Saudi Arabia.

They weren't lying, and their motives weren't bad. It was a case of confirmation bias - seeing what you want to see.

Posted by: sauropod at April 07, 2014 09:33 AM (G/vW6)

510 Parts is parts.

Posted by: Corona at April 07, 2014 09:42 AM (fh2Y7)

511 I think I like this Rand fellow. Maybe he'd like to have dinner and try some of my special secret ingredient bisque?

Posted by: Anthony Bourdain at April 07, 2014 09:49 AM (Aif/5)

512

Posted by: sauropod at April 07, 2014 01:33 PM (G/vW6)

Scott Ritter? That's your expert witness? How about Hans Blix, an opponent of the war, confirming that tons of VX gas previously documented and tagged could not be account for?

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 09:51 AM (m2CN7)

513 Regimes with tanks and guns have never fallen?

Pretty much not in any case in which the guys manning the tanks and firing the guns remain loyal. If anyone thought in 1991 that Sunni Baathists in the military, handpicked for loyalty to Saddam, were going to throw in with the Kurds or Shia to depose Saddam, they didn't know the country.

Posted by: TallDave at April 07, 2014 09:53 AM (/s1LA)

514

Posted by: oh at April 07, 2014 01:12 PM (Uf2JW)

another retard who simply refuses to read what was written and thinks a good retort is to insist nothing was ever written.

Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2014 09:54 AM (m2CN7)

515

So, no real refutation of his position on Cheney, just a knee-jerk reaction of "boohoo, he's talking about one of ours", our glorious, golden neocons.

As others have already pointed out in this thread, I guess this is the best we could expect from a Newt fucking Gringrich supporter.

Posted by: oh at April 07, 2014 01:12 PM (Uf2JW)

No. Criticize the Iraq war or politicians all you want, for Rand to imply the war was only to enrich an engineering company is the conspiracy kook zone we had all hoped he would avoid.

Posted by: espanostifer at April 07, 2014 10:00 AM (w/Bc+)

516 The elephant in the room is gas/oil prices. To have liberated a fabricated, inchoate Middle Eastern nation at the cost of considerable blood and treasure is one thing, to get smacked with $4 a gallon gas during a so-called oil boom is something else. Voters see this as linked, even if the reality is the price of oil increase is primarily based on a weak dollar.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at April 07, 2014 10:26 AM (Ec6wH)

517 #513

that's because nothing WAS written

please feel free to prove me wrong. please try. point it out.

#514

Where does Rand imply that it was the ONLY reason?

Posted by: oh at April 07, 2014 10:52 AM (Uf2JW)

518 It arguably would have made more sense -- and have been a lot easier -- to invade Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia was not actively shooting at us like Iraq and was much less involved in 9/11 than Pakistan was.

Why not Pakistan? Why keep writing them checks?

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 11:09 AM (kwc/t)

519 And so we have another candidate that doesn't meet Drew's standards.

Prediction: sometime between ten and fourteen months from now, Drew will announce his own campaign for president, on the grounds that no one else is satisfactory.

Posted by: Demosthenes at April 07, 2014 11:09 AM (kNw9i)

520 espanostifer at April 07, 2014 02:00 PM (w/Bc+) It's a fair point, but when you look at crap like Solyndra it's easy for LIVs to understand Rand opposes both, I think this is a winning message for the GOP Not going to win on a Bush Redux ticket, whatever the Jen Rubins of the world think.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 07, 2014 11:10 AM (/s1LA)

521 It's been 4 hours, are people still lying and claiming they won't vote for this guy over random Democrat?

Posted by: Steve at April 07, 2014 11:13 AM (EilFB)

522 Jeb Bush/Lynn Cheney 2016! What Rand is doing is inoculating himself from the worst aspects of Bush's presidency; this creates a mental image in the mind of voters (especially younger ones) of a break with the past. JFK did the same thing to Truman. It's the smart move.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at April 07, 2014 11:13 AM (Ec6wH)

523 Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 03:09 Tue but Pakistan's really just poor. The Saudis are the ones who came in and built all the crazyhouses where kids chant the Quran and pine for their 72 virgins.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 07, 2014 11:14 AM (/s1LA)

524 >Rand is giving a golden opportunity to shed that albatross. If the price is throwing Cheney under the bus, I'm ok with that. Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at April 07, 2014 12:26 PM (kQOYH) < That will work right up to the point where the MSM runs 10 minutes of clips of Republicans saying exactly the opposite from 2003 to 2009.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at April 07, 2014 12:06 PM (5xmd7)

525 Cruz and Jindal are the only true conservatives. That's the best ticket. Both are brilliant thinkers and doers. Forget the rest.

Posted by: Dobby at April 07, 2014 12:42 PM (tWMCz)

526 Aww fuck.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 07, 2014 01:18 PM (DmNpO)

527 I support Rand. I think it is amazing you can ascribe all manner of nefarious intentions to Obama as a man in power, but when it comes to Bush and Cheney, its 100% just guys doing the right thing. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle on both accounts. People may hate Rand but here is my personal perspective: Ron Paul is the only politician I have ever seen that I felt cared about ME. ABOUT ME. I feel like Ron Paul actually gave a shit about me, unlike just about every other psychopath politician in existence. Rand is falling in that same category.

Posted by: emaugust at April 07, 2014 01:43 PM (be7oN)

528 So Rand Paul's daddy recently said that sanctions against Russia are an... act of war.
He's the guy who cares about you, that's the ticket. He isn't some crank politician, he cares.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 07, 2014 02:00 PM (zfY+H)

529 Cruz. Cruuuuuuuuuuuuz. It's where it's at.
(Perry is my second choice but I'm annoyed with him for endorsing McConnell last week).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at April 07, 2014 02:14 PM (KL49F)

530 If this clown's the nominee I'll sit out 2016. Walker or bust.

Posted by: packsoldier at April 07, 2014 02:32 PM (6eFtZ)

531 That will work right up to the point where the MSM runs 10 minutes of clips of Republicans saying exactly the opposite from 2003 to 2009.

The big question, what's Rand going to do 2 months into his presidency when Pakistan does a mass terror attack on another American city?

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 02:32 PM (kwc/t)

532 The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree......George W. , Jeb

Posted by: George H. W. Bush at April 07, 2014 02:34 PM (nbGZj)

533 People may hate Rand but here is my personal perspective: Ron Paul is the only politician I have ever seen that I felt cared about ME. ABOUT ME. I feel like Ron Paul actually gave a shit about me, unlike just about every other psychopath politician in existence.

Isn't that the reason why Obama's supporters give for voting for him in spite of all his problems? He can convince them he cares about them?

I'd like to have a politician who can convince me he cares about the country, not by emotional manipulation, but by being adult enough to not repeat all the same liberal half-truths I didn't believe the first time around between 2001 and 2008.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (kwc/t)

534 I read the post. Didn't see any argument that Rand Paul was wrong...

Posted by: Lord At War at April 07, 2014 03:27 PM (mZ3Kn)

535 37 I would rather throw Dick Cheney under the bus than throw America under the bus. Please, please, please don't give us Jeb..... Posted by: Dogbert at April 07, 2014 11:24 AM I really do not understand this attitude from people. That if we do not support Rand Paul, then the result will be Jeb Bush. What has Rand Paul ever accomplished? He's a Senator. He does nothing but give speeches. He doesn't run anything, he's never been in charge of a company (CEO) or a State (Governor), doesn't make decisions. He talks. That's it. How does that qualify someone for the position of President? I do not understand how people consider anyone other than Governors for the position of President. And I really do not understand the mentality of people who think we should promote someone who has absolutely no qualifications for President except giving speeches and doing interviews to the highest and most powerful and influential management position in the world. Senators or Congressmen for VP? Sure. But it absolutely baffles me how people can be pushing anyone in the Senate/Congress for President.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 07, 2014 03:39 PM (7A4qQ)

536 The biggest problem is THAT SWEATER. EWWWWW.

Posted by: jclittlep at April 07, 2014 03:53 PM (UNSFr)

537 I read the post. Didn't see any argument that Rand Paul was wrong... Very well: I believe Rand Paul is wrong about Iraq because an American armed presence in Iraq could have been useful in exerting pressure on Syria (you know, that place that _probably_ got Iraq's chemical arms and is currently using them on its own civilians) and Iran (you know, that bunch of crazies that take embassies hostage and are trying to get The Bomb). Just because Zero and his party (using arguments essentially identical to the Pauls') managed to throw away a hard-won and IMHO strategically useful victory doesn't mean it was the right decision, and that it won't have bad consequences in the future.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 07, 2014 03:56 PM (kwc/t)

538 66 I agree with Zombie. I'd rather see Jindal or Scott Walker as my nominee (please, please, please someone with actual governing experience, and not just 4 years being a senator), but I'd take Paul over any of the dems in the field. Posted by: taylork at April 07, 2014 11:28 AM Bingo. Governing experience should be a prerequisite for anyone for President. And Scott Walker should be every conservative's #1 choice right now, based on his record. I have no idea why Walker isn't being pushed by all conservatives right now in the same way that the Left is pushing Hillary. I put track record and accomplishments above speeches. Why other conservatives do not do the same baffles me.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 07, 2014 03:56 PM (7A4qQ)

539 horrible horrible freedom

Posted by: X at April 08, 2014 04:04 AM (KHo8t)

540 And so, Mr. mainstream conservative Drew-guy, what evidence do you have that what the man says is actually false? Was Cheney opposed to war with Iraq? Did he change his mind? What possible reasons were there for it? I'm not saying there weren't other and better reasons for it than a paycheck, but I'm also not the one claiming Paul is crazy. That Paul suggests one reason as possible does not make him crazy. It makes you religiously fanatical when you reflexively and unthinkingly react this way.

Posted by: Rollory at April 08, 2014 11:19 AM (iWqAg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

393kb generated in CPU 0.2576, elapsed 0.4166 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3423 seconds, 668 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.