I respectfully disagree that going into Iraq was a mistake; however, the way we allowed the enemy to rearm while we marched to Bagdad to claim our "prize" was a mistake as is the "Politically Correct" way we have hindered our troops in the conduct of this war thus far. Also allowing a disscenting party to openly "aid and abet" the very radical Muslims we are at war with by constantly throwing "road blocks" in the way of the military is the fault of the Republicans as well for not "standing their ground" when the war was being fought in the media. We lost far more of our "personal freedoms" during other conflicts of war (declared or not) in order to make sure the enemy was not given the rights of our citizens inorder to harm our country. I know many of you say, "that the war in Afghanistan is OK, but not Iraq". What makes the war in Afghanistan so "holy"? Will a war with Iran be OK if an Abama or McCain is in, or only if Obama is in because he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and will speak with Amidenijad while taking the military option off the table? Or, will you feel justified if we are attacked again because we deserve it and we can blame Bush even though he will be out of office?Who do you think the troops will blame for our withdrawll? I have said that Ron Paul was a "statesman" who was doomed from the outset because he was never given a national platform through the media. While he certainly could have been a more "viable" candidate with more media support, the two biggest messages put out by his supporters (I saw them at every gun show I went to during the "primaries") was to "pull out of Iraq" and the need to pull back to become "Fortress America" (my words, not his). To believe that the best course of solving a "war" decisively is to pull all your troops out is a prescription for the type of "national disaster" we had after Vietnam. No one covered the "human carnage" perpetrated on the Viennese, that relied on us, except during the helicopter evacuation in Saigon in '75. How quick do you think it would take Iran to overrun Iraq without our help? (Or, is that even a concern?) I know there are those that feel that no peace can ever be made in the Middle East; I hope for Israels sake that is not true. I do believe that McCain will not let that happen regardless of wether you believe the Middle East should "shoot-it-out" among themselves or that they are "hopeless". We are at war with a "radical Muslim" who seeks to enforce their will on all non-muslims. We don't have the luxury of "taking our football and going home"; for they will follow us. Our "servicemen" have fought a war to keep that war in the "middle east". We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Regardless how many people want to "bury their collective heads in the sand", we were not attacked on 9/11 because Clinton made war on the Muslims or because it was a small cadre of "disinfected" middle eastern men that were unhappy with our policies. They were Muslims, many whom were very "rich" and educated, that planned for years a way to strike at the very heart of our economic and western civilization their countries could neither immulate or compete. We didn't "bend" and crumble, but struck back quickly and decisively. Perhaps we should have struck Saudi Arabia, as well, or Iran while we deported every Muslim who was not an American citizen. I think FDR would have done that, and did something similar to that at the outbreak of WWII, as well as "incarcerate" some of its Japanese immigrants. However, he didn't have the ACLU, TVs in every home, or the liberal media that uses the motto "if it bleeds it leads" to block his ever move or he would have silenced them as surely as he silenced every disinfected opponent to the war effort. But this is not the 1940's; when the war gets tough, we forget about the attack and want to close our borders and magically bring all our jobs back into our country by doing away with NAFTA. We gave our production away as labor kept asking for more money, as did the government for corporate taxes, and we asked for more "cheap" consumer goods. As much as Ron Paul believes in the Constitution, he is not, nor never was a candidate who would garnish more than 20% of the vote. Most conservatives were for the war, as many "moderate Democrates" when it was popular with the media. Paul is no Reagan or Goldwater, but a social Libertarian with conservative fiscal stances on taxes and tarifs; hardly "mainstream" with any majority group in our country, which is why we don't have many "independents" or libertarians in state or federal offices to date. We have too many "factions" in our country to ever get our way over 55% of the time, which is about what any major party candidate seems to get in any major poll. While McCain is not a Conservative, except in his own mind, he does not even approach the level of "Liberalism" that Obama displays in his speeches and interviews. His background with his "associates", mentors, voting record, and the book he wrote should be enough to speak "volumes" of his belief system. I most assureadly believe he should not be elected to the "highest office in the land" unless you really and truely believe it is the only way our country will be "brought to its knees" as punishment for all the "ill will it has inflicted on us". Given the makeup of both houses of Congress with it probably going even more liberal because of disaffected conservatives who refuse to vote for "moderates". As President, Obama will have the chance to pass more "sweeping" legislation in 4 years than any other President in our lifetime. (Bush had a chance to do much the same thing if he had not turned out to be such a "fiscal liberal" and a "compassionate social conservative" toward those who sought his demise.) No veto's in his first term was his "reach across the aisle" that gave him a big "slap across the face" from the opposition in Congress. We watched and said, enough is enough, but instead of putting in real conservatives, we put in more liberals. Now, it looks like we are going to do it again because we tolerate liberals more than we can "Moderates" to run the show. (Boy, we sure will show them a thing or two!) When we had the '94 Congress with those "fiesty freshman" conservatives it was fun to see liberals in "disarray".) However, "politicians" know how many "one issue" voters there are among us and they can always show a candidate that is not for that issue sooner or later. Will we let them run the show until we get a candidate that meets our "collective standard" (we don't even agree among ourselves)? Is there a chance we might make it in 2012 or 2024? Last time we worked toward a conservative congress it took 40 years. I agree we are in a sad state of affairs where the least attractive candidate to the overall public is the one we usually want, but I don't think that even Ron Paul had any illusions that he could get any bills from congress he would readily sign except to bring the troops home (congress would still watch the media to see if they should take credit for that one). As a Conservative, I'll take a "moderate" over a "liberal" any day, while I'll support every conservative proposal, bill, and candidate that can replace them in the future. Having a liberal in both houses of congress and the white house will only get us more permanent damage in the short run and make it harder to make "inroads" to any "Restoration" in the long term. Voting for a candidate who is not "technically" in the race IMO is not a statement that will be noted by anyone that can change history; it will only give the satisfaction of knowing you voted your principles. I know where most of you stand and respect the opinion you've expressed, I thank you for allowing me to express mine. Jager
