Noting Huckabee-Paul debate disagreement on Iraq, Luntz declared Huckabee's position "principle[d]"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz cited Republican focus group responses to an exchange over Iraq policy between Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul, and, echoing Huckabee's assertion about needing not "to lose our honor," declared: "Clearly, principle won out in this exchange." Luntz cited no evidence that the focus group participants favored Huckabee's comments because they thought that the comments -- in contrast with Paul's -- were based on "principle." In fact, Paul's position on the Iraq war has been consistent, though originally sharply at odds with public opinion.
On the September 5 post-presidential debate edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz cited Republican focus group responses to an exchange over Iraq policy between former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and, echoing Huckabee's assertion about needing to not "lose our honor," declared: "Clearly, principle won out in this exchange." Luntz made his declaration about which side "won" the exchange in the opinion of the focus groups after showing a video clip of part of the exchange with lines on the screen showing the focus group's response to have been more favorable to Huckabee. He did not cite any comments from focus group participants or any other evidence that the participants favored Huckabee's comments because they thought that the comments -- in contrast with Paul's -- were based on "principle." Nor did he explain his suggestion that Paul's position on the war was not based on principle.
In fact, Paul's position on the Iraq war has been consistent, though originally sharply at odds with public opinion. On October 8, 2002, Paul said, "There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war." He was only one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the resolution authorizing war with Iraq. Paul has also been calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq for more than two years.
Reporting on the same exchange during the debate, the September 6 edition of CNN's Your World Today aired only Paul's statement that "[w]e've dug a hole for ourselves, and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it," followed by Huckabee's assertion that, "[e]ven if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party." By cropping Paul's quote to leave out his substantive arguments for withdrawing from Iraq, CNN suggested that Paul's argument was entirely about electoral politics. CNN did not broadcast Paul's remarks that, "when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake" or his claim that he did not believe the U.S. should remain in Iraq just to "save face." Nor did CNN note that Paul -- contrary to the initial desires of a majority of the electorate -- opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.
In response to an announcement in April by PBS that, immediately after the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, "public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings," Media Matters for America criticized Luntz's involvement and noted his history of partisan GOP activity and record of reported reprimand and censure by this peers. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Contract with America, according to a 2000 Salon.com article. Similarly, Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported in 2000 that the National Council on Public Polls "censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." As Media Matters has also documented, Luntz has worked for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), a primary election opponent of Paul and Huckabee's, and has heaped praise on Giuliani this year.
In September 2004, MSNBC dropped its plans to include Luntz in coverage of that year's presidential forum following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and criticism from his peers for misrepresenting and withholding results of his research.
From the September 5 post-debate edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: And joining us now from Manchester, New Hampshire, political pollster Frank Luntz. And Frank, you've been doing dial groups and focus groups. In fact, you went to the FoxNews.com website earlier tonight, you can see the dials as they were turning upward or downward as the candidates were speaking earlier this evening.
LUNTZ: It was a very interesting response. The reaction was not as positive this time as it had been for the other debates that we'd been testing. And it was interesting that our group was a little bit disappointed with what they heard and, in some cases, what they didn't.
They thought that the candidates were not as clear as they were expecting, there wasn't quite enough specifics as to what they were going to do. But even the style itself seems to be just a little bit short on -- on -- on a communicative nature.
I want to show you the one exception to that. The single most interesting reaction was between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Now, you can see these dials go up and down. The red line represents moderates turning their dials. The yellow line represents conservatives. Watch what happens when the two of them go back at each other. Clearly, Mike Huckabee was the winner, and Ron Paul was the loser. Let's take a look.
[begin video clip]
HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country. The United States of America, not the divided states of America.
PAUL: No -- when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.
HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate.
PAUL: No. We've dug a hole for ourselves, and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it. And it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party.
PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over --
[end video clip]
LUNTZ: Not losing our honor. Clearly, principle won out in this exchange. But this wasn't actually the -- Mike Huckabee did quite well. But this wasn't the top response. [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ], who had not been doing well in the sessions that we've done up to this point, exceeded expectations.
From the transcript of the September 5 Republican presidential primary debate at the University of New Hampshire's Whittemore Center:
CHRIS WALLACE (moderator and Fox News Sunday host): Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who had staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any Al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be a slam-dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people -- why not ask the people who advised not to go in -- into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit. Yes, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was the -- one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9-11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula. And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five -- totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that says we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders --
WALLACE: So if -- so, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this. You're basically saying we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?
PAUL: No. I'm saying -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.
[...]
CHRIS WALLACE (moderator and Fox News Sunday host): Governor, if that's the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge?
HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.
Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is at stake.
Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word "honor," I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend.
And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there.
We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.
PAUL: Can I respond --
WALLACE: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond.
PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.
HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country. The United States of America, not the divided states of America.
PAUL: No. when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.
HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate.
PAUL: No. We've dug a hole for ourselves, and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it. And it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor. And that is more important than the Republican Party.
PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- we have lost -- we have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home.
BRIT HUME (moderator and Special Report anchor): Gentleman, thank you.
From the September 6 edition of CNN's Your World Today:
ISHA SESAY (co-anchor): Well, speaking a little bit more now on that GOP debate that [CNN national correspondent] John [King] and [co-anchor] Jim [Clancy] were just talking about. As we were saying, the rest of the GOP candidates squared off for their fifth debate in New Hampshire. There was plenty of passion about Iraq. Most of the eight Republicans defended the war -- that is, except for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who said the troops should be withdrawn. Well, that led to this fiery exchange with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
[begin video clip]
PAUL: We've dug a hole for ourselves, and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it. And has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important than the Republican Party.
PAUL: We're losing -- we lost over --
[end video clip]
SESAY: Both sides got applause from the crowd in Durham, New Hampshire.
Both men have a point, honestly. We did trash that country (and Huckabee is correct - it is a WE and not a "them" because every person in this country who did not take the streets on the eve to war [including myself] is responsible for this travesty), and we are responsible to see it returned to some semblance of normalcy. That, however, will not be a military function, and our military experts has admitted as such - no amount of escalation will change this.
i did not take to the streets but argued against the war from day one. I do not feel responsible for it. I will not allow you to suggest I have to support it now because I did not march on DC.
":argued against the war from day one:"
Good for you. So did I. It did nothing, and I'm happy to take responsibility for my failure to do more to stop this administration from taking us to Hell, and for contributing to American apathy.
Arguing neither prevents nor stops war. The Vietnam War did not end because of chatter, but because of increasing bodies in the streets that led to a higher social cost for policy makers.
Here's a thought. All those billionaires who supported Bush so that he'd give them a tax cut...let THEM pay to clean up his mess in Iraq.
"Both men have a point ..."
Wouldn't you like to know what the instant response dials were showing when Ron Paul said he took his marching orders from the Constitution? I would, because that statement seemed to go over very well with the audience in attendance. I was surprised the networks played such a selective -- and possibly misleading -- clip.
I *****loved***** that quote. Paul is really a brilliant speaker, and relies on quite a bit of substance rather than flash. Having said that, that's the most powerful soundbyte he can offer, and it's a shame it doesn't get the notoreity of jokes about hairbrushes or about who loves Gitmo more.
If I am to blame for this war because, like a lot of conservatives, I bought into what we were told, than I will try and do something to end it. I will be voting to put Dr. Paul into the whitehouse.
If the criteria is principle, then Paul taking a minority stance is more principled than Huckabee's pandering to a GOP talking point. Luntz always has an ax to grind, holding him up as doing anything objective is wrong.
Speaking of pandering, how about Chris Wallace's "marching orders from al-Qaeda" line?
i heard paul's part on the radio. considering it was a republican crowd, he got some pretty good applause.
Paul got more then just good applause...according to Fox's own polling he was the winner of the debate by something like 2 to 1. He received something like 33% of the vote and the closest to him waws Huckabee and Guiliani with I think 16% and 15%.
Ron Paul has my vote.
I sure hope you don't mean when it comes time for presidential elections. Ron Paul definitely gets it when it comes to foreign policy but everything else sucks. He will destroy probably every governmental institution and the post office.
If he has unchallenged power, yes. Fortunately, we do not live in a monarchy, and his opinions on the size of government will be moderated by the actions of the legislature. You know, the way this country is supposed to work. No blank checks from Congress just because you happen to occupy the white house.
Huckabee and Paul both had a point, but Huckabee is wrong in thinking that we can fix things over there through a military effort. Paul is correct to and extent, we need to get the hell out of there before things can even begin to get better over there.
But...
Unfortunately thing will get worse before they get better once we leave. Huckabee's "You break it, you buy it theme" doesn't hold up in this situation since his idea of buying it is through military action.
BTW the way Wallace and the some of the other candidates were completely unprofessional. Rudy Snickering and Wallace playing gotcha with Paul was ridiculous.
Monk, I totally agree the disrespect shown to Paul was disgraceful. It proves that the Dems made the right decision in not participating in a Fox run debate. Agree with Paul or not he provided arguments and facts to back up many of his positions and it wasn't Fox's place to show such disdain--it is up to the people to diside if his arguments have merit or not. If Fox was debunking his arguments with information and facts that would have been ok (as long as they gave everyone that treatment too) but they weren't doing that. Instead they were using sarcasm, disdain and that ridiculous giggling to humiliate a candidate participating in their debate. Paul handled the disrespect with a lot of class in my opinion and he never backed down.
Geeze...I don't usually correct my numerous typos but even I have to say wow I had some doozies in this one...diside???? decide...yes I do know how it is actually spelled...unfortunatley I type faster then my brain computes sometimes...ok a lot /-:
You're the disider.
Frank Luntz, the current re-framer of language, successful at convincing gullible citizens that dog poo smells like roses.
luntz is a partisan hack
and tavis smiley is a pompous, ignorant media whore who will sell out to anyone willing pay attention to him..
I give Paul credit, at least he is trying to stand up to the rest of the GOP Warmongers. How disgusting McCain was with his surge i working BS. As for Luntz, that hack is right where he belongs on FOX.
Doris, it didn't get much attention but McCain made a distinction many of us here have been making about just what the surge is working really means. He pointed out that it was the political situation that was floundering even though the military was doing their part (the surge). I actually think McCain was not too far off the mark with his comments. Although I do think another distinction needs to be made to the surge is working...we don't have the ability to maintain the surge and we don't have the ability to hold all areas in this manner.
You make a good point. The political situation is what is failing, yes maybe the military part of it is working, however there has been no help or progress from the horrible Iraqi government which is corrupt and making Saddam Hussein look like a great leader. McCain however needs to have the courage to say this is it we are done we need to come home, yet he and the other GOPers fail to do that.
Doris, the problem I see with just coming home is what happens then... I posted some of my concerns in a post below to Jeter. I think this invasion has put us in a no win situation but I do think our future secuurity and that of the international community could be seriously altered by what we leave behind and who takes control. I want to agree with you and jeter about coming home because I think it is wrong on so many levels that we ask our men and women serving this country to continue to put their lives on the line for a mistake--which is what Iraq is. But I just don't think things are so simple...what we have wrought with this invasion will not just go away when we leave.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Frank Luntz finding Huck as a winner in this debate overlooks the fact that Paul won the debate with the overall polling, hands down!
If you believe Frank you have to believe that Ron Paul is not having an effect on the Republican voters! Right!!
Very difficult to navigate the darkness when you have only the liar's voice to guide you!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So now it's all about honor and principles.
How long before someone mentions "peace with honor"?
To my fourteen-year-old ears back in 69-70, "peace with honor" sounded so noble. But it cost us another ten or fifteen thousand American lives. Plus a couple of hundred thousand(?) Vietnamese lives. And it was all a waste.
Yet Huckabee would have us fight for our honor, honor we lost when we invaded a country which did not threaten us. And we once again have a sitting President who seems willing to expand an unjust, illegal, unconstitutional war. God help us.
Have we learned nothing?
As Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said, "Those who remember history lose an eye...Those who forget history lose two eyes".
My heart weeps for MY country.
Liberty, freedom, and Ron Paul.
I believe both Huckabee & Paul are principled in their opinions. I happen to agree with Ron Paul on this topic. But it's obvious that Luntz determined only the man who supported the war should be labeled as such.
In fact, I would say most of the second tier of candidates from both parties are more principled than the glitzy sound bite spinning flip flopping first tier. Just my opinion.
Morning Jeter (-: I think they both had good responses and both answers were principled in my opinion. Unfortunately, unlike you I am having a problem figuring out what is the best solution at this point. I agree with Ron Paul about mistakes need to be corrected but I also agree with Huckabee that we did this we can't just walk away. I'm torn. Do you really think we can just walk away without serious repercussions? Also do you think we (the US) have an obligation to fix what we "broke"?
But "fix" the way The GOP sees it isn't the answer.
Monk, I that we agree.
Hey LostLogic :-)
We certainly should be obligated to repair damages caused by this illegal invasion/war, but I don't know just how long we should keep troops stationed there. I certainly hope it won't turn into a situation similar to Korea where troops are there permanently acting as a human barrier.
I'm not convinced that Iraq will turn into a bloodbath if we leave. I do think we need to engage other nations in that region [including Syria & Iran] politically and form a real coalition to keep things from exploding in Iraq.
Jeter, the repercussions I was referring to wasn't the touted "bloodbath"...personally, I think it already is a boodbath but that is another issue. I was referring to the complete destabilization of the region. If we pullout someone will eventually triump and depending on who that will be it can alter the uneasy balance that is now in place. Many mideast countries expressed serious reservations about removing Sadamn for this reason. He may have been a horrid man but his presence and control over Iraq allowed a balance to exist between sunni/shia dominated areas of the middle east. I think our botched invasion and removal of Sadamn may have done damage that will alter the political landscape in the middle east and cause increased instability that will allow an ever increasing radical leadership to emerge not just in Iraq. If we leave what will that set in motion and how will it effect our and other countries security...these are the repercussions that leave me unable to figure out what will produce the best outcome of this huge disaster the Bush administration set in motion. Another point worth mentioning is immplied power versus failed power...what is the risk to future challenges against the US now that the intimidating implied power we once possessed has been so thoroughly debunked ala Russia's once touted power illusion was shattered.
LostLogic,
I would like to see the country split into 3 regions, in fact maybe just 2...I believe the Kurds deserve their own separate sovereign nation. I'm not sure how one goes about doing this, or if it's even feasible, but I think that may be one way to avert the takeover by just one power [likely Iran]
I agree with you about Saddam. Not the nicest dictator [are any dictators belevolent?] but Iraq was at least stable under his rule. Since we've known for some time now that he didn't possess WMD & posed no imminent threat to the US [or even his neighbors] it's clear that this foray into Iraq was a colossal error.
We obviously cannot pull out overnight, but we should begin withdrawing and engaging other countries politically in the region simultaneously.
You broke it you fix it should not entail us staying there indefinitely.
Jeter, I think the 3 part solution has merit too. Biden's been pushing for this solution for some time. I think they would need to have a central federal part that deals with the equal distribution of resources (largest of which is oil rights) for the regions which I think will be a difficult if not impossible sell to the majority there. I also worry what will result with the Kurds and Turkey under this plan.
I also worry what will result with the Kurds and Turkey under this plan.
LostLogic, The only reason we cling to Turkey as an important ally is their geographical location. Now I wasn't for going into Iraq in the first place, BUT when we asked Turkey to allow us access to open a northern front they pretty much used extortion, then backed out of the deal. This is an important ally?
Turkey has had a history of invading other countries and annexing their land. Armenia & Kurdistan are prime examples.
We ought to tell Turkey to bug off.
Ok, that's not very diplomatic is it?
But we have held ourselves hostage to this country's whims simply because they happen to be situated on prime strategic real estate, going back to the Cold War.
I'll happily concede that Turkey has had a problematic human rights record; their genocide against the Armenians in 1915-17 helped set the pattern for future genocides later in the century. As Hitler said when contemplating his actions against the Jews, "who remembers the Armenians?" Turkey has still not taken the appropriate historical responsibility for its actions.
That said, they are comparatively a secular democracy and a member of NATO. Telling them to bug off is neither practical nor desirable. In light of the deception that dragged us into this war, as well as its disastrous outcome, I contend they were in the right to refuse us passage. You can say the Turks employed extortion, but extortion and bribery were two tools Bush used freely in putting together his "coalition of the willing." As with most countries in the build up to war, the people of Turkey were largely against the invasion and the Turkish Parliament responded by refusing us passage (that's democracy). I wish certain other countries had done the same.
"Turkey has had a history of invading other countries and annexing their land. Armenia & Kurdistan are prime examples."
Obviously the Ottoman Empire was built in large measure on invasion, but modern Turkey? I don't think Turkey has been at war with Armenia since 1920 though, as I recall, they helped blockade it during the 1990s over a border dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Modern Kurdistan is, of course, not an independent nation as such but is an ethnic region divided (depending on how you count it) between 3-6 nations. Turkey has a spotty record in its dealings with its Kurdish minority (most recently in the 1980 & 90s, but then the Kurdish PKK was also responsible for a lot of the problems there). I'm not sure what invasion you are referring to. On the whole, Turkey is not a particularly aggressive nation and places far behind the US in terms of using its military.
Very good post.
Vietnam all over again. The military commanders and the politicians of both parties thought the U.S. could pull something; anything out of the hat. But a weak, corrupt South Vietnamese government, a determined guerilla force and everyday grinding maiming and killing eventually wore too thin to sustain the rhetoric that some kind of "victory" or even dignified withdrawal was possible.
Again the U.S. buys into it's own mythology that we the western big daddy can solve a problem in another country by further meddling.
Luntz is paid to manipulate minds with key-words and BS. The focus group was instinctively responding to the words "HONOR" and "UNITED."He uses focus groups like lab rats, attempting to gain emotional responses by way of linguistic, emotional triggers, then working those triggers into a party argument or a candidate’s campaign. It's a con and has nothing to do with ideas. If Paul used those words and Huckabee didn't, the dials would have gone to his favor, instead.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple. It's just too bad so many people are so easily manipulated.
You're exactly right. The response was not to the principles, it was to buzz words.
After Iraq hit the floor, George began marching soldiers up to the counter and handing them over to the grim reaper to pay for it. At nearly 4000, they're still marching, and still Iraq isn't paid for.
I'm not sure that sounds so honorable.
Lost, we have to "walk away". We must end our military occupation of Iraq ASAP, because that is what "broke" Iraq in the first place. Fixing what's broken won't be accomplished with more of the same. In fact, the more likely outcome of continuing the Madness of George III in pursuing a military solution is a "broken" US military and a perpetual, bitter schism in our society worse than the one which was born in the aftermath of the Viet Nam disaster.
On the Iraq situation and the idea of "pre-emptive war" - which is just another of the neocon's enabling euphemisms for imperialistic aggression, Ron Paul is dead-on right. (He'd be a disaster as president, because in most every other respect his ideology is unsound and unworkable.)
DMC, I am not saying you or anyone else in favor of walking away is wrong I am only asking what then. I think we all of us our discussing this in basically simplistic terms. In everything I have read about the middle east this invasion set some crazy destabilizing sh*t in motion so now what. How do we salvage this...I don't know that simply walking away is the full answer. I think any potential solution is going to be very complex and not easily made palatable for public consumption. The answer isn't a one sentence thing in my opinion...but then again I also don't know what the answer is.
Lost, I don't know what the answer is either. I just know that it's not more of the same. I suspect that it will involve a degree of diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran that will be so unpalatable to those who created this mess that they will be incapable of acting on it. They can't seem to function without enemies. I think Biden may be closer to a solution than anyone else, i.e., Kurdish independence - which I've long favored - and autonomous regions of Sunni and Shia, cooperating in a loose Iraqi federation if they can manage to do that, and if not, then as small independent sectarian countries. "Iraq" has always been a fictional national entity, created by the British and the Turkish successors to the Ottoman Empire. Must it continue as such, or should it be allowed to evolve into something more in harmony with the desires and aspirations of the people who live there? That, if you think about it, was the final solution to the Vietnamese problem after all.
You know when you get yourself involved in a situation where, you don't truly understand what's going on and you screw things up, but no matter how much you want to fix it, you just keep making things worse? Often, the best thing you can do is stop trying to fix it and back off. It's like a scene where someone spills a drink on someone, then tries to clean it up, but it all goes downhill in an embarrassing way from then on.
If we really want to help, we can get rid of the warmongering elitist neocons and show the world a true change, by giving them a good old fashioned (and loud) boot to the curb.
But staying in and acting the Elmer's Glue bull in the china shop is not going to help. Just the opposite.
there is nothing honorable about breaking into someone's home and killing members of the household. If this is the republican ideal of honor it is obvious why we are in such a situation after they have had control for years. Didnt we have a honorable duty to consider what would happen before the invasion. Which of the republicans demonstrated their honor by taking that principaled stance before the invasion. Do leopards change their spots?
Which of the republicans demonstrated their honor by taking that principaled stance before the invasion.
Ron Paul
Whenever a reporter mentions Fred Thompson without citing leftist criticism of Thompson's "Watergate" work, MMFA will whine.
Now, whenever a truly great pollster, Luntz, says anything about public opinions on the next election, MMFA whines that they didn't mention that little nothing-burger "sanction" by some pollster assoc....
This would be the equivalent of a Republican complaining about media coverage of Bill Clinton which did not mention that BC is a disgraced and impeached former Prez who had his law license revoked.
In either case, constantly dredging up old news is really... yawn... boring.
Now, I never would have seen the Clinton connection to this article, but you ...yawn... found it. Very nice....ZZZzzzzzz.....
If dredging up old news is really, yawn... boring, then why do you do it so often?
JOHNRTORRES: What's really "...yawn...boring" is your knee-jerk, reactionary but fact-challenged and drearily predictable whining. And you sound so...angry... (!)
Though Mike Huckabee did make some very good, crowd pleasing points, his points are as hollow as the breath it took to speak them. Would he go to Iraq or send his kids there to die for honor? We did not attack Iraq with honorable intentions, there will be no honor for us no matter when we leave. This war is insane, what I can't understand is why all of these jaws are flapping in its defense? I see only two choices, ingnorance or stupidity. Could our potential Grand Poobah be both? Thank God or who ever you choose to thank even if its just his parents, for Ron Paul.
You Go Ron Paul!
Mr. Paul won the debate in spite of the lousy confrontational Fox moderators. Wallace should be permanently removed from such moderator assignments.
McCain is wrong on the war, but he did good at this debate. Some Republicans believe he won. I think he really helped himself and even had others on the panel compliment him.
The biggest loser is Duncan Hunter. I wonder why he's still hanging around these debates.
First. the people who "own" this war are those who voted for Bush and those who supported the Repubican Party past and present. The Republican Party failed to provide oversight while they were in control, and the current Republicans in the Senate are playing the obstructionist game. Until these Republicans lose their control on the legislative branch, and Bush leaves office, there won't be a real debate and alternative plan for Iraq. Bush has no credibiiity anywhere in the world, he merely impedes our progress on many fronts.
How dare Frank Lutntz imply that Mike Huckabee was "principled" and had honor while Ron Paul didn't, and that he lacked those values. I believe Fox and Colmes and any other media people should make ammends and also apologize to Ron Paul. Ron Paul was NOT allowed to finish the answer he was supposed to have when Huckabee accused him of being without honor and unprincipled.
Guess what? I was there, and Luntz is a fraud. The whole tihng was completely contrived. McCain did not win and NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE of registered voting Republicans liked Rudy, NOT ONE.
NOT ONE liked the UN yet they have no idea who will get us out of it.
All my comments about whether candidates are credible and making sure their comments match with their past behavior were CUT OUT. Luntz told me they would be.
He also egged the group on to ridicule Ron Paul, suggesting he needed a psychiatrist, and stating that the text messaging poll should not have been used because it 'just screws things up'.
I repeat LUNTZ is a fraud.
PS - even among die-hard Republicans we had 10% representation there, so that was a good thing!
Can't anyone be honest and own up to the fact that Ron Paul lost the debating point in question?
You can agree with someone on his position but admit he didn't win a debating point. If you can't, you aren't living in reality.
The fact is that he made a mistake by arguing that the GOP should change course because it will cost them votes. That is a great argument behind the scenes but Huckabee wasn't about to admit that he would violate his own conscience to suck up to voters. Huckabee took the high - principled - ground by saying he would do what is right (to him) and not what is politically expedient.
The fact is that if you look at Ron Paul's argument every time he is challenged on his logic, he shifts his argument rather than defend it.
For instance, he argued that we should leave Iraq because our being in Saudi Arabia was a cause of 9/11. That is an argument for capitulating to Bin Laden. It may be wise to remove our troops from the Middle East to eliminate a cause for Bin Laden to sell to his followers but to raise it as an argument is to open himself to the charge of appeasement. It's a bad strategy and the truth is that Bin Laden is not likely to stop even if we leave Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden will just have another demand.
Ron Paul is well-intentioned on the issue of Iraq but he's a poor thinker and a poor debater and he does the cause little good by being its point man.
If people want to rally around someone who can offer an effective campaign to get out of Iraq, rally around Barack Obama!
Hey MAN...
It ain't a matter of sucking up voters. It's about doing the right thing.
Mr. Paul is for doing what's right for We the People, as apposed to what that elite group of Neo-RepubliCan'ts who are doing the wrong things. Mr. Paul said, Don't continue the mistakes, instead lets correct those mistakes the NeoCons made.
If you do the correct things for the country we all love, the voters will reward you for it. Paul is correct sir MAN, and you are not correct.
It is not a "fact" that Paul lost on this point at all. There is nothing principled about Huckabee's stance; Huckabee called it saving honer, but Paul shot back that it was simply saving face (something you did not mention). It is rather unprincipaled to take the cowardly of supporting a military action simply because you don't want to admit defeat.
Have you seen Obama's stance on Iran? He sounds as bad as Bush.
I lived through Vietnam and I'll grant you that leaving with honor may not mean leaving on our own terms. We tried to leave "with honor" and ended up leaving with our tail between our legs. We left with complete dishonor as people were hanging on to helicopters in a desperate effort to survive. We left many friends to die.
This time, we need to leave this failed mission with honor the right way. We need an orderly departure that includes bringing back any Iraqi who helped us and is afraid to remain behind.
We also need to leave behind a police force comprised of Muslims from any nations that will participate, if they want to try to keep the peace.
Most importantly, we need to develop a set plan that may take a year to unfold but has a set timetable so the parties to the civil war understand that they must find agreement by that time or they will be left to their own devices.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not the man to lead that effort. He offers mindless and politically unfeasable approaches. He will not be elected President, let alone win the GOP nomination. Moreover, he believes we should eliminate every agency in the federal government, INCLUDING FEMA, which we must improve to save lives when situations like Katrina come again.
Anyone who would support someone who cares not a bit for the victims of Katrina, like Ron Paul, needs to re-think their beliefs.
Hi MAN....
Did you get this Vietnam War knowledge from books, or were you there serving the country we all love like I was. When I left Vietnam....You were Dead Wrong.....
MY TAIL WAS NOT BETWEEN MY LEGS!!!
I was standing tall and proud to have served my country even when my country was wrong. And now I'm shocked that Bush didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam.
I would never serve this country for that cowardly Bush. Today I'm proudly fighting a war to take our country back from the likes of Bush, Huckabee, McCain, Duncan Hunter and the rest of the NeoClowns I mean NeoCons.
You are right, Mr. Paul is wrong on most issues but he's the only Republican candidate correctly calling for correcting the mistakes made there by Neo-RepubliCan'ts.
All the others want to just "Stay The Course."