Three years before terrorists attacked... Ron Paul warned us of our interventionist policies...
"Our National Security is more jeopardized by permitting this to happen because we're liable to start a war. We're liable to have our military men killed. We're liable to have more attacks on us by terrorists."
In 2008, Ron Paul was the only Republican saying that we should not be invading countries in the middle east.
In the recent New Hampshire debate, it seems that other candidates are finally getting some idea that Ron Paul has been right all along.
Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Every candidate who was asked took issue with U.S. involvement in Libya. Michele Bachmann asserted no "American interests" were at stake: "We were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack." Newt Gingrich spoke of "fundamentally . . . reassessing our entire strategy in the region." Ron Paul said we should get our troops home. Tim Pawlenty nattered on about something, but even he didn't take an opportunity to ask for patience on Afghanistan. John Huntsman, who was not announced and not present at the debate, told CNN he has doubts about the cost of Afghanistan and the likelihood of U.S. success there...
A flurry of polls this week show the public is on the side of the new sobriety. CNN had 62% now opposing the war in Afghanistan, just 36% in favor. CBS News found 64% want the number of U.S. troops decreased, and 51% said the U.S. shouldn't be in Afghanistan at all. A Washington Post/ABC News poll said 54% of respondents feel the war has not been worth fighting, and 73% said the U.S. should withdraw combat forces this summer. A Rasmussen survey found a combined 56% who said the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately or on a firm timetable, up four points since March."
Rather than these Johnny and Jenny-Come-Lately folks, why don't we vote for the real visionary? Why not Ron Paul?