Chuck Hagel Delenda Est!

Via Glenn, I see that Hugh Hewitt has endorsed an effort to punish surge-doubting Republicans with a rain of holy fire.

If the Republican senate cannot muster even that level of courage and commitment, I doubt very much if the Republican and independent (and even some Democratic voters) will forget or forgive.

If your party will not support the war and the troops, why support the party?

Don't worry: There's a pledge.

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution.

That seems fair. The worship of Gen. Petraeus is a bit much, but he deserves it rather more than anyone else leading this charge.

Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Republican establishment right now, especially after the mean-spirited (and pyrrhic) victory they won over Steve Laffey in Rhode Island. But this is a bit much. Two thoughts.

1) It's difficult to imagine Democratic activists doing something like this, but perhaps that's because they turned Joe Lieberman into an oversized, wrinkly stress ball and got all their angst out.
2) If we're still losing in Iraq in November 2008, this party could nominate a Reagan/Christ ticket and lose 40 states.

Comments

Eric Dondero | January 25, 2007, 8:38am | #

I'm not the biggest fan of Hugh Hewitt, particularly since he dissed Libertarian candidate for Congress Bob Smither on air in favor of Shelly Sekula-Gibbs. But on this I back him 100%.

Hagel is an embarassment to the Republican Party. He's a RINO. He is NO supporter of Liberty and Libertarian values. If he had his way he'd surrender in Iraq, pull out immediately, and allow another Cambodian-style Killing Fields to happen, this time to the Kurds.

If we pull out, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kurds could be in jeopardy.

We sat on our hands and did NOTHING when Pol Pot slaughtered 2 million Cambodians. We did the same when 800,000 Ruwandans were brutally murdered.

Do we want another human genocide in Iraq?

Apparently Hagel doesn't see this as a problem. That's not very reflective of Republican values of protecint human liberty.

Eric Dondero, CEO
MainstreamLibertarian.com

Memnon | January 25, 2007, 8:44am | #

The intro to the linked article:

"Here, we present an excerpt from Thomas P.M. Barnett's March 2006 profile of Barnett."

That´s nice, but now we would like to read something that tells us about Petraeus.

asg | January 25, 2007, 9:07am | #

November 2006 is in the rearview mirror; I assume you mean Nov. 2008.

A.B. | January 25, 2007, 9:08am | #

If we're still losing in Iraq in November 2006, this party could nominate a Reagan/Christ ticket and lose 40 states.

2008?

Also, I think a lot of Republicans would be reluctant to see Christ, with his hippy/commie views, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Maybe put him at HUD or something.

Timothy | January 25, 2007, 9:09am | #

I think you mean November 2008, David.

whiskey | January 25, 2007, 9:17am | #

This inadvertent typo is proof that libertarians are living for a glorified past that never was.

Gilded age my ass.

Jennifer | January 25, 2007, 9:18am | #

Is that the same Eric Dondero who wrote in March 2005 a little ditty titled "Rockwell, Raimondo, biggest libertarian losers in Bush Doctrine success"? You know, that the liberals who said the Iraq invasion would turn out badly were "dead wrong?"

While all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine — Democracy breaking out with lightening [sic] speed in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi and even Israel/Palestine post-Iraqi Elections — it is Lew Rockwell of LewRockwell.com and Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com and their allies who are the absolute BIGGEST LOSERS. Just think about this for a second. Rockwell and Raimondo have been saying for years that Bush was going to be a huge failure. That the entire Middle East was going to explode over our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region.

David Nieporent | January 25, 2007, 9:18am | #

I'm not the biggest fan of the Republican establishment right now, especially after the mean-spirited (and pyrrhic) victory they won over Steve Laffey in Rhode Island. But this is a bit much.

You've got to remember that Hewitt is an extreme Republican partisan. While virtually every pundit and interest group across the libertarian and conservative spectrum was criticizing Harriet Miers after she was nominated, Hewitt was denouncing the critics, basically arguing that she ought to be confirmed out of loyalty to Bush and GOP solidarity.

2) If we're still losing in Iraq in November 2006, this party could nominate a Reagan/Christ ticket and lose 40 states.

These are still the Democrats that they're running against, right? I mean, you're talking about a party that had a completely open field in 2004, with no heir apparent candidate, free to pick the best possible choice, and the best nominee they could come up with was John Kerry.

creech | January 25, 2007, 9:24am | #

Eric's questions are the same that baffle the "Christians for Peace" types. How can the U.S. pull out knowing what a bloodbath will occur if the factions in Iraq are totally unretrained? Those I've spoken to either deny that will happen because it is only our occupying presence that causes the violence or
seem genuinely confused because they believe it is a Christian's duty to prevent bloodshed - non-violently of course - and don't have a clue how to do it except through prayer and maybe wandering around Baghdad preaching God's love and hoping for the best.

Libertarians however don't want the U.S. to be the world's cop or its vigilante. The blame for the killing rests on those who do it, not on those who fail to stop it. Eric is, of course, free to use his blood and treasure to help the Kurds or intervene in whatever evil conflicts he wishes. (Oops, no he isn't. There is a law that prevents U.S. citizens from forming or supporting "Lincoln Brigades." Maybe the Republicans should work on repealing this law.) Most libertarians are not sacrificing altruists, but many of the conservatives and liberals on either side of the Iraq issue are. So it isn't most libertarians who have the problem but those who want to pick and choose which conflicts in which to intervene. Want to bet the supporters/detractors wouldn't be flipped if President Kerry had U.S. forces engaged in Darfur?

joe | January 25, 2007, 9:30am | #

"support the troops"

"aid and comfort to the enemy"

I love watching the hawks continue to use this language in 2006 andn 2007. Half the people they're slandering with their shoddy treason charges were saying the same thing three years ago. At this late date, under these circumstances, the ploy is so obviously unjust and detatched from reality that it just draws attention to its own absurdity.

It must makes it that much less likely to work the next time Hewitt-style knuckleheads try to bully the country like that.

joe | January 25, 2007, 9:32am | #

I'm not sure if "mainstream libertarian" is an oxymoron, but I know that "mainstream war supporter" is.

"Do we want another human genocide in Iraq?"

Maybe you should have thought of that before you bought the Pets.com stock - er, I mean, supported starting a war that didn't need to be fought.

Sometimes they go badly, you know. Try to keep that in mind next time you decide it would be kewl to start up the war machine.

joe | January 25, 2007, 9:35am | #

Oof. Just read Jennifer's comment.

I don't think we'll be seeing Eric for a while.

Jennifer | January 25, 2007, 9:51am | #

Google is your friend, Joe. Second hit for "Eric Dondero." There's more where that came from.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 25, 2007, 10:18am | #

If we're still losing in Iraq in November 2008, this party could nominate a Reagan/Christ ticket and lose 40 states.

Weigel: that's the funniest thing you've said in a while. Jesus Chrysler, I'm still LOL and there are coffee splats on my monitor. It's good though, because my LOL woke up the kids and they need to get up for school anyway.

Geek, Esq. | January 25, 2007, 10:23am | #

As a Democrat, this kind of stuff delights me. You know it's a terrible idea because Glenn Reynolds supports it--the man has been consistently wrong on Iraq and all things related since 2002.

But, yeah, start a civil war within your own party guys. And force vulnerable Republicans to endorse escalation.

Isaac Bartram | January 25, 2007, 10:30am | #

...that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for...

Judging by his responses to the Senate Committee that NPR reported he has not asked for additional troops but as a good soldier will try do the job he has been ordered to do.

It sounded to me that his intention is to put more pressure on Iraqui forces to get on the job. Since he has already been involved in their training perhaps has has a relationship with their commanders. Or, maybe not.

Either way support or non-support for this bogus "surge" has nothing to do with "supporting the troops" or respecting General Petraeus or wishing good things for the Iraqui people.

Chris S. | January 25, 2007, 10:39am | #

A Kurdish bloodbath? That's one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read here. Yes, pulling out could lead to an escalation of the Arab Sunni/Shiite conflict, possibly involving Iran and the Saudis, but it won't involve the Kurds, who are more than able to defend themselves from the defunct military run out of Baghdad. Moreover, none of the major players in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus or Riyadh give a whit about the Kurds at this point. Unless you're talking about a Turkish invasion, you have absolutely no clue about Iraq. But we already knew that.

:- | January 25, 2007, 10:58am | #

We sat on our hands and did NOTHING when Pol Pot slaughtered 2 million Cambodians. We did the same when 800,000 Ruwandans were brutally murdered.

Eric assumes libertarians should care about wholesale slaughter. They don't.

joe | January 25, 2007, 11:05am | #

The likelihood of an abandonment of the Kurds, and a return of their oppression under an Arab government, was one of the biggest reasons I opposed the war. Remember Slate.com's "Kurd Sellout Watch?" It would be nice if Hugh Hewitt and his ilk had thought of such things before they decided to get their war on.

Personally, I would be more comfortable if more of the anti-war folks explicitly stated that they have no intention of abandoning the Kurds. Most of the withdrawal plans I've seen mention leaving some troops in the friendly Kurdish area (in order to have a "rapid reaction force" available near the Sunni areas), but no commitment is ever given.

I suspect this is because such a statement would infuriate the Turks, and all of the plans to end the war require involving them as on of the regional powers whose assistance is desired. The Turks have a point, a de facto Kurdish state could potentially be used to support activities by Kurdish separatists in Turkey, and any support we give to Kurdistan would have be as part of a comprehensive deal which includes their sitting on, rather then backing up, shennanigans in Turkey.

But as you can see, we're well into the weeds by now, which is the last place you need to be when there is a fight over a big, central question like "stay or go."

If we leave now, it will be on our own terms, which would include protecting the Kurds. If we stay, we're going to end up flying helicopters off the embassy roof in two years anyway, and there will be no chance of us respecting our moral duty to our Kurdish allies. Hewitt's got it exactly backwards - you either support ending the war now OR yor are laying the groundwork to abandon them.

de stijl | January 25, 2007, 11:33am | #

Aresen,

According to Joseph Smith, post-resurrection zombie Jesus did come to America to visit the lost tribes doodz. Unlike Ann Coulter, I am not a constitutional scholar, so I don't know if Big J would make the cut or not.

R C Dean | January 25, 2007, 11:33am | #

I have to admit, I find it pretty amusing how many people were for more troops/the surge before they were against more troops/the surge.

The watershed moment seems to have been when Bush said he was for the surge.

Bhh | January 25, 2007, 11:39am | #

Getting kinda Jonestowny with the deadenders.

Pro Libertate | January 25, 2007, 11:40am | #

joe,

The West has some leverage on Turkey--E.U. admission. Although we're not on the same page as most of Western Europe concerning Iraq, a solution that protected the reasonable and civilized Kurds would be, I think, a workable compromise (I agree completely that the Kurds would have to agree to not cause more trouble in Turkey). We could retain a presence there or not; either way, it's an improvement over the current situation. Straightening things out there the way things are now would take years and a bigger commitment than the U.S. is willing to make long term.

I don't entirely agree with the idea that Iraq cannot be stabilized; I just think we have other things to worry about in the world, and the human and economic costs are simply too high. I'm not super keen on this sort of intervention in the first place, but that milk has already been spilled. I think I preferred the idea that Iraq was just a convenient excuse to establish a major U.S. presence in the Middle East, but, given the way things have gone, I don't think even that idea was behind the invasion.

Aresen,

Everyone knows Jesus is an American :)

Seamus | January 25, 2007, 11:50am | #

Does this mean that Ron Paul shouldn't expect any big contributions to his presidential campaign from Hewitt or Dondero?

taktix | January 25, 2007, 11:58am | #

Is there some way we can set up a system wherein a Political Ad can be removed from threads with a certain number of votes?

I'm sure I am not the only one who is sick of having a good discussion interruped by a sledgehammer of a post.

Eric Dondero | January 25, 2007, 12:04pm | #

I'm here. And I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THOSE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS!!!

The War in Iraq was without doubt the most successful Military Operation in the History of the United States of America. Less than 60 days we defeated an Army of 200,000 half the world away. Stunning in its brillancy.

We got Uday and Qusay. Killed the SOBs hiding out in their safe house. Displayed their bloodied corpses for the whole world to see.

Then two brave GIs pulled over a dusty rug near a hut, and found Saddam Hussein himself.

Can you imagine defining WWII as a "dissaster" having caught Hitler alive hiding in his bunker?

Yet the Liberal Media and Leftists Pacifists along with some dumbass Libertarians who support them, try in vain to describe this War as a "dissaster."

Oh, and let's not forget Zarcawi! The Liberals and their Leftist Libertarian patsy sympathizers, said, "we'll never get Zarcawi." The War is a "disaster". Zarcawi is still fighting the US.

Well, we got him. Took a little longer than we had hoped for. But we got him.

What happened? It was about a half a day story on CNN. The NY Times mentioned it on page A-18. And then it dissapeared from the headlines.

NOBODY!! Was ever called to task for their wrong predictions on Zarcawi!

We won the War in Iraq the VERY DAY that those two GIs captured Saddam Hussein. Uday, Qusay and Zarcawi were icing on the cake. The rest since has been mop up.

3,000 dead. Hell, more died in a single day at Antietam, and on the shores of Utah and Omaha Beaches during the Normandy invasion.

But then again, who is it crying about the "3,000 dead?" Mostly non-Veterans those who have never served, and those who despise our Military, mostly cause the feel guilty about never having served.

Don't be a Girly Man. Support our Troops! Support the War on Islamo-Fascism.

Eric Dondero Rittberg, United States Naval Vetera
Honorably discharged, 1981-85
USS Kittyhawk CV-63 (Aircraft Carrier)
USS Luce DDG-38 (Guided Missle Destroyer)
3 Distinguished Medals: Humanitarian, Sea Service & Expeditionary for service in a War Zone
Son of Chief Warrant Officer, Samuel Rittberg, decorated Persian Gulf War Veteran
Brother of Lt. Alexander Rittberg, First Cavalry, Decorated Persian Gulf War Veteran

de stijl | January 25, 2007, 12:33pm | #

"The rest since has been mop up."

Understatement of the decade.

jb | January 25, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Creech: If bloodshed is inevitable, the moral action is to not be the one shedding the blood.

Jennifer | January 25, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Eric, when's that freedom and democracy supposed to flourish in the Middle East? And serious question: if you think that Iraq's current situation can be described as a "success," how in the world would you define failure?

Jennifer | January 25, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Oh, and let's not forget Zarcawi!

Bin Laden, on the other hand, is best forgotten.

ellipsis | January 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

I believe it's foolishness to debate with a person beyond a delusional parameter. True believers can't be reasoned with.

joe | January 25, 2007, 12:55pm | #

No question, Eric, the military campaign against the Iraqi military and government was a stunning success.

Had we invaded Iraq for the purpose of degrading Iraq's military capabilities and destroying the Baathist government, this war would have been a success.

But then, if those were our goals, we would have left three and a half years ago.

You're like a UPS driver deliveringa smashed package, bragging about finding the right house an hour before schedule.

stubby | January 25, 2007, 1:09pm | #

Dave, it's hard to imagine Democratic activists doing this??? They wanted to strip Lieberman of his seniority even as he pledged to caucus with the Dems. Every time a Democratic representative or senator cooperates with a Republican, on anything, there are ominious mutterings and dark threats from Kos and his minions. I can't wait to see how the lefty blog will react to the blue dog Dems once they get fully cranked up.

Hugh Hewitt is a partisan, and I don't care for partisanship but get real. His brand of partisanship is not unique to the Republicans.

matt | January 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Ron Paul served in Vietnam, and I don't think his distaste for this war springs from misplaced liberal guilt.

Akira MacKenzie | January 25, 2007, 1:19pm | #

I'm here. And I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THOSE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS!!!

If you are so determined to prevent to support your delusional vision of a post-Saddam Iraq utopia, then maybe you should stop standing on mere statements, book passage to Baghdad, pick up a gun put worthless life on the line to defend it... oh, and take your fellow warpigs in the GOP with you.

Franklin Harris | January 25, 2007, 1:19pm | #

So, Eric, I take it you're no longer working for notorious "girly man" Ron Paul.

Akira MacKenzie | January 25, 2007, 1:20pm | #

EDIT: If you are so determined to support your...

I still say we need an "edit" feature on the comments section of this blog.

Akira MacKenzie | January 25, 2007, 1:21pm | #

If you are so determined to support your delusional vision of a post-Saddam Iraqi utopia, then maybe you should stop standing on mere statements, book passage to Baghdad, pick up a gun, and put worthless life on the line to defend it... oh, and take your fellow warpigs in the GOP with you.

Seamus | January 25, 2007, 1:33pm | #

must. . . not. . . feed. . . trolls. . .

matt | January 25, 2007, 1:36pm | #

I still say we need an "edit" feature on the comments section of this blog.
=================================
Does that exist?
It's beyond me in any case, I still don't know any html stuff.

Pro Libertate | January 25, 2007, 1:57pm | #

Aresen,

If a child is born via cesarean section, is he "natural born"?

Isaac Bartram | January 25, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Is there a hidden message in this Constitutional turn of phrase?

Well a good portion of that clause was written specifically so Alexander Hamilton would be eligible to run. :)

joe | January 25, 2007, 4:09pm | #

"Don't be a Girly Man."

You know, be less like Jim Webb, and more like Rich Lowry.

*snicker*

lunchstealer | January 25, 2007, 4:53pm | #

It must makes it that much less likely to work the next time Hewitt-style knuckleheads try to bully the country like that.

Y'know, I'd like to think so, but....

*kicks pebble*

Eric Dondero | January 25, 2007, 9:32pm | #

Ron Paul did not serve in Vietnam. Where in the world did you get that from? He was a post-Korean War era Flight Surgeon. He served bravely. But he served prior to Vietnam.

And yes, my old boss has gone over to the dark side. He didn't used to be like this. In the mid to late 1990s when he was first running for Congress, he was Pro-America and Pro-Defense.

Then 9/11 happened, and he completely changed.

All of us on his staff saw it, and were stunned by his turnaround.

It's a real pity.

I will support Rudy Giuliani for President (or Wayne Allyn Root if he runs), over Ron Paul.

Eric Dondero | January 25, 2007, 9:36pm | #

Is Jim Webb a "girly man"? Hell no! He's a Democrat, but I kinda like the guy. He's got Chutzpa, Cajones, Balls.

Last time I checked while Webb was a big critic of Bush and the Administration, he wasn't calling for "cut and run" like other Democrats.

And BTW, any Veteran who opposes this War for whatever reason, gets my respect. They are genuine.

Any non-Veteran, especially males, who oppose this War, are under great suspicion. More likely they oppose it cause they are trying to tear down Military guys, and feel guilty about their own non-service.

Eric Dondero | January 25, 2007, 9:38pm | #

Jennifer, are you sure Bin Laden is still alive? We haven't seen or heard from him in what? Two years now??

joe | January 25, 2007, 9:56pm | #

Option 1: Ron Paul's response to seeing the murder of 3000 of his fellow citizens by terrorist fanatics was to become less patriotic and less supportive of efforts to defend his country.

Option 2: Eric Dondero is a man with very little self awareness, who's reaction to 9/11 was to become violent and deranged, and to become furious at anyone who didn't devolve in the same manner he did.

I know which one my money's on.

matt | January 25, 2007, 10:11pm | #

Joe,
Don't you remember the lessons you learned in high school history class? Politicians who successfully avoid war are weakminded and effeminate. Politicians who start wars are brave realists who view the world accurately. Gosh, some people! Next you'll be criticalizing Lincoln.

Ramsey | January 25, 2007, 10:22pm | #

The argument that one has to be a veteran to be against armed conflict is a non-starter at best.

I have never tasted poop, but I can say that it probably is not something we should wallow in.

I have seen combat (82nd Airborne Infantry, not some cake walk on a boat), and I know it is probably not something we should wallow in.

Are you suggesting that one of those comments is less valid because I am not a shit-eater?

I am sure that you can come up with better reasons to support your hawkish stance.

Ramsey | January 25, 2007, 10:29pm | #

If we devoted the resources that we devote to war and "peace keeping operations" to effective humanitarian aid, education, and improving infant survivability a large portion of our current problems could be eliminated.


A high survival rate for children is one of the surest ways to lower the birthrate and poverty. Education is poison to fundamentalism (why do you think so many fundamentalists oppose it). We will never rid ourselves of the need for a military, but rather than bombing some families house because a terrorist took it at gunpoint, why not address the issues that cause a population to resort to terrorism.

Isaac Bartram | January 25, 2007, 11:13pm | #

All of us on his staff saw it, and were stunned by his turnaround.

Wow, I've known of Ron Paul since about 1980 and did what I could for him in the '88 LP campaign. His positions after 9/11/01 were not stunning to me in the slightest. Indeed they were exactly what I expected.

Dave | January 26, 2007, 12:00am | #

Eric, so what happens when a veteran says non-veterans also get to have opinions? Does the world explode?

Jesse Walker | January 26, 2007, 12:28am | #

All of us on his staff saw it, and were stunned by his turnaround.

Oh, really? Please list everyone else who was on Ron Paul's staff at the time. I'd love to hear what they have to say about this.

blogimi Dei | January 26, 2007, 1:42am | #

Ramsey,

I agree with everything except: "not some cake walk on a boat"

Anytime spent on an operational warship will prove to anyone that it is extremly dangerous.
It may not be tunnels or jungles or desert, however it is fuel, and machinery, and ordanence, and aircraft, and fires. Take a look at the U.S.S. Forrestal fire footage for a fucking "CAKEWALK" asshole.

Sorry instead of asshole I meant fuckface.

Kenneth Weitzel
USS Ranger CV-61
USS Constellation CV-64
Persian Gulf x2
Somalia
Eleven years active duty

blogimi Dei | January 26, 2007, 1:47am | #

I almost forgot about the cakewalk in the Pacific during WWII.

I am sure all of my WWII Pacific Theater Shipmates would appreciate the cakewalk analogy as well...

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 8:44am | #

Kenneth, don't forget the "cakewalk" of the USS Cole portside in Yemen in 2000. 17 Sailors killed by Muslim Terrorists.

And don't forget the "cakewalk" of the USS Starke in 1986, bombed by Saddam Hussein's Missiles, 37 sailors dead.

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 8:47am | #

Response to Jesse Walker:

Please contact Jackie Glore, Ron Paul's longtime Aide in Victoria, Texas or Dianna Gilbert, Ron Paul's longtime Aide in Freeport/Lake Jackson, TX. I believe both still work for Ron, though, not sure. If they do not, I'm sure they will be glad to confirm this story. Jackie was horrified by a callous statement that the Congressman made immediately after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

I'd be glad to furnish you with other witnesses if needed.

You may contact me directly through email or cell phone for a full accounting of these events. I'd be more than happy to give you details, with witnesses, times and dates, ect...

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 8:52am | #

Ramsey, I am fully suggesting that those who have served their country honorably in the United States Military should be regarded with greater significance, and regard than those who skipped out on Military Service. And I most assuredly say this about the Male half of our population.

It's a very simple case of the brave, versus the cowards.

You don't need to philosophize about it, come up with long dissertations about it, take a poll, or nothing like that.

It's quite simple: If you didn't serve and you're a Male, you've got a definite Girly Man side to you. If you did serve, you are an honored brave American. And if you gave service to your Country in War, as you did, you are a GREATLY HONORED AMERICAN!!

Thank you Sir, from the bottom of my heart, for your Service to our Great Country. Whether you like to hear this or not, you are a Hero.

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 8:58am | #

Joe, actually a little of both.

Sure I became deranged and enraged by the brutal murder of nearly 3,000 of my fellow citizens in the Twin Towers of NYC, the Pentagon, and on United Flight 93. It's pretty damned DISGUSTING if you ask me that you apparently didn't. One might even question your Americanism. Are you sure you were born in this country? Are you sure you are a Real American?

Secondly, Ron did go entirely in the other direction IMMEDIATELY after the planes hit the Pentagon. For the record, the Congressman was one of those passing by in his car on the highway when the plane hit the building.

He got back to his office and made an immediate statement to his staff, that was relayed to us in the District, which I found as nothing short of horrifying.

This is a man, that I had traveled with and served for 8 years prior to this.

The largest attack on the United States of America, save Pearl Harbor, and Ron Paul reacts as though, the lives of those who died was not at all important, but rather the aftermath was all that mattered.

Shameful.

Jesse Walker | January 26, 2007, 9:23am | #

Eric: You said "all" of Paul's staff. I don't think he had a staff of three. Please provide the entire list.

Ramsey | January 26, 2007, 9:31am | #

Sorry, after fighting in streets and caves with a small fire team under my control I have little sympathy for those that think modern naval warfare is particularly odious. 17 dead on the Cole is a damn shame, but the 82nd loses more than that in a single day to drunk drivers.

I never meant to offend, but my little brother is in the navy (Bremerton nuclear sub), and for the last six years he has spent 2 months at sea total, and the rest of the time in Pearl Harbor. My dad was on a river boat in Vietnam, now that has my respect.

So yes, maybe I do see a little disconnect between lobbing shells from 15 miles off shore and shooting someone in the chest at 15 yards in a city street.

Again, sorry if I offended, but I really don't think that all military service is the same.

Ramsey | January 26, 2007, 9:31am | #

sorry, not single day, single year.

joe | January 26, 2007, 10:26am | #

Of course I became enraged, Eric.

After a little while, I got my wits about me, and was able to approach the matter with a degree of rationality.

That's where we part ways; you've decided that your feelings were fun, that they made you feeling important and, obviously, superior, so you never made an effort to get beyond them.

Who made you certifier of sufficient "Americanism," anyway? I don't go around calling people fascists very often, but I'm going to make special exception for you.

Eric the .5b | January 26, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Any non-Veteran, especially males, who oppose this War, are under great suspicion. More likely they oppose it cause they are trying to tear down Military guys, and feel guilty about their own non-service.

Oh, lovely. Reverse chickenhawking.

[Ron Paul] got back to his office and made an immediate statement to his staff, that was relayed to us in the District, which I found as nothing short of horrifying.

Well, do you actually have the balls to repeat what he said, or are you trying to keep your aspersions too vague to be libelous?

Eric the .5b | January 26, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Of course, my probable mistake is to ask a serious question of a man who celebrates being deranged.

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 10:48pm | #

Other Eric, gladly, I'll tell Reason what he said to us. Have Jesse Walker or some other Reason reporter contact me.

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 10:51pm | #

Gee Joe, what a funny "Fascist" am I.

Let's see now. I'm a "Fascist" who supports drug legalization, prostitution, gambling, repealing drinking age laws, abolishing Selective Service, Gay & Swingers rights, Abolishing income taxes, ending foreign aid, pulling out of the UN, and cutting the Federal Government down to the bone.

Thanks for enlightening me to the new definition of "Fascist."

Limited Government Advocacy now equates to "Fascism" in the world of Joe.

Eric Dondero | January 26, 2007, 10:53pm | #

Jesse, our District staff was 6 at the time. 2 have since gone off and pretty much falling off the face of the earth.

Contact me privately to continue this detailed conversation. Be glad to furnish you with all the details you desire.

I don't think Reason's property here is the appropriate forum for such detailed and private information.

[e-mail]