Ron Paul: We did exactly what Bin Laden wanted by invading “two Arab countries”
posted at 9:43 pm on June 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
So this makes three things America’s Greatest Patriot has in common with Obama: They both oppose the war, they both lead their own cults, and neither one understands that Afghans aren’t Arabs. But never mind that. I’m sure I’ve asked this question before but I’m compelled to ask again. Does Ron Paul realize that he voted for the war in Afghanistan? We’re used to seeing pols repudiate their war votes, but at least when Hillary and Edwards do it they feel obliged to feign remorse and lament the error of their ways. Paul, by contrast, plows right on ahead with his lecture, seemingly oblivious that he himself is partly responsible for supposedly playing into Osama’s hands.
That’s at the end of the clip. The beginning of the clip is devoted to him wondering why we’re going around arresting terrorists in foreign countries. Yes, really. Watch the whole thing, though, as I think these few minutes come closer than anything else I’ve seen to explaining why so many conservatives conceptualize him as a leftist even though his policies are very far right. It’s not that he thinks the war is a mistake; so does George Will and so did William F. Buckley and their conservative credentials were fully in order the last time I checked. It’s that he can’t concede any sort of progress against the enemy, so dogmatically does he adhere to his isolationism. It’s no neocon fantasy that Iraq has been a disaster for Al Qaeda, unless the Guardian and people like David Ignatius (and jihadi propagandists?) now qualify as neocons. Apart from losing ground on the battlefield, they’re losing ground ideologically too, which belies not only Paul’s claim that they’re stronger than ever but that he understands the enemy better than the Republican mainstream, blinkered as it is by jingoism. He’s actually worse — considerably worse — than Obama is in this area. Watch the clip and tell me I’m not right.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
If there ain’t no blimp, I ain’t watchin!
lorien1973 on June 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Damn, he’s smarter than the current administration by half!
AUINSC on June 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Andrew Sullivan’s candidate of choice.
As has been said, we need to tighten our immigration policies. Not the ones to the south; the ones to the east.
SteveMG on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM
As evidence by the fact he doesn’t know A) He’s responsible for the Afghani invasion, too; B) He doesn’t know Afghanis aren’t Arab.
amerpundit on June 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I’m generally kinda sympathetic to Paul (if only on the cuteness factor) but I find it hard to believe that he believes the things he is saying. If he does, he’s way out to lunch.
You’re right.
VolMagic on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM
His Mother’s Fishsticks are okay.
He sucks worse than a lamprey eel.
profitsbeard on June 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I wonder, does he has a crisis of conscience while cashing his government paycheck?
Limerick on June 18, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Pat him on the head and send him on his way. :)
ThePrez on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Someone should ask him if the Afghan war he voted for is “unconstitutional”. How how the aghan AUMF is different than the Iraq version, constitutionally speaking.
Don’t forget, Paul thinks now that we are in Afghanistan to build Oil Pipelines like Michael Moore.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-on-afghanistan-oil-pipelines.html
jp on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Yeah, bin laden wanted two Muslim nations liberated by Bush and have his terrorist organization destroyed. Death by cop?
Buddahpundit on June 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Yep, still nuts. Nice to see that some things never change.
I didn’t watch the clip- any mention of UFOs, Bigfoot, or the global Freemason / Illuminati / Bilderburger conspiracy to take over the world?
Hollowpoint on June 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Or, I guess, “suicide by cop” is the term I was looking for.
Buddahpundit on June 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Ron Paul reminds me of the kid in school who intentionally said or did things that made people mad just so he could get attention, even if by “attention” he got a butt-whoopin’.
p40tiger on June 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
If we get attacked again in near future, the Paultards will be all over the place claiming its “blowback” for Iraq and Afghanistan, blah, blah.
they are just like the leftist on this with their logic, its rank Humanism. Like the left who think that Criminals commit crimes because Society makes them do it, its ‘our fault’ or they do so because of some sort of Genetic makeup that makes them commit crimes, etc. To Paul the same logic applies to Foreign Affairs, its all our fault.
these turds are not Anti-War, they are Anti-American. By definition if they were anti-war they’d spend a great deal of time reading and understanding the Jihadist Ideology and history and criticizing it atleast as much as us “neocon warmongers”
jp on June 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM
“Osama Bin Laden loves what we have done.”
No, he doesn’t. Unless Paul proves to me otherwise, Osama is with the ants.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
profitsbeard, well played on the Mrs. Paul’s fishsticks reference.
gmbdds on June 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I guess no response to 9/11 would have had bin Laden outraged.
Paul and his ilk are too clever for their own goods.
Somebody ought to tell him that occasionally the enemy needs a good killing.
mylegsareswollen on June 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Well this should make all the Paulnuts day’s around here.
LtE126 on June 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM
My gawd, I hate this sh#theel.
Purple Fury on June 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
We should have accepted the Taliban’s offer to turn bin Laden over to us back in 2001…would have saved a lot of fuss.
alphie on June 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I’m so relieved. There was a candidate for president who received more than 1% of the vote with even more delusional foreign policy views than Obama. More good news: my friend told me that Obama has a better understanding of economics than Michael Stipe, leader singer of the band REM.
thuja on June 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM
They offered to arrest and turn him over on the condition that we provided “evidence” he was responsible. Even while the world knew it was him and there was paramount evidence he was responsible, they claimed there was absolutely no evidence to suggest OBL was responsible. OBL didn’t claim responsibility for months.
amerpundit on June 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I watched the clip, and you’re not right.
…Am I the only one here that does as their told?
Rhinoboy on June 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Actually, the first admittance I can find by OBL is 2004.
amerpundit on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Well gee, if Osama loves it so much, why doesn’t he go on MSNBC and do a live interview. He can tell us all about himself. He does not need some crazy person like Ron Paul carrying messages for him.
BTW, far right and far left are not that different. They hate the government. They are paranoid. They are dogmatic. Just to name a few attributes.
In fact Obama has not named his VP yet, maybe Ron Paul would like the job. These guys deserve each other.
Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Everyone knows Paul favors shrimp. He’s gotten millions of dollars in pork to ensure that the shrimping industry in his district will always keep his deep fryer filled with oh sooooooooooooooo crispy deep fried shrimp.
RobertInAustin on June 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
The Taliban did not agree to turn Osama over. They said he was a guest. And that would be in violation of their traditions. Or some such shit. They made ridiculous demands and refused to turn him over. alphie is doing that thing the left always does: he is rewriting and revising history.
Besides, if the Clinton administration had taken Osama when the Sudanese offered to turn him over there might well not have been an attack on 9/11. But then again, the Clinton administration did not have enough evidence against Osama at that point to sustain an indictment. That is the system that Obama wants to revert to.
Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Bin Laden liked it when we treated him and his ilk as a criminal affair. Then through the Discovery phase of the legal proceedings during the first Twin towers in 1993 we had to divulge his phone numbers such that he changed them and proceeded with Twin towers part II. Obama not surprisingly likes this approach also.
Oh yeah, he really liked us going in to two countries and setting up killings fields where every wannabe virgin lover has disappeared in several bits. But the sad part is he never got to see himself, having been eviscerated in Tora Bora in Dec 2001 as he waved at the drone just before impact.
patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Paul’s quote in his book that the paultards are eating up is:
“Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies”
If I can find the time, I’m going to make a blog about his book with a point by point debunking and name the blog:
“Truth is Treason in an Empire of Crankery”….or something along those lines.
jp on June 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Well we have lost more than 4,000 American Soldiers and Marines with thousands more permanently disabled, burned up a lot of equipment and we have spent pushing a trillion dollars so I can’t imagine that OBL is at all completely disappointed.
Well if the enemy is Islam, as I believe it is, then no we have not made a lot of progress, not even enough progress to understand that Islam is the enemy and not just a few who have “Hijacked” the “Great Religion of Peace”.
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
If we had no evidence until 2004, Amerpundit…why did we invade 2 countries before then?
Think of all the wasted money and lives…sigh.
6 more months and counting.
alphie on June 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Bin Laden is worm food. I doubt very much that he cares about anything at this point.
“The dead know only one thing…it is better to be alive”
Asher on June 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Thanks for exiting stage left, Ron.
Send_Me on June 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM
“Why are we going into foreign countries arresting people”?
exerept:From a blimp enthusiast!*
*(canopfor regrets any besmirchment to blimps,balloons
or any inflatible thingy’s,as well as any real
blimp pilots are fans of said blimp!) haha.—-:)
So,Ron Paul wants the Clinton/Gore approach of dragging
the Jihady’s into the courtroom,now this is a brilliant
new concept!
canopfor on June 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM
When RP is arguing, he sounds like he’s explaining where he’s been to his wife, after stumbling home from the pub after a few pints.
silverfox on June 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
“Osama Bin Laden loves what we have done.”
Actually, Afghanny and Iraqi citizens love what we have done. Osama (if he is alive) is pretty much hating the fact that Muslims all over the world have realized that AQ is nothing other than murderers of innocent life, including Muslims. Osama had reached the podium, and was talking down to most of the ME; now, Osama is simply a murderer, and the one who is mostly responsible for bringing the worlds most powerful military machine into the ME.
Ron Paul is a nutter; plain and simple…
Keemo on June 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
MB4:
Yeah, right. We have pretty well run AlQaida out of Iraq and deprived them of their Caliphate with the loss of fewer soldiers than we lost in peace time during the Clinton years. That would have been when they were dragging our dead soldiers through the streets in Somalia.That showed them.
Not to mention the terrorists blowing Americans up in the Khoba Towers. Or blowing up our embassies or taking down our buildings. Or blowing a hole in the USS Cole. How many terrorists died in those attacks?
Right now, Osama Bin Laden is not a popular guy in the Middle East. Not so long ago, he was a hero.
Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Osama loves what we’ve done?
That’s why, if he’s still alive, he’s hiding in a cave somewhere, on the run, dragging dialysis equipment with him.
Mommynator on June 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
alphie:
You idiot. Everyone knew who brought down the Towers, but the Taliban were {are} a bunch of semi literate religious fanatics who liked to pretend they did not believe it.
But you do make a good case as to why arresting these guys is such a waste of time.
Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM
The enemy is not Islam.
If it was, Muslims wouldn’t be joining with us to battle the Islamists.
It seems clear to me that the Iraqi people (broadly speaking) are rallying around some sort of nascent national identity. It’s tentative and weak, to be sure.
But they are trying to transcend sectarianism and build a trans-sectarian national state.
If Islam was the enemy, this wouldn’t be possible.
SteveMG on June 18, 2008 at 10:51 PM
If he spoke any truth, he might have a point.
Hog Wild on June 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM
In fact I wonder why it was that the Clinton people did not just go over there and arrest Osama. I am sure that since they had already indicted the man they must have had evidence. After all, they were not Republicans so we can safely assume they are not war criminals. So why didn’t Bill Clinton just go get in there and get him?
Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Ron Paul is a waste of time, money and energy . . . he needs to take a hike and stay out of our faces.
rplat on June 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM
He may have gotten his facts wrong, but his point is valid. At least according to Michael Scheuer who knows a thing or two about Bin Laden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZNfuIvtLos
Jimmy Liberty on June 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Yes, with bunker busters and ordnance of all kinds sending Osama scampering from cave to cave, I’m sure he is relishing in his victory as puppeteer of U.S. action.
Memo to Ron Paul: Who gives a crap what bin Laden wants? Provoking can be fun only when the person you’re provoking doesn’t vow to chase you to the end of the earth, poppin’ out of a bowl of rice to bust a cap in yo ass.
With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. as villain was an inevitability. Quit using this “the world hates us” b.s. as your answer for everything, idiot.
Metro on June 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM
its sick, and intellectually and morally repugnant what Paul and Schuer and the left are doing. Completely excusing the Jihadist ideology and long history
jp on June 18, 2008 at 11:17 PM
if you had read the post you would have noticed
crawl back under your bridge and study reading comprehension.
chasdal on June 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Ron Paul is a nut.
Log on June 18, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Go home Ron!
WisCon on June 18, 2008 at 11:30 PM
You must not be listening to Scheuer. It’s appropriate to say “Sheuer and the left” because Sheuer is a right-wing Republican.
You’re saying he excuses the ideology. That’s wrong. He understands it. And he thinks a better strategy than we have now would be to kill the enemy without regard to civilian casualties.. than get out. Not nation build.
Jimmy Liberty on June 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM
RP = wrong. Dang, does this guy pay any attention to what they are saying on the other side? According to Zawahiri’s mentor, Bin Laden dismissed concerns that America would engage in a major way if hit as we were on 9/11.
He was surprised by our response (at least that’s what sources far more credible then RP say); and now they are bleeding out every hole thanks to our troops and spooks.
Spirit of 1776 on June 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Isn’t that kind of like saying “Dan Rather got the facts wrong, but his point is still valid about George W. Bush skipping out on his Guard physical…..?”
Ron Paul is about Ron Paul. He’s not Captain Constitution, he’s not the Savior of the Republic, and he’s not The True Voice of Conservatism. Since the beginning, he’s been about selling newsletters, books, and his own image to the rubes to line his pocket and that of his family. He couldn’t even “suspend” his campaign without a book plug. And his eagerness to be used by MSNBC is shameful.
JohnTant on June 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Oh, and as for OBL’s happiness…yes, I can imagine him chuckling in a cave somewhere…
OBL: Ahmed, can you believe it! My plan has worked better than I dared imagine. My goal of making sure Americans had to take off their shoes before getting on an airplane has been achieved! Ahmed? Ahmed…..?
:Boooooom:
JohnTant on June 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM
If Scheuer/Imperial Hubris and Robert Pape and “Suicide Terrorism” is all Paul has, he has nothing….but his wingnut ideology that is the best friend Bin Laden has in the West, along with the Left wingnuts.
Morally, what Paul is doing is repugnant.
jp on June 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM
You are correct sir.
wise_man on June 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM
No. Not even close. Do I even have to explain why? It should be obvious.
I can’t argue when you don’t put forth an argument.
Jimmy Liberty on June 19, 2008 at 12:11 AM
He’s wrong here. The world doesn’t hate us more than they did. What’s more, I don’t understand why that matters. We need the world to FEAR us. Killing Hussein went a long way toward getting them to fear us so that they would do what we said. They hate us anyway. They will find a reason to hate us so long as we are not like them.
My problem with the war is if we are going to go to war, lets freakin go to war and get the job done. . . otherwise lets not fight. Put your foot on their throat and tell them what they are going to do. We should have none of this ‘go in guns blazing and expect them to love you for it’ – that’s ridiculous and I’d rather not fight. We should have had their constitution written for them before we invaded. We should have secured their borders the minute we captured Baghdad Bob.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 12:17 AM
he does not understand at all why they attack us, the ideology and especially the long history on the subject. He’s a Rothbardian nutjob.
They attack us because of Sura 9:5 and 9:29, and what Muhammed told them to do. They are doing it the world over, attacking in Bali, Thailand, Phillipines, Russia, Africa, Canada….everywhere that is in the “house of war”
jp on June 19, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Scheuer knows something about they’re ideology, and the history. The argument isn’t about whether or not there are radicals that want to kill everyone in the name of Islam. Paul and Scheuer know that’s true. But they’re also aware that our presence over there helps radicalize more muslims.
What’s curious is why they’re attacking us instead of “turning on their own governments” as Scheuer noted in the video above. What Paul said is right, “They attack us because we’ve been over there.”
Whether being “over there” is a good idea or not is up for debate. But that’s clearly why the radicals are a threat to us.
Jimmy Liberty on June 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Jimmy,
Why do they attack, say:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
???????????
Why did Thomas Jefferson have to go to War with these same set of radical Jihadist in his day?
Scheurer is a joke, and since he’s left the CIA has gone off the deep end.
jp on June 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
its done the opposite in Iraq today, and the people there have completely turned on them!!!!!!
allowing Saddam to rule and Fund these Radicals which he did(hamas and supported Al-Qaeda linked groups) is what made AQ thrive throughout the 90’s.
jp on June 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=7a7ab4f4-9015-4f8f-91d7-df3f0a9fba1f&comments=true
jp on June 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM
They weren’t even in Iraq before 2003, to speak of anyway. There are now more there (AQI) than at the start of 2003.
That has got to be some fuzzy math there someplace.
And just how much of that was in the “Center of the Universe” Iraq now?
Mighty big price to pay for lessening his “sex appeal”. Islam is still very popular. Always try to remember that bit about the forest and the trees.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Doug Feith – the one whom Tommy Franks said was getting a reputation around here as being the dumbest #ucking guy on the planet! Yup that one.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM
I got one of those answers myself, at least from Feith. I asked: What did these gentlemen think the United States would ultimately get out of Iraq in exchange for our massive investment of blood and treasure? And had they learned anything to make them doubt the president’s often-repeated promise that Iraq would become an “ally” in the “war on terror”? Shrug. Not interested in answering.
-Diana West
I’ll worry about OSD, all of them, including Doug Feith, who’s getting a reputation around here as the dumbest #ucking guy on the planet.
- Tommy Franks
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Franks shows a military man’s ability to get to the heart of the matter. But Feith isn’t dumb. But Franks’ lament is a blunter, less eloquent version of what Fallows wrote in the Atlantic of the office of the secretary of Defense, particularly Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith: ‘What David Halberstam said of Robert McNamara in The Best and the Brightest is true of those at OSD as well: they were brilliant, and they were fools.’”
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:03 AM
At the risk of having rotten fruit thrown at me over here on this blog, I’ll say that Paul is on the right track, even if he has some of his facts mixed up. 9/11 was about more than killing Americans and destroying iconic structures; it was above all else a provocation. Just look at the economic impact that our reaction to the attacks has had, its hard not to see what 19 jihadis armed only with knives and flying lessons have done to us as nothing less than a roaring success from their point of view. Never mind the effect on our credibility internationally, the cause celebre it created for the jihadis, the fact that we’ve lost another 4K Americans because of it (which is why the media made it a big deal when the troop deaths surpassed the 9/11 count, in case anyone was wondering), or any of the other countless things both known and yet to be realized that this course of action has instigated.
ChenZhen on June 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM
At one time, Osama welcomed our action. He saw us walking into a trap. But just as our soldiers have been able to turn most ambushes against the attacker, we have as a nation turned the battle in a big way. Not just by military ability, but by the fundamental decency of our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen. I’ll say it again: it is a glorious paradox that among barbarians it is the cruelest that make the most effective soldiers, but among the civilized it is the most virtuous.
njcommuter on June 19, 2008 at 1:25 AM
I think you’re looking at 9/11 in isolation. However, it was a crescendo of a pattern stretching back decades. Arafat, the PLO, Abu Nidal, Black September (Munich Olympics), Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quaida…. really they’re all cousins, using perceived slights against Allah to justify the torturous death of innocents. It’s not that we over-reacted, it’s that, finally, we acted.
silverfox on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Oh, why not skip the Paulian condescension and grace us with an explanation? Because saying that facts are wrong but the point is sound is awfully contradictory.
JohnTant on June 19, 2008 at 1:37 AM
You know…we don’t need Ron Paul to tell us what OBL wants. OBL himself told us.
IIRC AP posted on his old blog parts of some manifesto OBL wrote in which he declared war on us and what it would take to appease him. Funny…destruction of AQI wasn’t part of it.
JohnTant on June 19, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Actually, in the 70’s, Arafat and the PLO were more influenced by militant socialism (solidarity with Moscow) than religion, but terrorism = terrorism.
silverfox on June 19, 2008 at 1:42 AM
I believe OBL’s main demand was that we pull our troops outta Saudi Arabia, JohnT…which we promptly did.
alphie on June 19, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Is there an Alex Jones in the house?
Ugly on June 19, 2008 at 5:32 AM
4,000 casualties!! OMG that’s worse than any war ever, how do we even consider pushing on?
Wait… that’s not right. Switch “worse than” to “comparable to” and definitely switch “war” to “single battle”.
Lehosh on June 19, 2008 at 5:36 AM
MB4:
You sound like alphie. Left and right meet. Yet again. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He was not running a theme park. Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorists, he even offered sanctuary to Osama in 1999. Now maybe you think it would be better if Saddam was still shooting at our planes and killing people and paying off terrorists and letting Zarqawi do the same thing in Iraq that the Taliban let Osama do in Afghanistan. But I don’t. The truth is that sooner or later we were going to have to deal with Saddam, that holding pattern was not going to last forever.
Terrye on June 19, 2008 at 7:07 AM
Yea, Osama must be thrilled living in that cave for the past 7 years. Anyway, he’s happy, we’re happy most of his associates are dead, so I guess everybody’s happy except Paul. It’s been a bad year for him.
orlandocajun on June 19, 2008 at 7:08 AM
No alphie, Osama’s main demand was that we die. He wanted to eliminate us. That is what he said. And besides, we did pull our base out of Saudi Arabia when we stopped flying the no fly zones. We stopped flying the no fly zones because without Saddam there was no need for them. Poor Osama, it is good that alphie and Ron are here to defend him. After all, if we would just leave those nice people alone, they would leave us alone. No doubt. All we have to do is build a wall around the US. Pull out all our bases everywhere and retire. Then like magic it will be just fine.
Terrye on June 19, 2008 at 7:11 AM
Something is wrong with the people who elected this nit-wit to office.
apoole on June 19, 2008 at 7:48 AM
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Exactly… Our military personnel are trained and equipped to get the job done; these men/woman are professional warriors. The only obstacle standing in the way of these professionals achieving absolute success, is politicians handcuffing them while sending them into battle.
I don’t understand why Liberals and other assorted weenies insist upon making a big deal out of what the rest of the world thinks about us. A few quotes from a few Americans who understand this, and are not afraid to proudly state so…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building’ by George Bush.
He answered by saying, ‘Over the years, the United
States has sent many of its fine young men and women
into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return
is enough to bury those that did not return.’
There was a conference in France where a number of
international engineers were taking part, including French
and American. During a break, one of the French engineers
came back into the room saying ‘Have you heard the latest
dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft
carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What
does he intended to do, bomb them? A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: ‘Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does
France have?’
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference
that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian,
Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception,
he found himself standing with a large group of Officers
that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped
their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that,
whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn
only English.’ He then asked, ‘Why is it that we always have
to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking
French?’ Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied ‘Maybe it’s because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.’
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in
Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. ‘You have been to France before, monsieur?’ the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.’ The American said, ”The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it. ‘Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !’
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard
look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore
at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.’
America is the greatest force for freedom and human liberty on earth. If the rest of the world doesn’t appreciate this fact, screw them.
America is the greatest force for freedom and human liberty on earth. If some Americans refuse to recognize this fact, screw them to; stupid ignorant a-holes!
Keemo on June 19, 2008 at 8:00 AM
The same breed who elected G.W. Bush governor, twice.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM
RP’s point seems to be that “running around arresting people” causes animosity towards the US which leads to events like 9/11. That’s a relief. Here is was assuming President Clinton sat on his hands and did nothing but since the first WTC attack, the Khobar towers, the African Embassies, and the USS Cole all happened during his presidency, he must have been doing something to piss off the terrorists. /sarc
RP knows that the bottom line is the thing that most stirs up the terrorists is our support of Israel and that our abandonment of that country would be the only “peaceful” means to quell them in any significant way. RP won’t out and out call for that because he knows that would be the end of his political career.
Kafir on June 19, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Silly comment about arresting people in foreign countries aside, his statement about doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted is 100% correct. The U.S. presence in that region fuels the animosity which translates into real-life experiences for the next generation of suicide bombers. It’s not just Playstations and the Pussycat Dolls that is causing their hatred toward us.
DanKenton on June 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Where is the line for bin laden where he would no longer like our response? 3 countries liberated? 6?
Is there anything that al qaeda could have done that would provoke someone like you or Ron Paul to respond to it? In other words, if al qaeda had set off nukes in L.A. N.Y. and Chicago killing millions instead of crashing airplanes into buildings killing thousands, should we still have avoided reacting to it because bin laden would have wanted us to react to it?
Buddahpundit on June 19, 2008 at 10:56 AM
You guys can keep making fun of Ron Paul but in 50 years you’re going to say “hey, maybe we should have listened to that Ron Paul guy.”
Ian on June 19, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Is there a sane Republican who can primary Ron Paul out of his Congressional seat?
Steve Z on June 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Rather’s mistake was that his evidence, the smoking gun, was fake. Paul’s mistake was trivial. It wasn’t relevant to the main point, that putting troops in two Muslim (not arab) countries would help radicalize more Muslims. He used the wrong descriptive word, he didn’t fabricate evidence.
Was that really necessary?
They tried that this year. Paul won with 70% of the vote in the primary.
Jimmy Liberty on June 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Buddahpundit on June 19, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I believe the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia long before the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole and 9/11. Bin Laden’s disdain for the U.S. grew out of what he saw was an occupation of his homeland and the Middle East. Bin Laden’s main objective, aside from the shock and awe of the attacks themselves, was to draw the U.S. out to fight in his backyard for both the marketing/recruitment aspect and the home field advantage. Remember, we still haven’t caught him yet, have we? Don’t confuse history with my personal feelings about terrorism. Unlike Paul, I would have put our nukes to good use in Tora Bora and sent the right message to these primates: F with us and you get to cook at about 7500 degrees. Instead, we’ve got 7000+ dead Americans, about $550,000,000,000 invested and NO BIN LADEN! Oh yeah…and a permanent occupation in Iraq that, like every other God damn place we go to, we won’t be able to leave completely.
DanKenton on June 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Actually, the main point is that that OBL is happy with what we are doing, and Paul’s “facts” are incorrect. Unless you want to point me to OBL saying he wanted to get the US into Iraq so as to radicalize more Muslims, that is.
The case has generally been that Iraqis (and Afghanis) are going to be drawn to the stronger winners in the conflict. And this case has been borne out, otherwise we’d have been losing hundreds of troops a day. Indeed, in OBL’s earlier writings he did not contemplate a prolonged US effort. He cited Somalia as evidence that we were a paper tiger and would roll over quickly. It’s hard to square that with the isolationist spin that engagement of AQ in Iraq is just what OBL wanted all along.
You can also skip the condescension…it’s hard to claim the intellectual high ground with a name like Jimmy Liberty.
JohnTant on June 19, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Just like clockwork. When the Ronulan Kommander speaks, the Paultards show up here regurgitating the Libertarian manifesto.
You have to give them credit though. In the political sense, trying to mash far left ideologies together with far right ideologies and make them co-exist in the same skull must take a tremendous amount of brainwashing.
Bravo.
Et tu Brute on June 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I framed the word “facts” in our argument. The title of this post points to Paul making a factual mistake about two “arab” countries, that’s the factual mistake I was talking about.
Now you’re trying to reframe what I was referencing. Saying that the “facts” I was talking about were the facts revolving around whether or not our policies embolden Al Qaeda.
I wasn’t talking about that.
Nation building is left wing, not right wing. I think a “right winger” accepting a big government foreign policy takes more brainwashing than believing in liberty as Jefferson described it.
Jimmy Liberty on June 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Give it up, Jimmy boy. You’re not “spreading the word” here.
Your idol Paul is a clueless crank that garners about 1% of the population’s attention. Although with all the fraudulent online polling going on in his name, I’m figuring it’s less than that. A very small but highly vocal minority still does not represent the majority of this country, no matter how high pitched the squealing gets.
The Paulbot crowd exists in a vacuum, gleefully parting themselves from their money and giving it to Paul, enabling him to continue spouting exactly the demented worldview his followers want, no, need to hear.
It’s a symbiotic relationship, you know. Just remember to continue your donations, of course.
Et tu Brute on June 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM
You also said Paul’s point was that putting troops in two countries would radicalize muslims, when the actual point was that OBL was happy about our actions based on that assertion.
Paul’s “fact” about radicalization is at issue. AP (IIRC) once made the point, and I reiterated, that if his “fact” were indeed a “fact” then we’d be losing hundreds of troops each day. But that is not happening, because the radicalization myth is just that…a myth. The JPFs (Just Plain Folks) in both countries are going to be drawn to the stronger winners…the ones who don’t abandon them out of a nostalgia for a largely invented view of 18th century history.
JohnTant on June 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Not in our conversation it wasn’t.
I framed “facts.” I was responding to his “two arab countries” mistake. You’re trying to say I was wrong, by trying to apply my statement to…
I wasn’t talking about that! Just admit you’re wrong.
Jimmy Liberty on June 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM
So now you’re telling me what *I* was talking about?
So much for letting go of your Paulian condescension and arrogance. Given that and your affected tone, I’m hearing all I need to hear.
JohnTant on June 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
No. You’re trying to tell me what I was talking about. You responded to my post, remember.
I already presented this as clear as can be. I don’t feel I’m condescending or arrogant, but you give me reason to be.
Jimmy Liberty on June 20, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Comment pages: