This guy is becoming even more of an idiot than I thought. It's ok to want out of Iraq, but it's another thing to lie about it in order to get votes.
He was properly smacked by McCain for his comments. To which Ron Paul supporters tried to boo McCain, but were drowned out with cheers for McCain as McCain schooled Paul on the facts of Vietnam.
I will post video as soon as I have it, and the latest numbers of a decline in violence in Iraq. Which Paul says is because the Brits are pulling out of Basra. Problem is that the violence in Basra declined 80% WHILE the Brits were there. They are pulling out because there is no more need for them there.
Here is a graph that shows the decline in violence in Iraq since the surge.
H/T: Gateway Pundit ...
- Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
- Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
- Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
- Basra violence is down by 90%.
- Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
- IED attacks down by 55%.
- Average daily attacks down by 42%.
The numbers were taken from Aljazeera, DefenseLink, and Investor's Business Daily.
Here is a link to confirm those numbers further, and below is a video from the Pentagon Channel (courtesy of Amy Proctor).
Let's not forget that Iraq has just asked us to stay indefinitely while kicking the UN to the curb. This happened just days after AQI's last stronghold in Iraq was taken by the coalition.
As AQI is running for their lives ... 6000 Sunnis just signed up with the coalition to cut off their escape routes.
I've been telling you for a while now about the progress in Iraq before, and since, the surge.
It's bad enough that Ron Paul believes in conspiracies, opposed Amber Alert, thinks it's ok for minor children to be taken out of state to get abortions without the parents knowing, is a huge porker, and don't even get me started on his views of the CIA and FBI. He's got to tone down the lies about Iraq, and focus on potential conflicts in the future.
As soon as I can find video of Ron Paul saying we lost ... I'll post it.
Here is the transcript for the debate when Ron Paul said the surge failed.
"Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.
The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They’re in charge up north — the Shia — the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there’s no violence up there or nearly as much."
I've seen a few people post my story in full around the net (please provide a link back to me), and I've been reading comments from RP supporters saying how violence went down because the Brits left. Not so, and here's the proof.
As you can see, when the Brits initially pulled back violence went up. What Paul and his supporters keep neglecting to tell you is that we only maintain control of Iraqi territory until the Iraqis can take over security there. This is hardly an empirical strategy Rep. Paul.
I outlined how much of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces here.
The Brits pulled back because Basra was always a relatively safe place in Iraq due to the low diversity level, and the Iraqis were ready to take control there. So they did, and they kicked the crap out of the Shiite militia to restore order. That's the template for Iraq. Once the Iraqis are ready ... let them do the work, but they have to be ready. If we pull back when they aren't ready ... the results will be disastrous.
Paul also said that Sadr won in souther Iraq. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on Paul's part. Not only has Sadr not won ... his forces are in shambles.
After Sadr went into hiding shortly before the surge, his forces split into rival factions. He would later reemerge to attempt to reunite his militia, but a particularly nasty battle for Sadre's forces in Karbala forced him to call for a 6 month cessation of hostilities so he could repair the damage done to his organization.
Hardly the actions of someone who was victorious.
Finally, I found the video from the debate where Ron Paul says the surge failed, we lost, and seemed to endorse a Sadr victory in Basra as a good thing.
Oh, and Rep. Paul, those people in the north are called the Kurds. They want us to stay, and it isn't a good sign to have a presidential candidate that can't identify who the Kurds are. Especially with the issues between Kurds and Turkey.
Here's another video where Ron Paul talks about his $4.3 million raised on Guy Fawkes day. The question and answer start at 1:38 into the vid.
Paul forgot to mention that a decent chunk of that money came from Stormfront, a white supremacist group, and whether or not he's returned any of the racist's money. Since he cited the full $4.3 million ... I doubt he's refunded anything.
Here's a link about the Paul/Stormfront connection.
Here's a vid with Stormfront radio.
You get the idea.
I am in no way saying that Paul is a racist, but racists have latched onto his campaign, and he is not preventing their support from reaching his campaign funds. Nor is he denouncing them.
It is also important to note that while the honcho at Stormfront only donated $500 ... he and other racist groups lobbied for Paul in mass for the 5th of November fundraiser.