Actually, my last name’s not Crawford. UCrawford is just a random login name I created years ago to play video games online:) Sorry…but if it’s any consolation I picked it because I always thought Crawford was a cool last name.

I’ve actually found that our intervention in Iraq is actually making us less safe. Neoconservatives like to claim that the Iraq war is crucial because it’s the only thing keeping the terrorists from attacking here when in actuality there’s nothing to prevent them from coming here if they really wanted to…they just don’t need to because we ship them plenty of Americans to kill over in Iraq. Plus we give them excellent tactics training by giving them our troops to compete against so they become more and more lethal, we’ve removed the Iranians’ mortal enemy (Saddam) without them having to sacrifice any of their troops, we’ve created an Iranian friendly Iraqi government that has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East against countries allied with us, we’ve given Kurdish insurgents a safe haven in northern Iraq to run an bloody insurgency against our NATO ally Turkey, we’ve reduced Iraqi oil production to levels below pre-war thereby restricting supply and driving prices up for ourselves, we’ve been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand of Iraqi civilians because we removed their government and disbanded their security forces allowing an insurgency and civil war to break out, we’ve provided the Sunni insurgents with weapons so they can destabilize the crappy Iraq government we built (and so they can attack us when we try to stop them), we’ve left our troops over there to be targets so a bunch of corrupt incompetent Iraqi politicians can continue to steal money out of their respective ministries and screw up the entire country under the protection of the U.S. military and on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime, and we’ve basically stretched the U.S. military to the point where it’s becoming both non-functional and a drag on our economy.

But other than that, invading Iraq was a great idea. Now we know for absolute certain that Iraq was never in any way a threat to attack us because they never had any nukes nor the capability to develop them and it’s only cost us around 4,000 American lives to find that out. Why wouldn’t I vote for a candidate who thinks invading was a great idea?

You’re joking, right ?

You want America to descend into Socialism? Vote for Hillary- the choice has never been more clear

Dude, even if that wasn’t loaded with logical fallacies, it’s still wrong. We’re not even close to the point where we choose between D and R.

He produced a civic miracle in NYC by finally standing up to the special interest groups that were actively destroying the city.He turned the city around without kissing any ass…….

Social issues? Must the hypocracy continue? Arent’ those issues best left in the private realm?

You want results, leadership? Then elect Giuliani
You want America to descend into Socialism? Vote for Hillary- the choice has never been more clear

The Biggest Obstacle To Electing The Right Presidential Candidate

http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/skilled-political-debate/discuss/entry/the-biggest-obstace-to-electing-the-right-presidential-candidate

The topic would be a good fit for your blog and BC is planning to do a major PR push for entries received by mid month.

For questions or to submit your post link to the carnival e-mail libdrone at gmail dot com

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that I’m seeing more “big L” Libertarian thought ’round here than I used to – UCrawford (we’re probably cousins as that’s my maiden name) I wouldn’t give a nickel for Ron Paul, as his stance on the war in Iraq alone would put this country in far more danger than we are now, but I reckon that’s the beauty of our system. We can disagree – and at some point in the next few months, we’ll have a clear determination of which of the lesser of all the evils that conscience dictates we must vote for!

And I’m sorry to say it, but I think Thompson is toast… The only reason he was so highly sought is because Republicans were so tired of their choices. He seemed like a fresh face. Now, he just seems like a tired face, and has done nothing to differentiate himself from the pack.

On the bright side, while he may not become President, I’ll bet he’ll do a good job of playing one on TV!

Why? Is he going to drop out the race that quickly?

I hope not. If I had my way, we’d have even more clones in the race. This “vote-splitting” thing isn’t so bad when you’re on the right end of it. :-)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

He’s on the wrong side of drug legalization, free speech, federal involvement in education, and foreign policy (especially on Iraq). He originally supported pro-freedom stances on immigration but he’s since changed his position and is now for closed borders. He’s fairly pro-free trade but he’s still demonstrated a willingness to engage in trade wars with Japan and continue embargos against Cuba. Basically, he’s less ideologically shitty than the neo-conservatives but he’s still a lot closer to them than he is to us. And he’s a far inferior candidate to Ron Paul (who’s on the right side of every issue except immigration). I may have liked the guy’s movies, but that’s no reason to put him in the White House when his platform’s so often incompatible with individual freedom. And nothing he’s saying is new or exciting…he’s about as middle of the road and morally compromised as any of the other candidates.

Why? Is he going to drop out the race that quickly?

There is absolutely nothing revolutionary, groundbreaking or impressive about Fred Thompson. He’s a standard big-government conservative Republican who took as much advantage of pork during his time in the Senate as every other Republican. He’s a consummate Beltway insider who’s only job outside politics has been acting, and he’s got a policy platform that’s basically just George W. Bush except with a little more bass in the voice. He’s virtually indistinguishable from McCain or Romney and he’s probably less-informed about foreign policy than Rudy Guiliani (which is saying a lot, because Rudy’s pretty damned dumb). The reason all the initial passion for the guy has waned is because the voters have figured out that he’s basically a fraud who’s got nothing to say that’s radically different from any of the other “favored” candidates in the GOP race. Ron Paul’s the only maverick in this race.

I did like him in “The Hunt for Red October” though.

So, are my buddies at TLP absolutely convinced that Thompson’s campaign is fizzling out?

Yep. Any enthusiasm there was for him over the summer has all but evaporated.