Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?

We have yet another live mike mishap. While reporters were waiting to hear from President Obama on his reform of the military, a C-Span mike picked up on reporters saying “See this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is president.” It is a far point. How can Paul claim to be serious about creating jobs when fewer wars mean fewer war correspondents? In the meantime, President Obama should be credited with taking an unpopular step in calling for a reexamination of our long-standing “two-war” strategy of maintaining an army ready to fight two conventional wars.

Here is the tape:

Obama’s reform of the military calls for stripping down the size based on his view that “the tide of war is receding.” It is a pretty daring move during an election year and would move our military beyond the Cold War assumptions to make it more efficient and tailored to current threats.

Source: NY Daily News

69 thoughts on “Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?

  1. raff, my money is on “all of the above.”

    It is all about money, connections and votes. Grubbing for them wherever you can get them, even if the stench gets on you and you cannot get it off later. You can always count on the general voting public to either not pay attention, or if they do, to not understand or care. Besides, recall the SciFi Channel used to have a program they called, “Short Attention Span Theater?” That program was a reflection of our times.

  2. Raff–my bad, I should have been more clear in my reply to Mike’s comment re “. . .or perhaps you approve.”

    Edit this:

    “And by the way, merely pointing out that Ron Paul and the JBS have some common ground on which to stand is in no way indicative of approval of the entire JBS agenda or their history.”

    To this:

    “And by the way, merely pointing out that Ron Paul and the JBS have some common ground on which to stand is in no way indicative of MY approval of the entire JBS agenda or their history.”

    Your point about approval/money is obvious; otherwise the candidate and the group are wasting their time and money.

Comments are closed.