Video: Ron Paul laments Israel’s “preemptive” war
posted at 2:25 pm on January 5, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Not so much moral equivalence as moral indifference: In almost seven minutes, he can’t muster so much as a pro forma condemnation of Hamas. Just what you’d expect from a guy who once asserted in the same breath that (a) he wouldn’t act to stop Iranian nukes and (b) Iran presents no threat to its neighbors. You’ll find that same logic at work here as he rues the spread of “preemptive war” — evidently 3,000 rockets fired into Israel don’t count as a first strike — before reminding America that Middle Eastern warfare is a bloody fact of life. In other words, this might not have happened if Bush hadn’t mainstreamed preemption by invading Iraq. Even though it’s been happening for centuries.
He doesn’t touch on proportionality but it’s clear enough where he stands given his passing reference to thousands of Qassams as “a few small missiles.” The one point I haven’t seen anyone raise on this subject is that the ethic of proportionality tacitly guarantees Hamas’s survival, which in turn guarantees that a two-state solution is impossible. Realistically, there’s no circumstance in which a months-long campaign to destroy the group would be a “proportional” response; the only one that would qualify is if Hamas somehow raised an army to invade and conquer Israel. So long as they’re incapable of doing that, useful idiots like this will criticize Israel for overreacting. And if they ever are capable of doing it, rest assured, they’ll give them moral cover then, too. Proportionality operates in only one direction.
Other bits and pieces to watch for: Ron Paul, who voted for the war in Afghanistan, whining about escalation in Afghanistan, plus his blink-and-you’ll-miss-it defense of Iran intervening on the side of Hamas given the fact of U.S. aid to Israel. Exit question one: He says the Palestinians are living in a sort of “concentration camp.” Whom, pray tell, does he imagine is playing the role of the SS in this analogy? Exit question two: Tangentially related, is it really true as Bill Kristol says that a heavy blow to Hamas in Gaza will be “a real setback for Iran”? Granted, it’ll make the Sunni states in the neighborhood a bit bolder in standing up to them, but how is it going to stop the nuclear program?
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
WTF.
the_nile on January 5, 2009 at 4:48 PM
btw, Saddam Hussein wanted to be a modern day Saladin(the position Iran is now in, using Hamas and Hezzbollah as proxies). We can not have a modern day Saladin to gain that type of political support in the modern, globalized world, period.
in the 1990’s, Saddam Hussein among others, paid Hamas Suicide bombers families $20,000 to go into Israel and blow themselves up and Kill Israeli’s in Shopping malls(and in some cases they killed AMericans, financed by Saddam).
Israel is, and has been, the Rational actor in this whole mess.
Hamas is a Terrorist orginization, whose goal is the destruction of Israel and advancement of the Islamic Caliphate.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Paul’s District 14
Paul’s district is next to mine which was once represented by Tom Delay, this election the Blue Dog Nick Lampson got kicked out for a new Republican.
NASA isn’t in Paul’s district, it’s in mine and most of the people who work there or related industry live in upper middle class neighborhoods like mine. That’s not representative of the majority of Paul’s district. He succeeds because most of his constituency agree with his domestic agenda and have little knowledge of his foreign policy stance which quite frankly wasn’t really relevant until 9/11.
But I tell you the truth that IF they knew that Paul blamed America for 9/11.. they would kick him out in a minute and probably would end up doing the same thing we did and lose the seat for only one cycle then elect a new Republican.
Texas Gal on January 5, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Good lord, that’s what every single garden variety apologist for terrorism has been bleating about for the past two weeks.
So what? Every instance where Israel opens the borders to these sociopaths, Hamas attempts to inject suicide bombers into Israel and the whole time their firing rockets at Israel.
Absolutely – those who elect terrorists should lose their land and ultimately their lives if it persists. Worked with Germany.
Oh yes, it’s the Hamas version of Code Pink, right? Bunch of withered old crows who hate their country?
Please. The charter of Hamas oozes violence from page. What source of misinformation are you getting this crap from?
I didn’t realize anyone collected taxes on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Because that’s all that Hamas and the Gaza Strip produce. Death.
The residents of Gaza are lazy, stupid, worthless people who everyday tell us they pray for death.
Give them what they so rightly wish for and deserve.
NoDonkey on January 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Supporting a democracy in the middle of an islamic mess is a stupid policy? Try again.
the_nile on January 5, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Wow.
All of the Israel-bashers have crawled out of their latrines for this thread.
Bottom line: if the idiot Palis had really wanted a peaceful and prosperous state that coexisted next to their Jewish neighbors, they would have had one a long time ago.
TexasJew on January 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Yup and they’re oil and fighters were useful in fighting the Soviets and helping them collapse. It’s just how you use them.
Oh and by the way we armed that “modern day Saladin” to our advantage in the 80s. Your nonsensical attempt to inject morality is laughable. Just a few years ago the Saudis killed our troops in Iraq with their proxies and we appeased them by giving them arms. Frankly if we want to micromanage the region, Israel is not a good focal point, it just hinders our ability to control the other countries.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Dale Gribble strikes again!
DethMetalCookieMonst on January 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Oh, and speaking for all my co-religionists, stop using a Jew’s name for your ID, you little prick.
TexasJew on January 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM
stand corrected on NASA, however I thought the guy that got 30% of the vote against Paul pointed that out with the little attention he got. Paul refused to debate him of course.
Paul is using the GOP, he is a crank who called Reagan a traitor and left the GOP to run on a pro-Drug platform in LP(and conspiracy theories related to that) in 1988.
he came back to the party to get elected to congress and for that purpose only. He’s a cancer overall, an Anarcho-Capitalist Paleo-Libertarian crank with lots of dirt in his closet that a well funded campaign could tear him to shreds over.
All they’d have to do is point out Paul is an embarrassment to them all and show why. Most would agree, 30% of GOP primary voters there already knew as much. So all they need is 21% more and Paul is gone
jp on January 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM
ROTFLMAO!!
What a ridiculous statement. I have been actively involved in the Texas GOP all my adult life.. 30+ years. If a Republican candidate had the money to run a well funded primary race against Paul and expose his blame it on America foreign policy, those rednecks would throw his butt out. I know they would. I live here. I know them. AND … I know what they don’t know.
Texas Gal on January 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM
“Curiouser and curiouser!”
Johan Klaus on January 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Supporting the Saudis make more sense then that resourceless sliver of land. Politicians see the only benefit as campaign dollars yet they’ll spew whatever nonsense because they can’t tell the truth.
Of course as I said before I think we should stay out of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but if we wanted to be interventionists on steroids going against them would make the most sense. We can have a sensible interventionist Middle East policy without getting involved in that mess, staying out of it would help us greatly by itself.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM
They can’t come over here and say it, but they are haranguing against Hot Air over here:
Ron Paul Forums.
Funny, funny stuff.
I like to check out that site whenever Herr Doktor comes out for some creepy.
catmman on January 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Insert Hamas video showing Child abuse via Jihad indoctrination here via MEMRI
Paultards are modern day aplogist of Nazi’s, who happen to worship Hitler as well, for good reason. Mein Kampf is still a top seller there.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:01 PM
This is exactly why I post notices here when HotAir and Malkin have their registrations open.
It would be nice to have legions emerge right about now.
From RPF, poster Angelatc.
We’re watching you guys too…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
catmman on January 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Because NASA is important to all of us down here. I was just pointing out it’s not in his district and his constituency isn’t the white collar for the most part.
He could have been defeated in the primary if his opponent had the money to play his debate tapes on TV. They won’t take being blamed for 9/11. That’s why he did a little of a back track on that in the next debate. But now I don’t know. As 9/11 fades, his chances for a 2010 are good. But of course it all depends on what happens on the world wide terror front in the next 2 years. Nuclear Iran could possibly derail him.
Texas Gal on January 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Israel isn’t fighting Hamas so much as they are fighting the Iranians and their Empire, who has been at war with them for Ideological reasons for decades now.
and yes, in the 1980’s before Saddam turned into an absolute madman, we supported the lesser evil who was at war with Iran at the time.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I’d think beside from the 9/11 idiocy, all the Alex Jones truther stuff, the Racist newsletters and other stuff, would be enough to garner another 20% of the GOP primary vote to go with the 30% that are already against him.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Nah, we gave him the WMDs. What did we expect him to do with it? Give me a break. He was crying to us for money after the war and we sided with Kuwait. We could have just let him have Kuwait and could have had both. Baker really screwed up on that one. The Saudis were a little too paranoid and we could have avoided if we just supported him like we did in the 80s but once he fought Iran for us we turned our back on him. That was a mistake, if we were going to ally with him we should have stuck with him and kept him as a check on Iran. Would have save us a lot of money in the long run and a bigger ally against Bin Laden who wanted him overthrown.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 5:10 PM
“1980’s before Saddam turned into an absolute madman”
And this is nonsense as well. He needed Stalin’s ruling style because he ruled a tough country. If he would have played kissy face with his enemies he would have been dead a long time ago. Maybe he was a little too paranoid, but he valued his life. On one hand you say the Arabs are dangerous and then you complain when their leaders recognize that their people are dangerous. Which is it?
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Saddam did not fight Iran for US, for crying out loud.
Saddam and Bin Laden were friends, allies, both hated the US. Saddam harbored some Al-Qaeda terrorist and financed some of their activities. Including Zawahari’s Islamic Jihad orginization.
in 1999, Saddam offered Bin Laden assylum and his support openly. Bin Laden chose the Taliban instead and fled there, since they were more below the radar than Saddam at the time.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Ron Paul also believes that America can be defended using just a few submarines. I am embarrassed that Ron Paul is a fellow Texan. Perhaps Vermont can take him?
Bleed_thelizard on January 5, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Saddam went way too far on what he had to do, he was sadistic and very paranoid.
He also oppressed his people, like most arab leaders, and keep them Illiterate. Which is a big reason why Jihad flourishes, these dictators are dependent on that and creating boogeymen like Israel and the United States to blame all his people’s problems on and empower him.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Now, why exactly is Hamas making crude missles and lobbing them at Israel? And how many have been killed by those missles? I haven’t heard much about these missles coming from Hamas.. other than they’ve been launching them.
popularpeoplesfront on January 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Depends on who the racism is directed at. You have to know his district. :)
The truther stuff and blaming America for the ills of the world would be stronger. He promotes isolationism and most of his constituency would support that so a contender would need to focus on the “how dare they blame us for fighting back to defend ourself after all we’ve given to those ungrateful people.” You’d need a really good campaign person that can put it into words they can understand.
Texas Gal on January 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I never liked Ron Paul. Lots of people did but I always felt something was lacking in him. What he did is typical of what I come to expect from him. Condemn those on our side and give the enemy a pass. Perhaps he reminds me too much of Eugene McCarthy. He just makes me feel really uncomfortable. I am not surprised he is bad mouthing Israel while neglecting to do the same for Hamas. I felt he always did bad mouth the USA. Sure he cloaks in in sugar coating but I feel he doesn’t really love our country. He’s not a leader.
kanda on January 5, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Wow, you and Bin Laden both had the same opinion of Saddam. Saddam was one of Bin Laden’s boogeyman. We could have probably squashed him before 9/11 with Saddam’s help. The Saudis weren’t going to help us on that one.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 5:28 PM
CNN in 1999(who has mysteriously removed this link within the last month)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
The Guardian in 1999:
jp on January 5, 2009 at 5:39 PM
A lot more Republicans could use some Ron Paul in them. Things like this are why, though, I could never support him.
JellyToast on January 5, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Here angel, read this
The “supplies” were cut off on Dec. 27th, after a few thousand Hamas rockets have hit Israel…the energy was cut-off to Hamas by their own rockets, hitting the energy plants that provides the energy to them.
Looks like YOU forgot to tell us this bit of information…
right2bright on January 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM
No crap that was after we invaded him you fool. Thank’s for making my point that we united people that we could have pinned against each other.
But your article proves nothing anyway, since “experts” believe does not mean it actually happened. That’s a lot different than facts, probably more “bad intell”. Half assed google searches usually produce sloppy results.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 5:45 PM
The cheese slipped off his biscuit again.
wepeople on January 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Awesome.
At least one person is out there telling the truth..
Without a doubt we should remain neutral in this situation.
Go Ron!
SaintOlaf on January 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Another Jew-hating bastard posting at hotair. Whenever a Jew defends himself and says no more, the anti-semites just ooze out.
The lies this moron spews are easily dismissed, but the “Who? Me? An anti-semite?” line needs to be rebutted.
First of all, not voting for Obama is NOT the samething. There was no moral right or wrong, just a question of politics. In the case of Israel vs. Hamas, there is quite clearly no moral equivalence. Israel is morally in the right and HAMAS are, in fact, murderers and liars. The fact that you can’t tell the difference says a lot about your judgement. Its the equivalent of a bully picking on a kid at school, and the teacher punishing both of them. There is no moral equivalence.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 5, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Nazi Paul should be parashooted in the middle of Gaza with “Mohammed is a Pig” tattooed on his forehead.
Aristotle on January 5, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Another Jew-hating bastard says “Duh, I don’t see the difference between good and evil. I’m just too fvckin’ stupid”.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Olaf is Ru Paul and Huck-a-doodle’s lovechild.
sven10077 on January 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Hard to believe he didn’t get far in the election
Do I need the /sarc tag?
macummings on January 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM
From where do you get your intelligence reports.
Johan Klaus on January 5, 2009 at 6:49 PM
So let me see if I’ve got this right. They pound the hell out of you with their missiles, and when you finally defend yourself by retaliating, it’s a “pre-emptive strike”?
Get real, Ron. Positions like that make us think your body has outlived your mind.
petefrt on January 5, 2009 at 6:53 PM
What are you disputing? That we invaded Saddam or that Bin Laden wanted to overthrow Saddam? Should I omit my question marks as well.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:00 PM
SH took OBL’s protestations so seriously he extended a welcome mat in ‘99
“keep the change” Levi’s
sven10077 on January 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Saddam had a bigger boogeyman after we invaded him dumbass. Maybe you should draw yourself a timeline, pictures might help you gather your thoughts.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Rare occasion for this, but…
+1
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I am not disputing anything. Just asking a question. But after dealing with muslims in the middle east, I found that lying when it was to their advantage was not at all uncommon.
Johan Klaus on January 5, 2009 at 7:12 PM
No, obviously. However Olmert’s weak leadership created an ambiguity. Israel has been under contsant rocket fire for three years, since before Olmert became Prime Minister, yet he only got around to responding to the barrage last week. The arbitrariness of this action has a led a lot of people (not just liberals or alleged anti-semites but also Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post) to conclude that Kadima are more interested in winning elections than protecting the Israeli people from Hamas.
aengus on January 5, 2009 at 7:15 PM
how’d that “bigger boogeyman” thing work out for the OTHER Mr. Hussein?
sven10077 on January 5, 2009 at 7:16 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/16/alqaida.september11
Of course the 9/ll commission didn’t seem to think that “Saddam rolled out the red carpet,” but I guess you think that was an inside job.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I know what they don’t know.
Texas Gal on January 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM
What do you know that they don’t know?
And what’s with the “redneck” thing?
Paul’s district is middle/upper middle class, is it not?
TexasJew on January 5, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Hey Levi’s did they get around to asking Gorelick(in between following up her brilliant success as Asst AG and running FM into the ground) why she put up the wall?
The 9/11 Commission was one of the initial political softsoaps around the entire matter.
sven10077 on January 5, 2009 at 7:21 PM
That’s a catchy little slogan, you’ve got there.
chunderroad on January 5, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Ron has this one wrong. I agree with him in general on several issues but Israel cannot let Hamas rocket them from the Gaza indefinitely. Israel has a right to defend themselves against those that seek to end the State of Israel and possibly begin the roundup and liquidation of Jews.
I have no idea what the Bush Administration and Israel talked about, but I suspect that local Israeli politics had more to do with why they decided to go than politics in this country.
Now, regarding our foreign aid to Israel, I can agree to phase out some of this due to budget and economic reasons here at home, but only if we start phasing out ALL the bogus aid we give. I’m convinced Israel can do quite well on their own if we phased out the aid.
However, there is no way the USA should let Israel disappear altogether. They are our friend in some areas, and they are a republic, and we probably get some intelligence info. from them.
This is no preemptive strike since Hamas broke a ceasefire from what I read.
Ron, I like your libertarian views on government, taxes, and economics, but there is no way this country can be totally neutral on foreign policy.
And for those Palinistas, there is NO way Sarah would allow Israel to get overrun. Ain’t gonna happen EVAH. Whether she rubberstamps all that Israel does, I dought it.
Sapwolf on January 5, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I loathe Ronulan Paul.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on January 5, 2009 at 7:26 PM
???
aengus on January 5, 2009 at 7:26 PM
That by itself is not an argument based on anything. Lying is very common in foreign policy. When we told Saddam that we don’t get involved in “Arab border disputes” before Saddam invaded Kuwait, we were apparently lying. Go to the Margaret Thatcher library and you will find the cable. It’s an interesting look into negotiation. Saddam was whining that the war we fought with the Iranians at our behest hurt his economy and the Kuwaitis were engaging in economic war on him. He was begging us for help. We could have definitely controlled him if we wanted to. And for more lying look at the incubator story. Yeah, we didn’t pay for the Gulf War, except for Gulf War Syndrome afflicted soldiers, but we could have handled that better. Saddam would have been a good check on the Saudis, instead of kissing their asses while they basically turned a blind eye to extremists. Saddam would have been a much better ally against extremists and at least a check on the Saudis to pressure them to fight extremists harder. Also the closer we kept Saddam to us, the easier it would have been to overthrow him once he outlasted his usefulness, instead we invaded him and had to rely on Iranian spies like Chalabi who played us like a fiddle.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Wow, this is one sizzling hot thread.
I thank Ron Paul and Allah for this. How’d this obviously meat-filled bone get off the table.
:)
Sapwolf on January 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I am not making an argument. I am just making a statement and asking questions.
Johan Klaus on January 5, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Oh I agree about Gorelick, but that doesn’t discount everything the commission did. Zelikow was the executive director, he wrote a book with Condi Rice and was on the Bush transition team. Was he covering up? What are you getting at? They also said that terrorists brought down the towers. Because Gorelick was on the commission do you think it was demolition charges?
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Wow, this is one sizzling hot thread.
Sapwolf on January 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Yeah, it’s like someone emptied out the Roach Motel.
TexasJew on January 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Do you think that terrorist did not bring down the towers?
Johan Klaus on January 5, 2009 at 7:40 PM
No, I suspect that what we were served up was a partisan game of hot potato that refused to acknowledge about 10 years of errors prior to 9/11….
are you saying Al-Guardian is a friend of US policy and the Bush administration and knew back in 1999 what evil Chimpy would do?
sven10077 on January 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM
You do ask a lot of stupid questions. Follow the context of the argument.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I only used that because it was the same source he used. Go to the 9/11 commission report.
Besides you are arguing an insignificant piece of the argument anyway. Frankly after we invaded Iraq and Iraq became our enemy, then after the Saudis turned to us instead of Bin Laden to overthrow Saddam, put troops on Saudi soil and then he declared war on us, the reason for both to ally would exist. Them being direct enemies was more advantageous to us. Come on it’s not hard, draw yourself a timeline please. It’s kind of ridiculous, sticking to insignificant points that don’t do any damage to my original argument even if it were true. In fact if I would concede that point it would just make my argument stronger.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM
You don’t answer a simple one. Not surprising.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I swear your nuts. Al Qaeda did 9/11. There now you don’t have to read more than two sentences instead of jumping in the argument without reading what the argument was all about. Fool.
LevStrauss on January 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Yeah yeah, Ron Paul fails to understand a clear situation, proposes a bad policy, and runs off at the mouth.
Anyone got some news?
gekkobear on January 5, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Good point. Ron Paul is about as relevant as any other addled, worthless, minority power incumbent.
And he has about as much chance of being President as I do.
So who cares what it is he blathers about?
NoDonkey on January 5, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Still sore that everyone saw the loony isolationist for what he was? Wah wah. That revoLOSEshun really came out nicely.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2009 at 8:24 PM
On topic-sort of.
My “spies”tell me that there’s going to be an Israel Solidarity rally in Chi this week.
The pro-freedom community could use our support.
I’ll give out more info if anyone’s interested.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 5, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I don’t know a lot about Ron Paul, but I occasionally see postings by supporters of his touting his ideas. This type of statement by him will make it difficult for his followers to be taken seriously in the Republican Party.
Someone who reviews the history of the past 60 years, looks at the assertions and assumptions of every side, and then actually concludes that Israel is wrong to attack Hamas in Gaza (?!?!??!) They lose credibility right then and there.
Red State State of Mind on January 5, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Hey Ron,
Time for some new shirts and an eyebrow manicure.
This guy would actually be sane if he understood the term, “Jihadist”
Barrack on January 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM
RON PAUL IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN!!!
Please you all, my former boss Ron Paul is no longer a Libertarian, nor even a Libertarian Republican. He was at one time. But after 9/11 he swung very hard towards Populist Leftism.
We on his staff had to beg and plead with him, and even threaten to resign, just to get him to support the Resolution in favor of the War in Afghanistan.
He is no longer Libertarian NOR Republican. We Libertarian Republicans wish to have nothing to do with him.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul
1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Committeeman
ericdondero on January 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Ron Paul is the direct descendant of Neville Chamberlain
joey24007 on January 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Ron Paul does not deserve the attention. His congressinal district should, however, be informed about Ron Paul’s crackpot foreign policy and 9/11 positions.
Phil Byler on January 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Some people just don’t like Juice.
watson007 on January 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Yes, like you tell the truth? Ron Paul is a Idiot. The man is insane. Just like you. Admit that you are a Jew hater. And you believe your own bull. You won’t get your wish. Israel will kick ass!
sheebe on January 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM
How in the name of Pete did this lunatic get into the GOP primary? I put this dolt in the same league as Nader and Kucinich.
NoDonkey, you are my hero.
StatenItaly08 on January 5, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Why even post what this nut has to say? He does this for reaction and to keep his name in the news. Think of him as a low rent McCain. Just shun the man.
Engrpat on January 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Yep, the finger painting class at the Daily Kooks must be over.
StatenItaly08 on January 5, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Ron Paul – why do they keep electing him?
Given the number of times Ron Paul has served in office anyone outside his district would think -”gee that guy must be great, for his district and maybe more, he wins every election he runs in!” But …
In 2008, Ron Paul ran unopposed in the general election. In the 2008 primary, his Republican challenger, Chris Peden raised something like 25k and contributed $125,000 of his own money – this a tenth of the Paul budget. Monetary issues aside, Peden was likely an unknown to the majority of the district. Peden’s previous political history was that of Councilman to a teeny bedroom community in the district. Peden’s community that has little in common (economically, educationally, ethnically, you name it) with the rest of the district (ergo Texas Gal’s observation). Moreover, Peden is better known in the district, a heavily Hispanic district, as the guy who tried to push for English only in his city. He lost before he ran.
In the 2006 primary Paul ran against Frank Sinatra Jr.’s ex-wife. Yeah, she lost. What a surprise. In the General Election he beat Shane Sklar. Although Sklar, a rancher, was described as a “blue dog” Democrat he was endorsed by the AFL-CIO. Ron Paul out fund-raised Sklar by nearly a million dollars (about .6m for Sklar, 1.5m Paul).
In 2004 Paul ran unopposed. Remember his district was part of the fall-out of the re-drawing of Tom Delay’s old district.
In the other years (96-2002) he ran largely unopposed & raised buckets of money.
In short, he has never had to do much, if anything, to win and he is a money raising machine. Apparently nobody really wants to represent Congressional District 14.
Paul is an odd-bird (to say the least) but he is also a bit of a local celebrity to his constituents. His constituency, like most Texans, love independence but they confuse his isolationist agenda with independence. While they may like his aggressive “no” voting on, well pretty much anything that has to do with taking taxpayer money from them to others, they may reconsider that stand in 2010; one word Ike. A good portion of the devastation is his district, and he stuck to his principles – voting NO on aid to his district. A safe vote, as he can appear to be principled, all the while knowing the rest of congress would vote to give aid. But this act may have taken the shine off his apple. Folks like crazy, but not mean & crazy. He will face his first serious challenge in his career in 2010, other politicians will see him as vulnerable, and the voters will not have forgotten.
this post has to be the winner:
very funny
batterup on January 5, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Not according to that study by the RAND Corporation.
From 1968 to 2006, only 7% of terrorist groups ended because of military force. Compare to 10% of terrorists groups ending because they win.
Terrorist groups are defeated through old fashioned policing and integration into the political system.
Mark Jaquith on January 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM
There will come a day………….
Talon on January 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM
You have got to be kidding me. So according to you, we should encourage the Latin Kings, Bloods, Cripps to integrate into the political system, huh?
The only way to defeat violent thugs is with greater violence. Unfortunately no one has the stugotz to keep the hammer on them.
StatenItaly08 on January 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM
all terrorist groups are not the same!
Why can’t people read some history and learn just a few facts about the Jihad Ideology and ultimate goals behind them.
jp on January 5, 2009 at 11:24 PM
The fact that this loon was actually a semi-serious candidate is a horrible indictment of our voting population. Check out the facts about Hamas, facts that the press simply refuses to report.
cannonball on January 5, 2009 at 11:59 PM
How old are you?
Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM
We should be on neither side? I think a few treaties with Israel say otherwise. With whom do we mutually share intelligence data? On 9/11, whose citizens danced in the streets with delight?
RonPaulLand is indeed a strange and wondrous place — I’m glad we aren’t all living in it.
unclesmrgol on January 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Yep. I live in that bedroom community that is split between Ron Paul and our new Rep. Pete Olson. Heck I don’t even live on the Ron Paul side of the district and contributed to Peden’s campaign in hope to unseat Ron Paul. And I do agree that 2010 offers a new opportunity because of the devastation that Ike reeked in his district. On a personal note, it was a hard decision for me in the 08 election to throw out the Blue Dog Lampson for the new Republican Olson for the very same reason. Lampson really did a good job for us after Ike but he is too much a Democrat on foreign policy. It was a mixed priority for me.
Texas Gal on January 6, 2009 at 1:10 AM
I think that it is the same question that you ask.
Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 1:39 AM
I don’t mind if we actually stop “supporting Israel”, inasmuch as we already don’t really “support Israel”.
The anti-semitic Ron Paul nuts will point to the billions of dollars we “give” to Israel every year, but that’s just not the case. We do “give” the Israelis billions of dollars every year, but we also get a ton of return on it. A lot of our boys on the ground and in the air are safer, faster, and better, because of Israeli technology research. Our computers we use are better because of research in Israel as well. Our lives are healthier because of Israeli medical institutional research. Chances are that you’re using a cell phone in your pocket where a lot of the technology was first invented in Israel and has helped to enrich our own businesses and lives a lot more than ever before.
We also literally give billions of dollars to Egypt every year. And what do we get?
Well, we did get a suicide bomber leading the pack of 18 others on 9/11 for our effort. That’s…pretty much what we get from Egypt. In fact, other than oil, we don’t get shit from the Arab world. The fact is, Israel is a country full of really smart people who work hard and love freedom and aren’t looking to kill us because we’re not like them. Whereas the Arab world…well, need I go on?
Didn’t think so.
But I will. Because fuckwits who support Ron Paul and hate Israel are assholes who can’t see what we actually get, how are lives are better, and the fact that sometimes you just gotta do what’s right. Fuckwits who support Ron Paul for these policies are anti-semitic, pure and simple. They’re also really fucking dumb people.
But, to be fair, I wouldn’t mind no longer “giving” Israel money every year. I say we stop. I’m all for it. What I do want in return is for Israel to lay waste to the rest of the region around it so that we no longer need to support them as a military ally.
Once that’s taken care of, and we support it, then I’m all for a whole different ball game.
Until then, Ron Paul nuts, shut the fuck up.
Summer on January 6, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Brilliant Post! Perfect all the way to the end. I toast you with my pepsi.
sheebe on January 6, 2009 at 2:51 AM
I like some of Ron Paul’s domestic policy, and I agree that we don’t need to be sending any of China’s money to Israel, or anywhere else, but this statement was so wrong.
DFCtomm on January 6, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Same astroturfing strategy as before the election. I swear, the liberals are more organized and do more to sway opinion or at least perception of opposition strength here on boards and threads than anywhere else. It IS the new propaganda. Make it seem like the opposition is overwhelming so those who actually do fall on the, eh hem, right side of the issue will be silenced, stay home, or be swayed.
Mommypundit on January 6, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Just looking back and watching this thread is very enlightening. Now I understand better why the Vietnam war was lost by our politicians. How can any country expect to defeat an enemy when we can’t even defeat the home crowd. These do gooders like Ron Paul have no idea how much they help the enemy. When the enemy thinks public support for the war is waning they try to hold out until public pressure forces the righteous side into doing the dumb thing and giving up in the face of victory. This is because the unbiased press is actually biased in favor of the enemy.
Someone equated Ron Paul to Neville Chamberlain. It’s an appropriate analogy.
kanda on January 6, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Charter of Hamas:
jp on January 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »