Friday, March 26, 2010

Thurmond, Tumpy, and other 1st Dist. candies give thumbs up to Iraq War

Posted by Chris Haire on Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:15 AM

State Rep. Tim Scott wasn't at the 1st District forum last night hosted by the Propeller Club of Charleston, and that's a good thing. As it stands now, there's still a chance he may get my vote on primary day.

(Yes, I'm as proggie as the next member of the liberal media — hell, they wouldn't let me in the club if I wasn't — but you've got to vote in the races that matter, and, well, this one does. The same applies to the GOP gubernatorial race. Right now, I'm leaning toward Haley, although I've been for Barrett.)

The reason Scott's a lucky man: The majority of his fellow candidates in the 1st. U.S. Congressional District race are batshit crazy, at least when it comes to their assessment of the Iraq War.

Here's an excerpt from The Post and Courier report:

[Propeller Club board member Robert New] also asked each candidate to name his or her favorite, at the moment, for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012, and to employ their best "20/20 hindsight" to say whether the invasion of Iraq was wise.

[Paul] Thurmond said the invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein was a dictator and posed problems "we needed to resolve." Witte said that although weapons of mass destruction did not turn up, "We did the right thing." [Tumpy] Campbell stated that "The best defense is a strong offense."

[Larry] Kobrovsky said yes and [Mark] Lutz said no. [Katherine] Jenerette said that America did not go there for democracy, "We were there for oil." But she said the invasion was a necessity because "If we weren't there, the Russians would be there. The Chinese would be there."

Really guys? You think the worst foreign policy decision the U.S. has made in decades is a good idea? I thought this was pretty much universally agreed upon by now.

Help us, Tim Scott. You're our only hope.

Topics: State Politics

Tags: , , , ,

  |  

Comments (8)

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

No, Tim Scott is not the ONLY hope. There will be a SANE alternatives in the General Election: http://www.robertburtonforcongress.com/

report   
Posted by goodkarmasc on March 26, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Well, now I know who I won't be voting for in the 1st congressional district race.

If Tim Scott would adopt a foreign policy stance similar to that of Republican congressman Walter Jones (NC), John Duncan (TN), Ron Paul, or even GOP Senator Tom Coburn, who at least recognizes a mistake--an important first step in not making any future ones--then he would recieve my support.

And I would like each of these Republicans to read this:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/18/…

report   
Posted by Jack Hunter on March 26, 2010 at 1:32 PM

If you think it it's "universally agreed upon" that leaving Saddam in place was a better idea, you travel in some very, very small circles.

report   
Posted by Stan 12345 on March 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Just because Burton manages to keep the word "Democrat" off his website doesn't mean he won't be a vote for Pelosi to remain Speaker. No way is he getting my vote.

report   
Posted by Stan 12345 on March 26, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Anyone who still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea or some sort of shining moment travels in the smallest circle imaginable.

report   
Posted by Jack Hunter on March 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

"Anyone who still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea or some sort of shining moment travels in the smallest circle imaginable."


Let's see... here on planet Earth the choices were Saddam stays in power or Iraqis have free elections.

Let's hear your case for Saddam staying in power as a better plan?

report   
Posted by Stan 12345 on March 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Here's the case for letting Saddam stay in power: 1) he posed no threat to us, and 2) there are plenty of unsavory individuals in charge of worthless nations that we were in no hurry to remove.

Oh yeah, here's a third reason: thousands of servicemembers would still be alive today.

report   
Posted by Jason Usry on March 26, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Jason--I thank for your service, both in the military and in stating the obvious. I would also add that in 1994 Dick Cheney defended George H. W. Bush's decision to leave Hussein in power, explaining that the chaos of a Sunni/Shia civil war would further destabilize the region, something that was obviously not in our national interest.

Then came Bush the second--who went to war for every interest BUT that of the United States.

I still agree with Cheney in 94. The US would have saved thousands of American lives and dollars, and we would be comparatively better off today if Saddam was still in power.

Americans who still cannot admit that Iraq was a mistake will likely never admit any war our government concocts is a mistake.

Liberals worship big government welfare with no questions asked and too many self-described conservatives worship big government warfare with no questions asked. And the growth of the state marches on...

report   
Posted by Jack Hunter on March 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews
Most Viewed

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS