Then why do you need a pardon for it?

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

Guess it’s about time I blogged this. Seems like as the race heats up I hear more people talk about the GOP presidential candidates. I thought I’d share my take on the last round of “debates” in an effort to explain why I think the Republican party has a snowball in hell’s chance of getting a president next year.

Might as well address the elephant in the room: the Iraq War. More and more and more and more evidence is being released and declassified, pulling the rug out from under any justification for this war. Yet, all the GOP candidates (save one) cling to this war as a tie to “patriotism” and “honor.” Anyone wanting to pull out of a clearly bad situation is labeled as unsupportive of our troops, and un-American.

It’s been satisfying to listen to Ron Paul’s stance on the issue. Maybe one of the reasons those people hate us so much is because we occupy their holy lands with US troops. The pundits at Fox News accused Mr. Paul of blaming the victim. To spin this issue like that is wholly dishonest. If we want to improve this situation, let’s look at the facts and what might have contributed to the situation. I think Mr. Paul is on the right track as far as our position in Iraq is concerned.

Secondly, it’s horribly refreshing to hear Mr. Paul answer questions in the debates. He only gets about half the time other candidates seem to get, but when he’s asked a question, he answers it. Seems simple, but other candidates (especially the more popular ones) can’t seem to talk straight. Mr. Paul is a statesman in the midst of politicians.

Wait - maybe you’ve never even heard of Ron Paul. Maybe you think he comes off oddly on television. Well, readers of Internet news sources have been realizing that mainstream media is purposely keeping Mr. Paul out of view.

ABC knew he was popular, but kept leaving him out of the polls. They skipped him an included less popular candidates. Yahoo’s coverage was biased. Top it all with the last Fox News debates. You’ve got to be joking me. They left the mic up so other candidates could snicker and giggle, complete with split-screen coverage of other candidates laughing while others were responding to issues. Shame on you, Fox News, and shame on the gradeschool-like behavior exhibited by other candidates.

Here’s my take on the current GOP lineup:

Brownback: I don’t think he gets it. The biggest thing is the “Three State Solution” he keeps touting. The basic idea is that he wants to crack Iraq in three parts, one for each religion. First, this is a great example of the slippery slope we can get into by invading another country to “help out.” Good thing he wasn’t president during the civil war, or we’d have the no-longer-united States of America.

Giuliani: This is an individual who has a very limited platform. It wanders some, but man: he really likes to beat the dead horse. I don’t think he has many responses that don’t reference 9/11, mayor of NYC, or muslim extremism. Please Rudy, find something else to talk about. He’s another one of these people that like to justify the Iraq war through fear mongering. What I don’t get is that if they’re so horrifically dangerous with WMDs, why haven’t they used them?

Huckabee: This guy is the spin king. His last spar with Ron Paul in the debates closed his options for me. Paul was talking about getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, so Huckabee started talking about the “honor” of American citizens. Please. Talking about honor sure gives me warm fuzzies. Leave subjective, emotive rhetoric out of it and just do what’s right. I think he sticks to the emotional language because he can’t address the facts.

Hunter: Anyone who can say that pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran are okay, is out of my list automatically. So if we guess that they might hurt us, we can destroy people with nuclear weapons? This is insanity: how do expect to get elected when you say things like that?!

McCain: Okay. McCain’s favorite way to dodge questions is by telling us that he’s super qualified for the job, but he never ever tells us why. Mr. McCain, I’m qualified to be president too, so there.

Romney: Mostly a nice guy, but too much of a politician. When asked what he disliked most about America, his answer was so fake and shallow it made me gag. “Garsh, I love all the ponies and rainbows.” I feel like he’s probably a great next door neighbor, but I never feel like he’s giving straight answers. It’s all too manufactured. He also get’s really defensive when anyone brings up his past abortion stance. Oh, and there’s also the fact that he wants to double the size of Guantanamo Bay.

Tancredo: Seems like a nice enough guy. He’s probably the one I dislike the least, but it might be because I don’t really hear much from the dude. I also thought it was cool when he said the biggest mistake he made was finding the Gospel so late in life.

Please check Ron Paul out. Listen to him for yourself (and not indirectly from biased commentators on Fox and ABC). Ther’s a great collection on YouTube where you can see him in action and judge for yourself:

On Tucker Carlson - and Again.

Stop Dreaming

Fiscal Policy and the Federal Reserve

Bill Maher’s Interview Paul with Colbert

His language is very direct. He’s a great teacher. Far above and beyond any other candidate, I hope its Ron Paul for President in 2008.

I found this article yesterday, and couldn’t help but respond here. The assertion that the war is in perfect order with God and man just is too tempting to cross-examine.

First, just because war is constitutional (I don’t think anyone disagrees there) doesn’t mean that this particular conflict was handled in the correct manner. First, isn’t Article I Section 8 discussing Congress’ power? In the current war, it is the executive branch that is making the assertions. Show me a congressional declaration of war to assuage this concern. I don’t think anyone can really say it was handled correctly. No one is saying that governments can’t declare war. What people *are* saying, is that this wasn’t done right.
I also find it interesting that the “justification” for this war comes from a debated 2006 report on Iraq ground munitions. First, these weapons were confirmed to pre-1991 era weapons found “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.” [1] The statement that they *could* be sold on the black market is really just fear-mongering and conjecture.

The WMDs *could* be in the hands of some rabid terrorist outside your door tonight as well.

So, Bush claims that these people are armed to the teeth, ready to kill us all, and we need to take immediate action. The reality is that these weapons have been around for 15+ years, and their usability and potency is in question. Sure: they’ve been termed “lethal,” but even conventional weapons are “lethal.” And if these weapons have been around for so long, why take action 15 years later? If the weapons haven’t found use in the last two conflicts we’ve had in Iraq, it seems doubtful they’ll see any use.

Now do you realize why even the Bush administration didn’t flaunt the report?

Next, your assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war started is loose at best. So if Colin tells the UN Security Council, it must be true? I also fail to see how killing a terrorist leader three years after the war started is proof that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. Joscelyn’s article seems contradictory as well:

Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said ‘he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.’

That rather sums it up for me. Top operative, not aware.
I hesitate to address your remaining arguments. I don’t think it’s anyone’s job to define what “good Latter-day Saints” should know, and to put words in the mouth of the prophet. If he says he’s for the war, why does he not say it plainly? It seems to me that he is reaffirming the Church’s position on following our civic leaders, and that above all, we should search for peace.

And while I believe God can turn any human mess into an opportunity, I don’t think wars are the best way to spread the gospel message. I don’t think that members on the ground in Baghdad are any justification for the continuance of this conflict.