They should just have Huckabee and Paul debate. They're the smartest and most honest candidates the Republicans have. It's interesting Huckabee refers to Iraq as a country we broke. I suspect he would call the occupation a mistake if he could get away with it politically.

If I could suggest a counterargument to the argument that it's our responsibility to make Iraq better, it seems all we can do is keep breaking it more. Maybe our presence is part ofthe problem, not part of the solution, and the best thing we can do to fix Iraq is get out.

Huckleberry admits that Bush broke Iraq, hence a failure. Paul is absolutely right that the Necons got us into this mess. I only wish that Senator Clinton would have some balls and speak out like Congressman Paul. Oh,I forgot, Clinton voted for the war and feels like Huck Finn on this issue, Paul voted against the war(and against his party).

I'm just glad to see Paul getting some attention from the MSM. They act as though Thompson, Romney, and Guilinni are the only candidates running. I want to throw up every time I see those three, and the media acts like they shit golden bricks. Go Paul!

Copy of the email I sent fox news about their conduct in this debate:
"Fox News owes the entire US Nation an apology for it’s treatment of Congressman Paul!!
Commentators laughing into live mics when Congressman Paul began addressing almost Every Question?!?!
I wonder what the Fox News commentators would be saying about it if, say… CNN had commentators laughing into open mics while Rudy or Mitt was speaking on their network?

Are these people Journalists?
Or are they in their positions in order to promote a particular political platform?
If Fox doesn't take steps to correct this behavior, it had best replace it's "Fair & Balanced" banner with something on the order of "Partisan and Slanted"."

And the one I sent sean hannity:
"Mr. Hannity,

Is it true that you work for an which lacks the knowledge expertise to limit callers to a single vote in your call-in polls?
That is certainly what you've implied.
That can't be good for the reputations of the people of Fox News.
Why would you care to work for a third rate entity such as that?

Tell us the Truth, Mr Hannity.
Be Fair & Balanced, rather than Partisan & Slanted.
Fox News IS a large and well funded organization, fully equipped with the expertise and technology necessary to the task.
The screening system IS functioning as it's supposed to.

Ron Paul is winning the post-debate polls consistently because Ron Paul is Winning the Debates consistently in the eyes and ears of the audience.
I understand that this is difficult for you to accept, but it's time you dealt with the situation as it actually is, rather than how you think it should be.
America, and Fox Viewers LIKE Ron Paul AND his message of 'Government By the Constitution'!

It is your Right as an American to disagree with Ron Paul, and to disapprove of his approach.
It is your Right as an American to say so.
However, it is your responsibility as a journalist to Tell the Truth about the response he's getting.

However, if you prefer to function as a propagandist then you shouldn't be getting your email at FoxNEWS."

RON PAUL - 2008!!

Gordon: You are mistaken about Clinton voting for the war, she did not. This has been put out by opponents of Hillary, and it is NOT TRUE. I took the time to read the Bill that would authorize use of force under certain conditions, and these conditions were not met. The War in Iraq is the choice of GW Bush, who in effect used his power as CiC to do so.

Why does Senator Clinton continually vote to fund the war? She is a coward.

lylepink: What Hillary voted for was a resolution that put the power to decide if and when to go to war squarely in George Dubya Bush's hands.

What did she THINK was going to happen? Really?

Anyway, it was all just a way for Congress to dodge their Constitutional responsibility to officially declare war, or not.
They thought they had a Win-Win situation on their hands, where they could take credit if it all went well, or blame Bush if it ended up the way sane heads were predicting it would.

Here's an interesting CommonDreams.org article that dissects John Kerry's defenses of why he let One Man decide whether we ought to go to war, but it pretty well covers Hillary's excuses as well.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-01.htm

Nothing like resorting to words and phrases like "honour", "one nation", "get the mission accomplished" and then to Fox's public opinion's oscilloscope when they pick up the hearts of N.H. beating in unison, to start feeling good again. That's really sweet. Is this REAL POLITIK, American style? No, this is fundamentalist policy.

So, folks, here we go again: America sticks it out for the sake of honour? And, may I, humbly, ask: and then what? What's the price? What's the plan? If the plan is more of the same then you should know (because we all know) where that's heading. OH! But I forgot: These guys are real smart! They do have a plan! WOW! That's neat. The new guys like the Huckabees are going to clean-up the mess, get rid of the insurgence, get all Iraqis (and their sweet neighbours) all lined up behind a government of national unity. And everybody lives happily ever after. Who cares, it's only a few more dead Americans and Iraqui's. And, in any case, if there is a slight chance that this fairy tale doesn't turn out that way...well, at least America dies in honour, with the boots on. Perhaps the US gets posthumous medal. RIP.

Huckabee...if you got the answer...then there's one guy...your own buddy in the WH that really needs a plan...why wait another year to implement it?

Mr. Huckleberry, you go to run away from the past even if you still got to look Republican enough. Do read Mark Twain's "War Prayer". It's all about religious fervour and blind patriotism. And please improve on the language and get the word "honour" straight. If honour is sticking stubbornly to an evidently wrong course then there are better words for honour than this, starting with arrogance and ending with lies and deception.
You talk about winning the war. Excuse me! The war, as such, is lost. We are into another chapter. What you are perhaps trying to address is how to clean up the mess created by losing the war? The issue is pacifying the area. Forget now about democratizing the zone. That’s a hopeless case. The most you can achieve is some sort balancing the powers. And there some things you say that are correct but you are ambivalent about what needs to be done and what has already happened.

In your webpage you say “Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread”. You are not facing that risk…it is already happening. The Middle East community will never live in a peaceful bliss, not in our life time.

Issue is: there is no way to solve Iraq militarily and it really doesn't look like there is away to do so diplomatically as long as American troops are there. Like MH recognizes in his web: this is NOT a conventional war. Stick to that Mr MH…the opposite has failed. Persisting on the current course for a false sense of "honour" only prolongs the agony and postpones a solution…even if an imperfect one.

When MH says “I believe in overwhelming force to solve the issues” it sounds scary.
And, also, Mr. MH, you don’t have to get tough on Musharaff…he is the only reasonably sensible guy around and he has a very difficult situation at home. You have to help him, strengthen his position, so he can deal with his opponents… yes, even if he is a dictator or whatever. Forget about American style Democracy in Pakistan. If you had it probably Bin Laden would win. That's the weakness of democracy. Look at Chavez in Venezuela...or for that matter Hitler in 1933. REAL POLITIK, Mr. Huckabee. American troops in Iraq are feeding the troubles in Pakistan. That’s what’s happening. Otherwise there is a real risk of a radical islamic fundamentalist taking over and pointing the Nukes at India or anybody? Doesn’t it occur to someone that this is probably Bin Laden´s fantasy… or, worse, his plan in execution? President Bin Laden of Pakistan!

Didn’t it occur to someone that Sadam Hussein might have been the best deterrent to Iran? (Machiavellian, yes, certainly, but that’s REAL POLITIK). So you might therefore need to support Saudis and the Sunni’s and Kurds against Shiite extremism. That’s the world we live in. MH’s beliefs are almost as innocent as GWB’s. The world is imperfect and the US can not have an American “designer” world. US policy sounds as fundamentalist as islamic fundamentalism. In the sense that both stem from an unrealistic vision of the world, unrealistic believes of what the world should look like and what needs to be imposed on others. (And, please, don´t get me wrong here)

True leadership, true courage, true honour consist in admitting what's wrong and rectifying. It's going to need good information, lots of brains with insight, a president that listens, advisors that advise, and lots and lots of negotiations, give and take, with allies and the governments (like them or not) in the region. But, one way or the other, the US (and its leaders) must publicly acknowledge that the decision to go in, and how things have turned out in Iraq, and in general the so called "war on terror", has no other interpretation but "failure". Persisting on the course, the "let's stick it out and finish the job" message is a worn out message. Politicians must have tne honour to say that: Out loud. Republian or Democrat.
The candidates need to speak up with a clear and loud voice saying that a radically different direction is needed. Clearly, candidates can not spell out in meticulous detail all that's got to be done. They can only do that once they are at in the WH. But they have to understand the issues NOW and must show NOW that they have the experience and the abilities to launch the nation on a new course and be accountable for what they do...not only 4 or 8 years from now.
You'd be surprised how quickly people will forget "evils" if one willingly admits them. After all, it's GWB and his cronies fault. Any one can sympathize with the U.S. for that. GSB does not deserve to be in "Disney's Hall of Fame", he deserves to go down either as one more natural disaster (like Katrina, but worse) or in the Smithsonian as an extinct political specimen. It's either: “Let it bleed” more, or ”Let it be” and change course. Or, like Bin Laden proposes, the US should embrace Islam. Or like God whispers in GWB's ears, the world should embrace americanism.

I can't stand that, for most Americans, to claim we must not lose in Iraq for "honor" entails sending others to die for our beliefs but no real loss for us personally. To take a position where you risk nothing while others do is a moral hazard.

to Jason,
I agree with you. Just to aggravate it...
Otherwise, I am not even sure that the “beliefs” you may refer to are even at stake here. Not to the rest of the world and not to a sizeable portion of the US population. So the moral hazard really starts with the whole motivation to going out there in the first place. Let’s not forget, please, that the reason given to go into Iraq is pre-emptive warfare (an issue all on its own) and because of the threat of WMD’s and the connection to 9/11. None of that is there, regardless of how bad Hussein’s regime was.
If you take away 9/11 and the WMD’s GWB and his people would not have gotten away with the invasion.
Sending out others to die for a cause that isn’t there without personal loss is much worse than the moral hazard you already recognize.

The Evolution of the Republican Presidential Contenders
.
"When the Truth came knocking"

The moderator says to the assembled Republican Presidential contenders, "This is an open question for the candidates."

Evolution theory holds that man is a direct genetic descendant of hairy, arm swinging, tree climbing African apes who apparently survived despite having only crude rudimentary mental processing skills. The scientific process of carbon dating confirms the dates for such evolution and shows that man in this sense predates the Bible's time line by hundreds of thousands of years at a bare minimum. What is your opinion on the validity of carbon dating?

Romney: People will say there was a time that I embraced carbon dating but in my maturing process I have opened my eyes to how destructive liberal ideation can be to man's ascent. Junk science should not be employed to accelerate the decline of our moral virtues.

McCain: I am a firm believer that the age of the earth is a matter of state's rights.

Thompson: The media's obsession with my wife's youth has reached a new low. They're saying that she is in effect 'carbon dating' which I find offensive.

Brownie and Huckee (in unison): "Attacks on religious values are a staple of our opposition. Brothers and sisters, let us pray for God's hand to smite the ballot boxes of the heathen."

Giuliani: "Believing in evolution is weakness in the face of the enemy. It allows terrorist scum and their nine eleven democratic party appeasers amongst us to encircle our homes and maim our children. Science in pursuit of planetary wide war is to be exalted but to use it to appease Islamofascist aggression is treason. As I've previously said, nine or eleven times, I will only appoint judges that know the ramifications of using science in pursuit of weak kneed terrorist lovers.
Craig Johnson