Do our troops know something the Neocons either can’t see - or will not acknowledge?
By now Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the erstwhile “dark horse” contender for the GOP nomination for president in 2008, has made his positions on the war and on America’s decades-old neo-imperial policies very clear, and easy to remember:
“Bring all troops home, ASAP”
Neocons have used this position as a a supposed indicator that he “can’t win” because American voters want someone who is “strong on defense.” Well, it looks like those who should by all reasonable accounts know best what it means to be strong on defense don’t agree with the imperial leadership.
USA Election Polls just revealed today that:
Ron Paul was #1 in contributions from military personnel.
The sum of the money contributed to pro-war candidates exceeds the amount going to anti-war candidates but because Ron Paul is the lone anti-war Republican, he comes out the winner. This is precisely the reason why Ron Paul can not be discounted in the primaries. By being the only voice in opposition to the war, he does not need a majority but rather more votes than everybody else. With more voters siding against the war, Ron Paul has got to be looking like a more attractive candidate."
The “national security” argument of the GOP establishment is further disemboweled by the inconvenient fact that national security cannot, under any circumstances, be the real impetus behind “staying the course” in Iraq. Why? Because leaving our southern border open to precisely the kind of terrorists Bush claims to “fight” in Iraq exposes their argument as little more than a brazen lie.
If you use the burglar analogy, breaking into your neighbor’s home to “fight burglars” (where no burglars were previously seen) cannot be effective when you leave your own doors and windows wide open and your own house unprotected as you break down your neighbor’s door. (Let’s not even talk about what breaking down your neighbor’s door makes you, in the process!)
This so far sorely under-reported tidbit of election poll data reveals a shocking trend: Those who live up to their oath of office and actually lay their lives down for “defend[ing] and protecting the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic” prefer Ron Paul’s straightforward and constitutional solutions to our nation’s problems over those of any other politician.
The reason that is so isn’t hard to figure out, after all. Our soldiers die - while our politicians lie.
Our soldiers therefore want a president who will not make them fight undeclared wars they know they won’t be allowed to win.
They want a commander in chief who won’t squander precious American GI lives to uphold some stupid UN resolution.
They don’t want a president who supports an “outer security perimeter” around Canada, the US, and Mexico. They only want to protect the US.
In other words, they are far better able to recognize an enemy of the US Constitution than those who consistently work to subvert it while claiming to be their superiors.
But, what is more important yet, is that they seem able to figure out that the convoluted verbiage coming from the Democrat camp is in no way the alternative to the neocons’ war talk.
When all is said and done, they know a true patriot when they see one, and they prove that scare-talk like “Oh God, no. Hillary will win if Rudy doesn’t get nominated!!” will not deter them from voting with their conscience in 2008 - just as it obviously has not deterred them from voting with their meager wallets in 2007.
