Comments


  • BS Spotter.

    You are wrong about Mike. More importantly you are wrong about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. You made a joke earlier on your blog that if a certain politician would have me on a list. Let’s talk real and lets be real, B.S. Spotter. I am not threat to the general public. I am not a threat to the person in question. Awlaki is a threat. Why is that because he said and he is a threat? Plus he has blood on his hands. I do not care if I offend you, but Ron Paul is playing politics over the death of Awlaki and you know it. You didn’t It makes no sense to remove a person who is a danger to you. I would understand if the person was in the country, hadn’t renounce his citizenship, reachable, or in jail.

    October 29, 2011 at 11:03 p.m.

  • BS Spotter.

    Your link isn’t working, but if you are talking about the leadership of the next government then you are right as summer rain. We are pawns in a game. I hate to use WWII for an example, but General George Patton was right. What to do with the Russians?
    I’ll be honest with you, BS Spotter. I honestly think we were” forced” to jump in this war. Even the attitude of the President (with the mission) is eerie. It took the Administration a month or so to get involved while France and Great Britain was chomping at the bit to go in. France and the British had more to gain out of this than we do. Before you ask what I mean. Ok here it is. France is still dealing with the diplomatic problems with the US over the bombing of Libya in the 1980’s, when France refused our bombers to fly over. Britain, on the other hand, is politically weakened by Scotland’s pardon of Lockerbie bomber. Both nations among with Italy get most of Libya’s oil.
    Speaking about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, you are still wrong. Awlaki was shooting and commanding people to kill us? If your assessment is that the US government shouldn’t kill an American citizen who is attacking your own, then that means Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant were guilty in the death of General Stonewall Jackson? General Jackson is a traitor and he didn’t receive due process. Why can’t he receive due process in court? It is because he was too busy fighting and killing his own people.

    Mr. Williams

    October 29, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.


  • Pilot.

    “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.”
    -Henry David Thoreau

    It is great disservice that you sit there and say none of the soldiers are coming home. When in reality they are coming home. My friends who are there now have received notices of coming home. So don’t sit there, whine, cry, and call people’s names because LIFE IS SO BAD for you. Also do not try the classic is it called voting routine. Voting is one step, not all to bring change.
    It is time for serious minded people and their opinions to be at front and center and degraded for whiny chest beating tirade.
    That is why I wrote two blogs about the "passing the torch" because it is the attitude like yours is one of the reasons why are in the trouble today.

    Mr. Williams

    October 29, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    Honestly, I don't know what you want to have a civil debate about... Your first post was intended for writein. I assume you wanted to state that the interim leader of Libya will be worse than Omar Qaddafi because that's what I got from the link you provided.

    BTW "Paul is consistent in obeying his Constitutional oath of office" is not unique. There are several hundred that have done that, and will do the same in the future.. Not everyone holds Ron Paul's own literal translation of the constitution.

    Anyway,I am finished for today, so have a good night.

    October 24, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I understand. When a debate goes into a "gotcha match" nothing is produced that will fit into a civil discussion. Some times the best reply is my grandaughters old stand by "whatever" and change channels.

    October 24, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.

  • Vet43
    I apologize, perhaps I should have left well enough alone.
    Looking over MY remarks, I can see where someone would look at it as a childish tirade.

    October 24, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.

  • I have sat by and listened to this back and forth and have come to the conclusion that there must be something in the water that makes folks bounce from pillor to post.

    Ron Paul is running to make a statement. He has had some ideas that make's me wonder if he has a clue what the real world looks like.

    October 24, 2011 at 4:32 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I can't win, can I? If I'm trying to discuss the topic(s) of your blog in a civil manner, I'm "walking on eggshells" and have politic motivations. I spoke my mind just fine. Sure, the topics are political in nature, so one can't avoid being political (not as you meant it), but I have no subversive motivations.

    I'm not interested in discussing the killing of al-Awlaki. I had to bring it up to defend myself against your suggestion that I thought/said Obama committed treason, and I cleared myself of your charge. I guess we're past that since you didn't mention it further.

    Call the panel what you will, but what the kill list panel is/does doesn't change. If you don't like using the word "secretive" to describe the kill list panel, you have a long list of people to have a beef with. I believe I also put that issue to bed.
    ---

    Mike: "You brag about how Ron Paul is consistent, well Bush was consistent and wrong, so it's not always an admirable trait."

    Come on, now you're reaching. You know very well that my contention is that Paul is consistent in obeying his Constitutional oath of office, not a consistent POS like Bush. Let's compare/contrast nouns instead of adjectives.

    Can we get back to the subject of your blog and stop being petty?

    October 24, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    I don't shoot from the hip; so if I'm going to take a jab at you; I'll do it, and, not skirt around the issue.

    "sneaky suspicion today, he is in opposition for political reasons...:-).. I understand.

    Knowing what you have written in the past and how you’re "walking on eggshells" today to be what you call civil, without saying how you really feel, well that's political to me. As far as I'm concerned, you have always been civil and I've said so, on more than one occasion. I know what those who oppose the recent events are thinking and saying because I've seen and heard most of the discussions on television...I'm not completely in the dark.

    I stated my position in a blog several weeks ago about the killing of Anwar al-Awlak. I said back then that the Obama Administration was using the same legal arguments the Bush administration used. I have said that Congress needs to revise or get rid of the Bush legal arguments and the War Powers Act. We can't randomly decide what's legal and what is not. This Supreme Court will likely side with any administration when it comes to war. Using hyperbole like treason, assassin and warmonger disqualifies any legitimate statement and makes it political.

    It can't be all that secretive if I knew al-Awlaki was on the list. I trust our military/govt. not to use this for an American citizen wanted for domestic crimes in America. The two American citizens were spreading propaganda, recruiting future terrorist, and instrumental in killing American citizens. I don't think there is much distinction from using a computer or an AK-47, or whether it's in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen. These are known battle fields.

    BTW You brag about how Ron Paul is consistant, well Bush was consistent and wrong, so it's not always an admirable trait.

    October 24, 2011 at 3:35 p.m.

  • Mike,

    You crawfished away from (backed off of) your jab at me.

    I never said Obama committed treason. You've twisted my words. That out-of-context comment was in response to Writein's defense of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without due process. He said, "Ron Paul is wrong about the death of an American Terrorist in Yemen. Treason is treason." (www.goo.gl/4OJv9) That's when I questioned if it's really treason if a court doesn't determine it be be treason. I don't see what's inconsistent about expecting my gov't to at least try someone of treason — even in absentia — before killing them for it.

    In regards to a "secret panel" deciding who's on a kill list, documentation abounds...
    • Reuters: Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' (www.goo.gl/bcFe2)
    • Daily Kos: Secret government panel can put Americans on 'kill list' (www.goo.gl/cF3K3)
    • National Journal: Officials: Secret Panel Decided on Awlaki Killing (www.goo.gl/FMNsl)
    • Salon.com: Execution by secret WH committee (www.goo.gl/X5OAL)
    • USA Today: Obama panel can put Americans on 'kill list' (www.goo.gl/MPXk0)
    • ABC News: WH Won’t Comment on Reuters Story About Secret Panel... (www.goo.gl/VaWLf)
    • Military.com: Secret Panel may put Americans on 'Kill List' (www.goo.gl/se97d)
    • FoxNews: Secret Obama Panel Can Put Americans on 'Kill List' (www.goo.gl/Oabpd)
    • And the hits keep coming... (www.goo.gl/rYrto)

    Please explain how I've employed a "convenient" application of my principles. I'm not sure what you're implying with the Bush comment, but I was vehemently opposed to most of Bush's actions, especially his foreign policy. My principles are agnostic to political parties.

    October 24, 2011 at 2:32 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    To crawfish, one would have to fear his/hers reputation because of comments made. My comments are posted and remain for others who care to judge.

    Some might say crawfishing at its finest is not answering a questions that I base my assumptions on, such as "Treason is treason"?! Is it really treason without a conviction? (Not according to the Constitution.) Do you really want an Executive secret panel handing down treason judgments? How about when a President you oppose is wielding that power?"

    Those are your words.

    Did President Obama commit treason and does he have a secret executive panel? I would like to see a link or it's just baseless POLITICAL statements.

    Principals are what you stand behind at all times not when it's convenient... You were so much on consistency but President George W Bush was resolute on Iraq. I like people to see the err of their ways and change their mind when they are wrong.

    Have a Good Day

    October 24, 2011 at 1:55 p.m.

  • Subjective

    October 24, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.

  • Crawfishing at its finest

    October 24, 2011 at 1:41 p.m.

  • BSpotter

    No need to hyperventilate, I consider a nitpick here and a nitpick there, political. And I don't ever question anyone's patriotism. I bet that I can safely say, that no one wants to see people die senselessly, so why would I suspect you from being political, if we believe the same thing? You're wearing your feelings on your sleeve. Go back and read what I posted and then look at the :-).

    I don't automatically distrust government or its political leaders. And I had read enough about the shia and the Shiite, and saw evidence contrary to what was used for the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration was on a " prove me wrong" from day one for me.

    Didn't you agree with Ron Paul's position when he said that President Obama was an assassin? How about when he said Obama was a warmonger. I will concede that President Obama is using almost the same methods President Bush used.

    You can do anything you want without explanation but I have that same privilege.

    October 24, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.

  • Mike: "... I have a sneaky suspicion today, he is in opposition for political reasons."

    My positions are coincidental to ANY politician's positions I might agree with. My opposition to the Iraq invasion predates Paul's first Presidential campaign by a half-decade. My position is grounded in strong opposition to the initiation of force universally. What principles have guided your position?

    I've tried to have a civil conversation here, but you felt compelled to insult me by smugly debasing my position as merely "political". I care deeply about the lives of our troops AND Iraqi citizens, but I can't want them to stop dying senselessly without you suspecting my opinion of being politically driven?! Seriously!! To suggest such a thing is the epitome of politicizing.

    Let's get something clear: I support Ron Paul because he promotes MY ideals. He does NOT dictate my ideals. Can you relate to feeling strongly about an ideal and subsequently helping someone else promote that ideal? If not, I'm sorry. If so, what's the difference?

    October 24, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.

  • Vet43

    Ain't that the truth, I think there's only been 5% of time has their every been a true peace throughout the world.... I think we went about 15 years without war after Vietnam but we did get in some conflicts.

    Libya and Bosnia reminds me of an old baseball manager when his runner on second attempts to steal third; at first he yells " Oh no" and then when he steals it; he yells out" good play."

    BSspotter and I agree about the invasion of Iraq, and we are against all endless stupid wars but I have a sneaky suspicion today,he is in opposition for political reasons...:-).. I understand.

    October 24, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.

  • Just before I was discharged in 1967 an old Mastersargent and I were sitting at the NCO Club on Elligton AFB having a beer. I was woundering out loud when we would get out of Vietnam.

    This fine old Veteran of the Korean Police Action (War) who had been wounded twice, smiled, picked up his beer and said, "When ever it ends the next is warming up somewhere. Seems like the USA steps into something every 10 to 20 years."

    When will we ever learn?

    October 24, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.

  • BSspotter

    We will leave a company of Marines guard the embassy as is customary around the world.

    Military deployment is up to the pentagon, but as I've said the withdrawal of troops from Iraq has always coincided with replacing troops in Afghanistan. If you read of how all we came to the 10,000 of troops leaving Afghanistan at the end of this year, you would think that it was all smoke and mirrors because of the way it's being handled. Some of those troops that will not be deployed in Afghanistan will be counted as non -replacement forces and so forth.

    After reading about the ongoing disagreements between the civilian authorities and the military in Bob Woodward's book " Obama Wars" I am convinced that the president wants a smaller footprint and does not have the desire for nation building. He went toe- to- toe with General Patreus and the outgoing chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, Mike Mullen over this. There was a chance that Secretary Defense Robert Gates would have resigned if Obama didn't agreed to a surge force in Afghanistan. The president signed off with stipulations, of an agreed date of withdrawal and a need to show success.

    October 24, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.

  • Mike: "... because that is more your concern."

    Unintended consequences & "blowback" are my concerns. Of course there are pros & cons, but will there be a positive net outcome?

    October 24, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.

  • Mike,

    I genuinely want the Iraq withdrawal to be wildly successful, but I'm skeptical of how the results will be measured. Who'll occupy & protect the $1B+ embassy? Will those troops come home or be diverted to other parts of the ME (Pakistan/Afghanistan)? Will we ever know how many mercs we leave behind?

    October 24, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.

  • All the Arab Spring countries will have Islamic leaders but that's the will of the people,as it should be.

    Bsspotter, if this was a court case; you would be accused of "leading the witness"because that is more your concern. Writein did not mention the interim leader of Libya. If you want to criticize the ouster of Qaddafi, you're more than capable of doing so. The jury's is still out.

    As stated in the blog, no military operation is without its pros and cons but Omar Qaddafi was not a patron saint.

    October 24, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.

  • Writein,

    Is this one of your concerns? www.goo.gl/jwlOm

    October 24, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.

  • Alton

    It's an age old question," what is your definition of combat?" I don't think they're going door to door, or trying to engage militarily but more on a advisory capacity.

    I too am waiting for the 2014 date of withdrawal from Afghanistan. I can see why we might need a little more time if we're on a mission to eliminate the Haqqani network and others in Pakistan.

    I imagine we will send quite a bit of foreign aid to Iraq because " if you break it; you have to fix it."... We built a $600,000,000 state of the art, largest of its kind, embassy in Iraq, so we will staff it with over a 1000 diplomats. About 17,000 contract employees(with immunity) will help train the Iraqi military, when we leave.

    October 24, 2011 at 9:18 a.m.

  • Writein
    I agree with the first part of your statement; I basically said the same words in my blog but I totally disagree with your ending sentence.

    The United States is not nor will it ever be a pawn in any form, shape, or matter. The Libyan people asked us to get involved, our European Allies did the same and we were backed by the Arabs states and the United Nations. Omar Qaddafi was not liked by his fellow dictators. The countries in which dictators were overthrown are not worried about attacking the United States. We have the State Dept. and 18 intelligence departments and experienced diplomats, ambassadors, and military commanders; to say if we are a pawn ,you are doubting our resources.

    We have about 7000 aerial drones and the chances of a secretive terrorist group acquiring one is small. Using one against our citizens is nearly impossible because of our detection systems, availability, lack of a terrorist command center to launch them, and the inability to transfer it to the United States. Suitcase bombs and a small nuclear explosive device may be brought or made in this country to use against us.

    As I said in the blog, I don't know why republicans didn't stand up when President Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement. Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday Senator Lindsey Graham was livid because we didn't leave 15,000 troops in Iraq. Then he insinuated that we should have put boots on a ground in Libya. About 10 minutes later, presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann said Qaddafi should've been left in place because it's the devil we know.

    October 24, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.

  • Mike.
    Unlike the Iraq War, I have mixed feelings about the removal of Moammar Qaddafi. I am no neo-con, but it was the people of Libya who rose up and challenges their masters. In Iraq, no one rose up and challenge Saddam. Saddam’s removal and death made the world more dangerous by allowing Iran to be a bellicose nation with possible nukes. It is my fear with the death of Qaddafi that chickens will come to roost when other nations or secretive terrorist groups attack ours cities and leaders with drone strikes. It is my fear is that the United States and President Obama are pawns for foreign interest in France, Britain and reminds of Osama’s terrorist network.

    October 23, 2011 at 10:35 p.m.

  • Do you really believe the over 30,000 troops still there are all in non-combat roles--I don't. But regardless, it is good to see our troops are on the way home. To bad we are still going to be in Afghanistan -what a waste.
    I wonder just how much foreign aid we will still send to Iraq?

    October 22, 2011 at 10:52 p.m.

  • The decisions for the troop surge in Afghanistan and the withdraw from Iraq were all discussed to coincide with each move...We have special forces  Yemen,Somalia, and other countries where terrorist groups are forming but I seriously doubt we will see a large presence of U.S. forces again....Sure people will say that 's how Vietnam started but they don't know this president...I guess it's a wait and see.

    October 22, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.

  • Uganda has been in the works since 2010 but nothing to with Iraq withdraw as reported in NYT 6 days ago.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/wor...

    October 22, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.

  • There is always Uganda....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-afric...

    October 22, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.