Why The Hysteria Over Syria?

If you are new to this story, understand, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

It also has nothing to do with dead civilians.

In recent years, your lawless federal government, US Inc., has killed thousands of innocent civilians with missile strikes, paid mercenaries and drone attacks. Obama authorizes these attacks regularly. You can be certain, collateral damage is not the issue.

And it also has nothing to do with a Syrian “civil war”.

What is happening in Syria is not a civil war. It is paid mercenaries (the rebels) trying to topple the Assad government. And it is US Inc. that is funding the “rebels”. Google it and see for yourself.

Here’s a couple of articles to get you started (Article I, Article II).

Does US Inc. running guns in support of mercenaries trying to topple governments surprise you? If it does, you need to spend a lot more time here and a lot less time in front of the television. Remember, there is a reason it is called the “boob-tube”.

By the way, this gun-running fact sheds a little light on the attack in Benghazi and the killings of four Americans. True, it doesn’t explain who did it. But now you can begin to understand why the supreme ruler and Central Planning blamed it on an amateur video.

After all, who in their right mind would come clean and confess the reason a covert intelligence agent—I’m sorry, an Ambassador—and his security team were killed was because they were running guns to mercenary misfits trying to topple governments in the Middle East. No, it is much easier to lay the blame on an amateur “B” movie that was apparently so bad it drove peaceful protestors insane enough to reach for their RPGs rather than their signs.

Ask yourself this: if China or Russia or some other “villainous” country was running guns here in America trying to topple your state or local government, how would you feel? Would you take action? Don’t these folks, watching US Inc. trying to topple government after government in the Middle East, have a right to be angry? Don’t they have the right to take action?

But let’s jump back to Syria.

If it isn’t the people rising up in a civil war against their government, and it is rather, US Inc. paying and supplying mercenaries to try to topple a government, then the next question to address is why it is happening, what has Syria done?

Remember when Israel and US Inc. went public with the sales pitch that Iran was building nuclear weapons? There were calls for an attack. Well, an attack didn’t happen but sanctions were imposed against Iran and the economy in that country has been hurt.

But last month, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal to build a pipeline to give Iran direct access to Mediterranean ports, thereby allowing it easier access to Euro-asian markets. Increased access to markets means increased sales.

But why does US Inc., and its controller, Israel, care whether Iran can increase gas/oil sales?

Because in March of last year, Iran announced it was going to start side-stepping the petrodollar system and start doing oil deals in currency other than federal reserve notes (US dollars).

Well, for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other NWO elites, who reap trillions by controlling the petrodollar system, this was way too much to handle. So Iran got put on the hit list.

Israel, the criminal capital for the NWO, and US Inc., the enforcement arm, work together. The relationship is just like Republicans and Democrats. It is the “good cop, bad cop” routine played out on the world stage.

In this case, Israel calls for blood—an attack on Iran because it will soon have nukes. The excuse has to be nukes, of course, because how can you justify pummeling Iran into the stone age just for selling its oil to China for yuan or Russia for rubles or Japan for yen? You can’t. So Iran has to become a nuclear villain.

Then, at the very next press conference, US Inc. takes the stage and announces its concern and calls for sanctions. These sanctions are put in place to punish Iran and hopefully, force it back into the petrodollar system.

But, let’s face it, if you are part of the NWO cabal, you know you have a long-term problem. Sanctions alone won’t do the trick. Iran is a big country. It sells a lot of oil. And selling oil outside the petrodollar system cuts into your profits. It cramps your life-style. It is unacceptable.

In fact, you have already showed the world this is unacceptable behavior. You whacked Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya for the same offense–stepping outside the petrodollar system.

Obviously, these messages went unheard, as apparently these mud-blood leaders in other countries just don’t get it. So, rather than an individual assassination, perhaps it is time to take down a country and send an unmistakable message to leaders around the world—fuck with our cash and not only will we whack you and your family, but we’ll destroy your country, too. Syria has been targeted because it gets the NWO cabal on the door-step of Iran.

Most of the world’s countries have turned against the NWO banksters (research BRICS for more information). Russia, as an example, paid them in full a few years back and Putin has been a thorn in their side ever since. And just a week or so ago, Hungary threw them out. The world has come to see them as the lying, cheating thieves and mass murderers that they are. It is only in NWO controlled countries, like America, where the masses still regularly fall for the ruse.

Now these countries can’t match the military might of US Inc., so a fight is out of the question. But the flow of money, on the other hand, can be altered, manipulated or shut off. And a major step to shutting off the cash flow to the NWO cabal is doing oil deals outside the petrodollar system.

This, crusaders, is what the Syria situation is all about.

The world is trying to use currency other than dollars to drive the NWO criminals into bankruptcy and submission. At the same time, the NWO inbreds are trying to force the world to keep using their money—to ensure profits forever—and will kill people and destroy countries to get their way.

Iran is the true target. Syria provides very convenient access.

Here at home, Secretary of Hate John Kerry, representing the cabal and showing off his sub-par facelift in HD for the world to see, gave a poor speech late last week and toured the propaganda press shows over the weekend to try to sell the sheeple on more US Inc. violence.

Unable to provide specific reasons why dead civilians in Syria pose a “national security threat” to Americans, Kerry relied on name-calling (Assad is a “thug and murderer”), and emotionally charged phrases (it was an “indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons) in his sales pitch. He provided no proof that it was Syrian government forces that passed the gas, none, just claims and accusations.

Perhaps it is just me, but the claim that “Syria has gassed its own citizens” sounds a lot like the claim that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” or “Iran is minutes away from deploying a nuclear missile”. To me, claims and accusations carry much more weight when there is evidence to back them up. How about you?

What about the pictures of the victims?

Well, as it turns out, in an attempt to support the Secretary of Hate, the government goons within Central Planning circulated fake photos to reference the chemical carnage. Check that–the pictures are not fake–the photos are real–they just document the dead of Iraq in 2003, not gas victims in Syria.

But, hey—you say “to-may-to”, I say “to-mah-to”—dead people are dead people, right? Who cares that they are different victims from a different country that died from different events a decade ago.

Is this an intentional act by US Inc. to deceive the American public or just bumbling bureaucrats?

I’ll let you decide.

But it does remind me of when the propaganda press showed the innocent victim in Palestine that, after the camera man got his video shot, got up off the stretcher and walked away (LINK) or when the propaganda press used a different school to document Sandy Hook events (LINK) or when the BBC announced that Building 7 had collapsed during the 9/11 attack — almost 30 minutes before it actually did (LINK).

Using fake pictures to support a fake claim makes sense to me.

And why would the Syrian government, known for months to be pushing the paid mercenaries back, resort to chemical warfare? Why violate the supreme ruler’s “red line” and risk drawing more US Inc. resources into the fight? Assad and his merry men are winning. It is a well documented fact that they have hammered the “rebels” in cities like Aleppo, Qussair, Homs and elsewhere. Why invite more foreign intervention? This move makes no sense.

But what does make sense, especially if you are trying to topple a government and you are getting your ass kicked, is to run a false-flag operation, gas some mud-bloods, blame the other guys and then turn to the American sheeple and try to bilk them out of billions so you can step up the conflict.

You have to escalate it. The guys you are illegally funding aren’t getting the job done and it’s been a couple of years now. The longer this takes the more likely the American public will find out it is US Inc. behind this “civil war”.

It’s clear machine guns, rifles and grenades aren’t going to take down the Assad government. Obviously, larger weaponry (missiles) is needed. But, since you already sold the public on the idea that this is a Syrian “civil war”, you need an excuse to introduce the larger weapons. Even sheeple know you can’t just stick your nose into another country’s civil war. Thus, the chemical attack and cover story.

There are plenty of reports that indicate it was the “rebels” that actually used the gas. Of course, they aren’t carried by the propaganda press but if you dig deeper than Fox or CNN or CBS, you’ll find them. Indeed, Veterans Today, as well as some other online news sites, has run a series of articles drawing attention to this.

I don’t have all the answers but I offer these points for your consideration regarding Syria and why the supreme ruler and Secretary of Hate have recently started to pound their chests. Is it really about dead civilians? Is it really about a chemical attack? Or is the back story just a wee-bit more complex?

Think about these points and come to your own conclusion. Sniff around a bit. Follow your nose.

But for the record, when I inhale deeply, I smell bullshit.

GET FREE WEEKLY HEADLINE LINKS—SUBSCRIBE NOW
Advertisements

Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

The Signs of the Times: The Eschatology of Ahmadinejad’s final Speech Before UN

The speech by the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the 67th UN General Assembly was religiously charged. Yet, there is no analysis of this in the media. What was interesting was not that he opened with praise to Allah, but that he closed with an Islamic eschatological vision that was the point of the various injustices and failures of capitalism (and communism) his speech outlined.

Here is what he said.

Ahmadinejad said “God has promised us a man of kindness, a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named (inaudible), a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ and the righteous.”

He then expounded further, “He will come to return all children of Adam, irrespective of their skin colors, to their innate origin after a long history of separation and division, linking them

What if Bush had made similar eschatological condemnations of the Islamic nations and world’s leaders in their face?

to eternal happiness and joy. The arrival of the ultimate savior, Jesus Christ and the righteous will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars, but through thought, awakening and developing kindness in everyone. Their arrival will breed a new life in the cold and frozen hearts and body of the world.”

It is a shame that the media is so religiously illiterate that they thought this was just religious rant or doctrinaire speak. All the injustices and failures he talked of were simply setting the stage for an eschatological warning to the nations of the earth that we are on the verge that Islam will reign as a punishment. These are the signs of the times.

Curiously, though I do not say this in the spirit of conspiracy, the UN transcript I’ve quoted from says the name of the individual who will come with Jesus in judgment was inaudible – more illiteracy. In fact, I heard it quite clearly. His name is also stated in the official transcript from the Iranian government.

The one who will come that Ahmadinejad is referring to is the Imam al-Mahdi, who is not mentioned in the Quran. According to tradition, the Mahdi will appear to bring justice and truth to all, when the entire world will accept Islam. His death (before the day of resurrection) will bring turmoil, uncertainty, and temptation. There is not agreement over the Mahdi’s precise relationship to Jesus, but Ahmadinejad was clear that they will appear together. The various interpretations are a denial there will be a Muslim Mahdi, since the second coming of Jesus alone will fulfill this role. Others believe Jesus will return as a just judge, but he will die after forty years and be buried in a spot beside Muhammad’s tomb in Medina that has been reserved for him.

The Imam al-Mahdi is the divinely guided one, and is a concept developed by the Shiis and some Sunnis into that of a messianic deliverer who will return to champion their cause.

What is clear, and was clear in Ahmadinejad’s speech, is that the Imam al-Mahdi will appear when the world is irretrievably corrupt. We are witnessing the signs of this time. His reign will result in a time of natural abundance, justice, restoration of faith and of defeat for the enemies of Islam.

Apart from the US representative remaining absent and the Canadian delegation walking out, the Israeli delegation was not present. The speech took place on Yom Kippur. Was this as a result of the UN organizers diplomacy, or did their fabled tolerance fail them by not selecting another date?

It is strange that George W. Bush was constantly attacked by the US media for using religion in his rhetoric and bringing America to the precipice of intolerance. Yet, here in New York this speech is not analyzed in the religious sense in which it was intended. What if Bush had made similar eschatological condemnations of the Islamic nations and world’s leaders in their face? What if a future President Mitt Romney were to outline a Mormon eschatology? Yes, violent demonstrations and flag-burning across the Islamic world.

Reality Check

As we head into Michigan and Arizona, the Republican party needs a reality check.  Fortunately, here it is:

Rick Santorum

The media is doing their best to paint Santorum as some sort of radical conservative religious whacko.  Hardly.  Santorum on social issues is saying what most Republicans are thinking.  The thing is, conservatives are scared to death of Obama winning re-election and many will gladly sacrifice what they believe to take the candidate everyone is telling them can win.  But here’s the thing, Obama’s economy has about a 26% approval rating and any Republican looks amazing economically next to Obama.  If Obama wins, it will be because he runs an incredible marketing campaign, race bates, and paints his opponents as somehow more socially radical than he is.  It won’t be because Obama saved the economy, unless moderates and independents are even more gullible and stupid than we thought.

What should keep Republicans up at night about Santorum is his passion on Iran.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  I think they will use it on Israel if they do.  But America is not ready to commit to another war.  I think we would have to see another 3,000 US civilians die on one day before the majority of Americans get the stomach for what Santorum has been talking about.  That includes what he has talked about with central America.

Mitt Romney

Romney is uninspiring by design.  His economic plan is a mixture of timid populism.  In the end, what he is running on is his record of creating a great deal of personal wealth and success, as well as his management skills.  But Warren Buffett, another populist, has also made great personal success through good management, and I think he would be a terrible President.  If this election were solely about the economy,the DNC would be looking for a new candidate and Romney would already be the GOP candidate.  The fact is, as long as Romneyites continue to downplay social issues, they will continue to loose the support of the majority of conservatives who actually care about social issues.  Believe it or not, many Americans on both sides of the aisle hold the value of their social and religious issues higher than the economy.   For example, many pro-lifers would sacrifice a great deal of wealth to stop the murder of the unborn.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Mitt Romney is the fact that even his economic plan has been as malleable as his social stances.  What was supposed to be Romney’s conservative strength has instead turned into calls to raise the minimum wage and tax the rich to redistribute to the poor.  In each case, this was a reaction from the Romney campaign to criticism from the left.

Newt Gingrich

Newt is the smartest candidate and he has the best ideas.  It is no secret that I believe this.  But Newt is easily destroyed by opponents and the media.  He has tried to run a cheap campaign with little or no ground game, which makes victory as visionary as a base on the moon.  Part of Newt’s problem is that now his electability is questionable instead of Santorum’s.  Newt isn’t going to win anything until he re-establishes himself as the only electable anti-Romney.  Every time Santorum wins another state, Newt’s chances dim even more.  Get ready for things to start looking real bad as Santorum wins Arizona and maybe Michigan.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Newt Gingrich is how easily he is destroyed by negative campaigning and how weak his campaign structure is.  If Newt can’t beat the unelectable Santorum and uninspiring Romney in every state, how would he propose to beat Obama?

Ron Paul

No one ever thought Ron Paul would win, except maybe his 10% who also think that being obnoxious will win people over.  However, it has been noted that Paul seems to have a cozy relationship with Mitt Romney.  Perhaps Paul also thinks only Romney can beat Obama.  Or, as some have suggested, maybe Paul has a secret deal with Romney to secure a VP slot for him or his son.  Actually, a Romney/Rand Paul ticket would be an incredibly smart idea and might be the only thing that can bring the extremes of the Republican party back together.  The only thing, of course, other than Obama himself.

What keeps Republicans awake at night about Ron Paul is his Iran policy.  Yeah, maybe we aren’t ready to go to war in Iran like we did in Iraq.  But I also don’t think most Americans are ready to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that Iran isn’t a threat.  I think fewer Republicans have an appetite to continue the World America Apology Tour under a different name.

Barack Obama

The real reality check for Republicans should be a refocusing on Barack Obama.  Believe it or not, there are people out there who support him.  After Solyndra, Fast n Furious, reversing Mexico City policy, forcing religious organizations to provide abortion pills, Obamacare, and everything else Obama has done, there are actually cars on the road with Obama 2012 stickers on them.  Somehow, Obama still has a shot in this race.

What should keep Republicans awake at night about Barack Obama is that despite all that he has done to this country and to the rule of law and constitution, there are people who still support him.  The media refuses to vet Obama, even ignoring his radical social positions on abortion.  Meanwhile, in desperation Santorum is releasing economic plans that are going ignored by the party and media.  GOP candidates are doing a great job of getting their message out.  Unfortunately, their message is that each other suck.  Let’s hope that Republicans will find a way to inspire the entire base, and expose Obama on fiscal AND social issues.

Too Bad The Debate Won’t Matter

It is way too late in the game for the groundswell of Santorum supporters to turn back and take a gamble on Newt.  At stake is handing the Republican nomination to an establishment Republican with a liberal tax plan, timid economic plan, and nothing more than a strong business reputation to run on.  But after last night’s debate, the choice for the Republican nominee is as clear to me as the day I endorsed him.

I was proud of Newt for making a supremely important point in the debate over contraception.  The issue isn’t a debate between someone who wants to keep birth control pills legal and someone who wants to ban all contraception and chain women to the kitchen sink.  The debate is between someone who voted to make it legal for doctors to kill babies after they are born and the eventual GOP candidate who simply wants to protect religious organizations from having to pay for abortion pills.  The radical here is most definitely Obama and both Newt and Mitt pointed that out.

Santorum struck out more than once.  He came across as arrogant, angry and mean.  He has already taken a great deal of heat for dismissing unprincipled votes as “taking one for the team”.  This is the opposite of what anti-establishment Republicans are looking for.  I will give Santorum one very good mark though for making clear that when he talks about what is wrong with the family in America, he id not proposing that we use the government to solve it.  I mentioned that a couple days ago as something Santorum has not done a good job making clear.

Romney did a poor job connecting.  He has put up a conservative facade, but his opponents consistently poked holes in it.  In the end, he will keep his diehard supporters and establishment Republican allies, but he continues to disappoint.

Ron Paul continues to live in a time machine fantasy world where we supposedly can ignore what Iran is doing because we made them do it in the first place and ignoring them will make them go away.  Ron Paul does not seem to understand that on a scale of rationality, radical Islamic terrorists make the communists and fascists seem like Locke and Des Cartes.  Mutual guaranteed destruction is no great incentive for peace when offered to suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, Newt does not have the ground organization to convince Santorum voters to switch back.  But after last night’s debate, we may be kicking ourselves for a long time for overlooking him in 2012.

Ron Paul finally gets airtime in the debates

Saturday night, Paul got caught.  Santorum flushed him out, but Perry nailed it.  Ron Paul was mid-attack against Santorum for adding earmarks when the subject of Paul’s own earmarks came up.  Paul then gleefully announced that sure he added earmarks, but he never voted yes on any of the appropriation bills.  Dr. Paul, that is a smoke screen.  You put everything you wanted in bills that you knew would pass anyway, and then voted against those bills to pad your record?  Sorry, not impressed.

Things got even worse when Paul attacked Gingrich again, apparently for not being eligible for the draft.  Paul referred to deferments insinuating that Gingrich received deferments in Vietnam, and Gingrich had to set the record straight that his father was in Vietnam and Newt himself was not eligible for the draft.

While continuing unfair attacks on fellow candidates, Paul once again defended his newsletter by saying he never wrote the ones he signed or read the ones he edited.  Paul did repeat a common liberal racist claim that illegal drugs  and wars adversely affect African Americans and perpetuated the stereotype that blacks are inherently poor.  His solution seemed to be to end wars and make drugs legal, but using the racism angle is a dishonest argument.

Paul made a gaffe when he talked about the US picking up Iranian seamen, which Santorum picked up on pointing out that if Paul was in charge our men wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Paul’s answers on economics amount to vague elitism.  Something many of us on the TEA Party side have been hungry for in Paul’s rhetoric is the what and how of what he wants to do with the economy.  Yeah we get it.  Paul is a constitutionalist.  He is the doctor of democracy and champion of freedom.  But what does that mean?  Paul’s answer, liquidate debt and cut spending.    I suppose we could all just go read his website to see what exactly he wants to cut, but I’m not convinced Paul even wrote whats on his website.  I’m sure if something objectionable was found on there, Paul would have plausible deniability.

Fortunately, Paul did basically rule out a third party run.

 

The Huntsman-Gingrich debate verdict: Take a second look at Huntsman

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and former Speaker Newt Gingrich met Monday in a one-on-one debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style format where each candidate was given five uninterrupted minutes on each topic related to foreign policy and national security during the 90-minute debate at the St. Anselm Institute of Politics, in New Hampshire. 

The debate flew along in terms of time and was brilliantly insightful.  I was extremely impressed with Huntsman’s grasp of the major threats facing the United States and his interpretation on how to deal with the challenges. The format enabled both men to explore each topic headline in depth and it was centred on substance no cheap shots were dealt by either man during the entire debate. The discussion points allowed both men to demonstrate a remarkable depth of knowledge on matters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Iran to China.

Huntsman who wasn’t involved in the ABC debate at the weekend and has recently been involved in a spat over deciding not to be involved in the Donald Trump debate excelled throughout.  Huntsman jokingly said, “I can’t wait to compare and contrast this format with the Donald Trump debate,” Huntsman said. Huntsman was relaxed, natural, and humourous but displayed a knowledge and vision which even the most partisan onlooker could not help but admire. There can be no doubt, the former Utah Governor came off looking like one of the most intelligent, experienced people running for office possibly with the exception of Gingrich himself.

Huntsman said Iran posed a bigger problem than any other country right now, calling it the “transcendent threat” and saying all options are on the table in dealing with the regime there. He continued saying a nuclear Iran would lead Turkey and other nations to build nuclear programs. “I think all options are on the table, and I do believe we’re going to have a conversation with Israel” when Iran goes nuclear. Huntsman also said the Obama Administration missed a huge opportunity to get a foothold in the region with the Arab Spring.

Gingrich put on another masterful professorial display, he managed to speak in clear and simple terms about all the issues showing the audience the vast amount of knowledge he’s picked up and retained over decades of foreign policy work. He controversially said that the next president would most likely be put in a position to choose between assisting Israel in a ground war against Iran or standing by as nukes were unleashed from one side or the other (if not both) which could result in a “second holocaust” for the Jewish people.  One thing you have to admire about the former speaker and his campaign is that he is prepared to speak on the controversial topics that most people think privately but avoid speaking publicly on. It is refreshing to see a presidential candidate being prepared and willing to discuss them on the campaign trail

On the topic of China, Gingrich said the Chinese will be the United States’ most important relationship for decades to come. “The most important relationship of the next 50 years is the American people and the Chinese people,” Gingrich said, differentiating that from the relationship between the governments. “If you don’t fundamentally rethink what we’re doing here, you cannot compete with China,” Gingrich added. “If we do the right thing here, China can’t compete with us.” This was well received by the attentive audience.

On Afghanistan Huntsman said the United States has had success in Afghanistan, and that it should bring the troops home. “I think we’ve done the best that we could do, but I think we’ve done all we could do,” he said, repeating his past statements on the topic, which differ from his GOP opponents. Huntsman said the time has passed for nation-building and counter-insurgency, and that the new mission should be focused on counter-terrorism.

Huntsman went on to say that the United States’ relationship with Pakistan is too “transactional.” “Pakistan, sadly, is nothing more than a transactional relationship with the United States,” Huntsman said. “For all the money we put into Pakistan, are we in a better situation? The answer is no.”

During his closing remarks, Gingrich highlighted how important it was for the public to see meaningful, in-depth discussions of the policy matters which will shape the future. “This is not a reality show. This is reality.

As the moderator was wrapping up he joked with both of the candidates and the subject of doing a two person format with Mitt Romney came up. He said, “I’ll bet you ten thousand dollars he doesn’t show up.”

Following the event, Huntsman said he’d consider Gingrich as a running mate, and added that he’d like to participate in other similarly-structured debates and challenged other candidates, specifically Mitt Romney, to one-on-one issues-focused discussions.

“Based on Speaker Gingrich’s excellent performance, he is now definitely, on my short list for people to consider for vice-president of the United States,” said Huntsman, immediately following the debate.

“We’re always looking for winners and losers in these things, but I think the winners might be the American people because they actually got a sense of the world views on display by these candidates,” said Huntsman. “I think that’s a good thing and a rare opportunity in these formats … as opposed to always defining things by who is up, who is down, who wins, who loses, they actually get a little good information, which they can use to assess and analyze what the candidates are made up of, and what they may then pursue in terms of policies.”

Overall, it was a brilliant format and anyone watching cannot help but notice the quality and depth of knowledge of both men. Both men were winners merely by their participation in the debate and the quality uninterrupted time afforded by the format. Huntsman was perhaps the winner in terms of debate result, as it allowed anyone watching to see how intelligent this man actually is; he articulated his points throughout in a very polished and accomplished fashion.

I’ll go on record now and say, if Romney & Gingrich destroy each other in the primaries. Voters looking for a capable, knowledgeable alternative to President Obama would do no harm giving Huntsman a second look regardless or whether people consider him too moderate, too liberal or too conservative at present. People should be elected on ability and have the confidence that their vote could be valued as an investment in America’s future. Jon Huntsman on the evidence would represent a very sound investment for any Republican, Democratic or Independent voter.

Definitely the most enjoying debate of the election season to date, it is a pity one of the networks don’t organise a head-to-head between two candidates each night in the lead up to the Iowa caucus. This would enable all ten candidates to be afford quality time talking about the issues and not throwing out cheap shots at each other.

%d bloggers like this: