Libertarian Republican to run in Texas

In an email received here this morning Eric Dondero, the Libertarian Republican, announced that he is throwing his hat into the ring for Ron Paul's congressional seat.  Says Eric,

I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul.

On Tuesday Eric posted this brief clip of Rudy Giuliani in the last presidential debate in which Giuliani slammed Ron Paul for his thoroughly inane reply when he was asked if he thought we invited the 9/11 attacks. 

While I can't find the debate transcript at the moment, according to a clip of Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes, Paul did not take the opportunity to retract his statement.  I remain monumentally unimpressed by Ron Paul, and I encourage Eric to go forward with his campaign. 

Comments

[Rich Paul]

Anyone who supports an unprovoked war against Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is not a Libertarian.

You cannot impose "freedom" on people who do not want it at gunpoint.

[Tom Bowler]

It's quite the rage these days to sanctimoniously claim that Iraq posed no threat to the United States, and I might lament along with you if I thought your hindsight was 20-20, but it's not. Many people are unaware that regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy goal passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. But beyond that, the justifications for the invasion can be found in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Justifications go beyond weapons of mass destruction. And while it's also quite popular, particularly for Democratic presidential candidates, to argue that they were misled and gee whiz, if they only knew then what they know now; in reality Bush always argued that Saddam Hussein was an eventual threat not an immediate threat.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Those points were valid when Bush made them. They are still valid even though the war in Iraq has turned out to be more difficult than we all would have preferred. You may disagree with the concept of a pre-emptive war, but doing that means we will always be subject to attack by states who sponsor of terror, since their public disavowals of complicity will always protect them from retaliation.

And another thing. Where did you ever get the idea that the Iraqi people don't want freedom?