According to the author, Islam is a threat to us; therefore, we must attack and meddle in their affairs. It doesn’t occur to the author that if you attack and meddle in their affairs, you make more enemies than if you leave them alone.

Oh, I forgot; they hate us for our freedoms. Therefore, by using the war as reasons to turn the USA into a police state, they will stop hating us because we will have lost our remaining freedoms.

Just found two more typo’s: a v an, and no possessive on target’s.

I will get this right eventually!

The problem is too much government which the FairTax proposal addresses not at all. The problem is not that sales tax is % better than the income tax.

http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

I am a firm Ron Paul supporter, although I do not in any way think that we should simply ‘run away.’ I view him as the lesser evil. I wrote a comment on the RLC egroup which sums up my feelings on the issue.
We were talking about the critera to use to decide if we were to give a candidate our endorsement. One member suggested that we disqualify anyone who voted ‘No’ on the (non-binding) Resolution to condemn the ‘troop serge’–although he qualified it with the disclaimer that it should not be a litmus test issue. Here is what I replied:

A little background:

October 10, 2002, H J RES 114 To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

February 16, 2007, H CON RES 63 House Non-binding Resolution ’Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.’

The following voted YES on RES 63:

*Castle (DE)
*Coble (NC)
*Davis, Tom (VA)
Duncan (TN)
*English (PA)
*Gilchrest (MD)
^Inglis (SC)
*Johnson (IL)
*Jones (NC)
*Keller (FL)
*Kirk (IL)
*LaTourette (OH)
Paul (TX)
*Petri (WI)
*Ramstad (MN)
*Upton (MI)
*Walsh (NY)

Those in *Bold voted YES on RES 114.
Those in Normal voted NO on RES 114.
Those in ^Italics were not in Congress at the time of RES 114.

I share your feelings that this should not be a ‘litmus test’ issue. I don’t think you will get a broad consensus across the RLC that political pandering by our elected representatives is a good test. I do not think that Ron Paul is pandering…he has been anti-war from the beginning. I know little of John Duncan, but at the least he is consistent. He could possibly be as principled as Ron Paul.
Bob Inglis is a complete unknown, so is ‘out of scope’ for this issue.
The rest are simply panderers: If they really wanted out they would do as John Conyers suggested, and pass a binding resolution–and then de-fund the war. (Conyers voted NO on RES 114/YES on RES 63, by the way.)
Those who voted yes/yes, are actually worse than panderers–at least in this retired military person’s mind–since you do not send troops over to fight and die to protect the interests of the United States, and then, start saying that the deaths of 3,000 or so of their comrades were in vain. They are willing to risk life and limb because they believe they are doing good. War is scary. It takes total dedication and commitment. A single hesitation or doubt can not just get a soldier killed, but a lot of his buddies, too. 
They also fight to win. Not to a draw, Not to a whimpering withdrawal because the political will here at home is flagging. One of the reasons they fight to win, is that they know for certain that if the enemy is not defeated and disarmed, he will be back with a vengeance.
The American people–with the complicity of the press–have let this be turned into a war on the terrorist’s terms. Think about it: Terrorism is by definition an Psychological Warfare tactic. Its only intent is to modify the targets behavior to a behavior that is more amenable to the terrorist’s goals. They cannot defeat us on the battlefield. They can only defeat us by destroying our will to fight.
They are most adept at Psychological Warfare. Vietnam demonstrated to the world that one of the greatest weaknesses of a Constitutional Republic such as ours–with near instantaneous, widespread domestic availability of information from around the globe–is to propaganda. The North Vietnamese lost on the battlefield but won the strategic war of wills. 
The only way the enemy can win is if we quit fighting. Our troops won’t quit; they know this stuff. But the enemy will know that terrorism works to attain their goals. So they will use it MORE. Not less. Combatants abandon tactics that do not work; they only continue to use tactics which do work. Since warfare of any sort always involves limited resources, the combatants even abandon less successful methods for more successful methods.
If the American people had simply ignored all the anti-war propaganda, this war might well be over and done with by now.
I personally was very ‘iffy’ on this war before it began–I am very much a non-interventionist–but now that we are in it and committed, I know we cannot stop until we win. I, like most in the military, do not like the war, but it must be finished. And we must win.
Those who ‘voted for it, before they voted for being against it’ should NOT be endorsed by the RLC since they are either a) stupid for not understanding the realities of the situation, or, b) nothing more than con artists on the public dole.

Yours in Liberty,

–Steve
sjburden@tampabay.rr.com