Deciding to put a different spin on the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing.

Here’s the “only man who can save America” explaining he hasn’t the time to deal with any new 9/11 investigation. It’s too controversial and he’s got too…

Attacking him, smearing him, purging him fro your polls…are Republicans afraid of big, bad Ron Paul?

Afraid of? No. Disgusted by? Yes.

He has exactly zero chance of winning the nomination or presidency, and he’s marginalized himself enough that he lacks influence to even bring his favored issues up for debate. He doesn’t belong at the table with the serious candidates.

The ultimate solution to Muslim terror is to sever the connection between Saudi oil deposits and the Wahhabi death cult. That connection is the Saudi princes. The Saudi must be separated from the Arabia. That means Saudi Arabia must be destroyed and remade into a country or countries that do not export religious terror. The Wahhabis must be sent packing back into the desert to preach their poisonous faith to the scorpions.

If Ron Paul checked history, he would’ve known that Islamic terrorism started in the 30s by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood created by Al-Banna.

MarkyX on May 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Ummm, no slam intended, but Islamic terrorism against the US started in 1794 with the Barbery pirates plundering our merchant shipping and taking crew and passangers as slaves, per Islamic teaching and tradition, agains Infidels. Islamic terrorism itself started with its founder and has been a tool used throughout the ensueing 1350 years. Ron Paul isn’t just showing his lack of knowledge of American history, but of world history as well.

Unbelievable.  During the recent GOP debate, Ron Paul (R-TX) made some comments that suggested that the US’s past interventions in the Middle East had made us a target for terrorists.  Seems logical enough.  But it’s not the type of logi…

Our foreign policy for Africa should be “stay out” unless a country genuinely desires our help and is willing to cooperate e.g. Ethiopia.

We have several hundred airmen, soldiers and marines in Djibouti. They have engaged Al Qaeda in Somalia and they are also present to insure that the Red Sea (i.e., the Bab el Mandeb, a natural “choke” point) and the Gulf of Aden are kept out of jihadi hands.

I do not agree with your rationale concerning our African foreign policy. It has been the policy of the United States government to engage the jihadists where ever we find them. We are doing so in Africa, too. If we stay out Africa, we allow the jihad to establish themselves there, they way they did in Afganistan (until we invaded) are trying (but failing) to do in Iraq.

So he’s not a Truther?

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM

I guess should’ve left out the word “supposed”, because that video makes it pretty clear that Paul has gone off his nut.

But this is all a moot point really, as I don’t think he’s got a chance in hell now.

Since Paul believes in blowback, maybe he should figure out that our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is blowback to the foreign policy of Saddam/AQ/jihadists … somehow I don’t think he’ll see it that way.

I alluded to this before; the assumption is that they are mindless automatons who react to our actions, but that only we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

This is what President Bush calls “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Basically, it says that Those People are just animals, and aren’t responsible for their actions, and we have to make sure we don’t make them angry, because we wouldn’t like it if they got angry….

The good point being: America’s actions throughout the world can reverberate and have negative reactions.

How is that point particularly good? Clearly, actions taken by America can incite other nations to react negatively. When America attempted to limit Japan’s supply of oil in response to its invasion of Manchuria, Japan reacted negatively by bombing Pearl Harbor. When we invaded Normandy, Hitler reacted negatively by launching the Ardennes offensive. When we drove North Korea to the brink of annihilation, China responded negatively by mounting a massive counter-attack on their behalf. When we started the campaign to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, he reacted negatively by lobbing Scud missiles at Israel.

That list could go on for quite a while, and cover subjects ranging from trade to diplomacy, because the point is simply obvious. And in no way does it ever constitute an argument that the actions in question shouldn’t have been undertaken, save, in some cases, when indulging in hindsight.

I’m not sure we’ve been reduced yet to the level that a trivial point should be considered a good one.

To Keljeck and others who may be wondering about Paul’s supposed Truther status…this video should help you to clarify things.

So he’s not a Truther?

The Ugly American on May 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Paul actually said this towards the end of that video: “Usually an investigation on almost any issue is a coverup.”

Now let’s talk about undergrads who label their organization “Student Scholars” for 9/11 truth (or whatever).

A student is NOT a scholar.

Get a sheepskin, grad level, first, kid.

See, if you can lie about what you are in the name of your organization, you can lie about anything. Even 9/11, kid.

.

I fancy imagining them happily swimming like rats in Turkish toilets.

JaHerer22 on May 16, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Here’s what gets me though: Why, for the love of Pete, did he not just answer the question “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks?” with “Of course not!”? Instead, he tried to expound upon his point, without clarifying that. He may have done it afterwards, but too little, too late to stop a furor.

Yeah turns out back in 1996 when he and al-Queda officially declared war on the United States he issued a fatwa outlining why he was going to kill us–the reasons why? Well mostly our involment in the middle east, especially our bombing of Iraq. Weird huh?

Attacking him, smearing him, purging him fro your polls…are Republicans afraid of big, bad Ron Paul?

Thomas Jefferson’s first English language translation of the Koran proves we have been fighting Islam since the 1700’s. Correction, they have been at war with US.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Yes, and the Treaty of Tripoli, so very popular with the “we are not a Christian nation” crowd, was out first appeasement treaty.