Video: Ron Paul knocks paper money, Afghanistan surge at CPAC
posted at 8:19 pm on February 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Skip ahead to 13:35 for the start of the foreign-policy passage — a few minutes in, he recycles the bogus Lancet statistic of a million Iraqi deaths from the war — or to 16:20 for a history lesson that culminates with Afghanistan and begins with the claim that our entry into World War I somehow led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century. This, of course, is why the left appreciates him even though his economic philosophy’s anathema: There’s no violence anywhere in the world that he can’t blame on American policy. As long as we have troops stationed abroad and favor some nations over others, we’re guilty of original sin; he’s that fanatic an isolationist. Except, that is, when his political future’s on the line, as it was after 9/11 when the country supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan overwhelmingly and Paul quietly went along. Didn’t he “know anything about history”?
Watching this, I thought of Limbaugh’s point about wanting The One to fail. Rush assumes, at least tacitly, that Obama’s loss will be mainstream Republicans’ gain. I’m not so sure. The more desperate things get economically, the more appeal Paul’s paleocon message will have and the more legitimized isolationism will become by extension. Be careful what you wish for.
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 4 Next »
Buckaroo, in case you haven’t noticed, Iraqi WMD’s are now the world’s most famous punchline.
Now, if you don’t mind, the grownups are trying to have a conversation…
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:27 AM
I am familiar with some geography. Further I never said that I was against the Iraq war, but the way the war was (and to some point, still is) being handled is nothing to be proud of.
If it’s not nation building, then why are we spending so much for Iraqi infrastructure? We seem to have very mixed policies when it comes to the Middle East. We want to fight terrorism, but then we look the other way for our “friends.” We must tolerate the Pakistani’s and Gazans; however, Iran is a great threat to freedom… Perhaps I don’t quite comprehend your point. There is a way to (temporarily) win this war; however, this is something we wouldn’t do.
As far as South America, well, that’s a winner isn’t it… The most capitalistic country is Chile. Would it be better to have an Iraqi version of Pinochet? I’m not calling for a so called isolationist policy, but there are many things that we would be better not meddling in.
Upstater85 on February 28, 2009 at 3:34 AM
“JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:27 AM”
u keep right on believing that — baby assad surely thanks u — curiously, that’s another point u head in the sanders share with the current administration …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 4:01 AM
Ron Paul and the people who call Iraq a disaster would also have to call WWI and WWII a disaster.A disaster would be if we had lost in Iraq,instead we have won.The fact that mistakes were made and the Insurgency was brutal and difficult to defeat is the process of war.Mistakes are made in every war,it is not a movie.Enemies adapt,you have to adapt and find a way to defeat them. We did this in Iraq.
To say Iraq was not a threat is nothing but hindsight.Nobody knew exactly what capabilities and weapons that Saddam had until there were 130,000 sets of boots on the ground.The overwhelming consensus of the WORLD,not just America,was that Saddam had WMD,ties to many terrorist organizations and was not cooperating with the UN inspection
process.Over 15 resolutions were passed over a 10 year period that proved useless in making Saddam comply with his own surrender agreement.
Afghanistan had no where near the capabilities of Iraq militarily and infrastructure wise,they proved to be very deadly to the US. 9/11 changed the way America had to deal with terrorism.Terrorist and their weapons had become much to deadly and efficient with 19 hijackers doing incredible damage on that day.
Saying Saddam posed no threat is nothing more than monday morning quarterbacking and rewriting history.With the overwhelming evidence from many countries including the UN,democrats and Republicans yelling and screaming about how dangerous Saddam was,Bush would have been crazy not to address Iraq.If he had not and Saddam had been able to coordinate an attack the same people whining about “Saddam was not threat” would be the same people saying “how could you not have acted after all the evidence against Saddam”.
Once again,Afghanistan was not considered a threat to our National security until they carried out the worst attack on our soil in our history.The NY Times had even run a story from a CIA operative that appeared around 9/11/01 that proclaimed Osama to not have the capabilities of launching a major attack against the US.After 9/11,it became clear that waiting for terrorist regimes to launch attacks against us was leaving America as a sitting duck.The success of Bush in keeping America safe with us not having an attack against this country and our interest abroad in over 5 yrs. confirm that going on the offensive was the right thing to do.
Taking Saddam out was part of the War on Terror.This is not just about revenge for 9/11,but about changing how terrorism is dealt with world wide and the countries that support it.
If you are going to support and arm terrorist,allow them to launch attacks from your country,than you should pay a price.
The fact that Saddam still had not accounted for tons of Sarin and Mustard gas that was later found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion dispels this notion of “no WMD”.Missile components,large quantities of yellow cake(UN knew about it
but Saddam still possessed it) were also found that violated
Sanctions.The Duelfer report lays out plainly that although
Saddam did not possess large quantities of stockpiled WMD,he still possessed the hardware,machinery,and scientist to start his program up as soon as the heat had worn off.
Saddam himself stated this in his interrogation by FBI officials by telling them he thought Bush would do what Clinton did (send over a few bombs,wag his finger),allowing him to come back to claim victory and restart his WMD program since the UN would be gone.Duelfer states that Saddam would have had stockpiles within months.
Having the ability to restart and stockpile his WMD program violated the sanctions and shows that Saddam was a
threat.
As far as not having much of a relationship with al-qaeda,harboring one of the most dangerous and lethal terrorist in the history of mankind (musab al-Zarqawi) strikes me as a significant relationship.Zarqawi was responsible for 10 of thousands of deaths before we took bim out.He was operating in Iraq with Saddam’s knowledge, along with many other terrorist groups, and had already launched attacks that resulted in the death of a diplomat in Jordan.
Was the intelligence perfect on the Saddam-Al-qaeda relationship,no,but no intelligence is perfect.The President,along with democrats and Republicans,and many other nations saw that Saddams relationships with terrorist organizations was a threat to our National Security and had to be dealt with since the UN and it’s sanctions were not just a failure,but actually financed Saddam’s attempts to rearm.
Bush’s statements regarding Iraq have been vindicated by every investigation,including the last(2008 Senate intelligence report) one chaired by a majority of democrats:
WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” – UPDATED
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/09/wapo-bush-substantiated-by-intelligence/
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program?
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories?
On chemical weapons, then?
On weapons of mass destruction overall
Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “
Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs?
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda
Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda
and
statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda
Here is the democrat Rockefeller,one of the leading opponents to the war now after he was such a cheerleader for it before:
Rockefeller, who said in October 2002:
So according to the revisionist,Bush was supposed to ignore
democrats,Republicans,UN,CIA,Pentagon,France intel,German Intel.,British Intel,Egyptian Intel,NY Times,LA Times,Washington Post,and the over 75% of Americans that believed Saddam was a threat and taking him out was the right thing to do.
No competent leader after 9/11 would have looked at all this and decided “Saddam was not a threat”.
The Bush administration knew that Saddam did not have the military capabilities to stop us and was actually criticized
for saying the “war would be easy”.This was in relation to
the fact that taking down Saddam’s army would not be the difficult part,but establishing peace would be.This was well known for years.Bush stated in speech after speech (including the mission accomplished speech)that the path would be long and difficult and that even though the main overthrow of Saddam was complete,we still had a long way to go.
The after war planning was poor and allowed and insurgency to to fill the vacuum left behind when the
army/police force was disbanded and not enough troops were on the ground with the proper ROE’s to maintain order.
Once again,any war effort can be looked at afterward and
have holes shot into it all day long,that is the benefit of
hindsight.Unfortunately our leadership in the military and on the hill don’t have that luxury and plans are put forward,revised,scrapped,or implemented.
Perfect or not,Iraq is now a success story and has changed the face of the middle east for the better.
Something that would not have been done by turning our backs and saying that a genocidal dictator responsible for starting several wars,using WMD in those wars and own his own people,killing hundreds of thousands,and trying to take over a large portion of the worlds energy reserves is somehow not a threat.
Many things put the GOP in the position it is in now.
Corruption,Bush not fighting back against the “Bush lied” propaganda,and losing the base on immigration and spending to name a few.
The democrats also choose to use the difficulties of war and with the help of the press,helped them sell out this country and stab our Soldiers in the back for Congressional seats and the White House.
Winning the war in Iraq is hardly a black eye for the GOP.
Abandoning their principles and allowing liberals to dominate message control is where we have failed.
This is hardly the sign of failure:
Iraq’s Remarkable Election
The government ensured integrity and security. Iran and sectarianism were the big losers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123380162010450689.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
By KIMBERLY KAGAN and FREDERICK W. KAGAN
Baxter Greene on February 28, 2009 at 5:09 AM
+++
the_nile on February 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Wow, there sure are mostly negative remarks here.
I enjoyed all of Paul’s speech except for the 3-4 minutes about foreign policy. The man has his flaws, but he still puts up a good case.
V-rod on February 28, 2009 at 6:26 AM
As one who initally supported Ron Paul for years and I cay with a clear conscience………
Ron Paul, STFU.
I was against going into Iraq, for all the same reasons. But, when AQ decided to turn Iraq into the Battlefront I quickly got behind the effort.
Ron Paul, the far right wing nut jobs version of Obama.
RobertInLexington on February 28, 2009 at 6:57 AM
I gotta say, Madison Conservative makes a good point that Ron Paul just doesn’t get in his 18th century view of the world.
A country just can’t go “over there” to get AQ because the issues go deeper than that. We’re talking about an organization that exists in a culture where 30%+ of the population thinks it’s OK to target civilians. It requires a new kind of battle mindset, one that a couple of submarines stationed off the coast just isn’t going to satisfy. And history is full of examples of countries that tried to be “friend to all” and ended up as targets.
Inre WWII comparisons, Paul wouldn’t have even had us fight that battle.
But then, this was all hashed out during the primaries when Ron Paul was discredited as a serious thinker on this very site…something the new crop of Ronulans might want to check out in the archives.
JohnTant on February 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Ron Paul is not Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson so I don’t need a history lesson or bad advice from him.
old trooper2 on February 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM
That was offensive to me also, as I have a son-in-law who fought in Afghanistan.
Anyone who does not think Al Quada and muslims are not threats need to read Brigitte Gabriel’s book “Because They Hate”. She lived thru an islamic takeover of her home country and shows us that they are trying to do the same in the US.
I agree with the poster here who suggested we need to halt the construction of mosques, etc., if we want to be serious in fighting terrorists. Britain is turning into a Muslim country. France has many muslims too(rememeber when those “youths” were rioting they were all muslims) and they bend over backward to appease them.
Ron Paul is totally irrelevant. I wonder what he would think if he had a family member who died on 9/11. Those who died are who we are fighting for. It isnt American policy that is causing all these problems, it is radical muslims(which seem to be most of them). They hate us, but we kiss their a$$e$. I say if they hate us then stop giving them money!!!
becki51758 on February 28, 2009 at 9:46 AM
In that case you might want to think about expanding your knowledge base. Even if it doesn’t include RP.
Dark-Star on February 28, 2009 at 9:48 AM
who is funding this fruit loop? He belongs with the Dems and their nut jobs.
Did he oppose free trade with Colombia?
Texans and the US deserve so much better.
mdetlh on February 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM
You can’t have “semi-regulated” anything for very long. For one thing, once the people presume to be protected, the people become more naive and stupid. This brings about more opportunities to scam the people. More regulations will be needed as a consequence.
If you create a government agency called “Federal Emergency Management Agency”, for instance, your agency will eventually be made responsible for delivering bottled water and busses to people 2000 miles away, and there will always be someone who believes that the water and busses should have arrived just a little bit sooner.
Semi-measures cannot for long survive the politicians’ demagoging for “better government”.
Buddahpundit on February 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM
when I hear talking heads and libs talk about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and they always dramatically assert that Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s(meaning that Bush lied), I want them to answer a question: Where did the materials that allowed Syria to develop a nuclear reactor program in ‘07 (the one that Israel promptly bombed out of existence) come from???? Absolutely NO ONE in the world nuclear community, not the UN, not Europe, not Korea, NO ONE) had any idea Syria had the potential for nuclear development. The answer is that the head of Saddam’s Air Force (Georges Sada) said in his book that IRAQ moved it’s nuclear materials to Syria prior to the invasion. It is the elephant in the Iraq invasion room and while I don’t mind liberals lying, why do we have to hear this crap from someone at CPAC????
colonelkurtz on February 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM
All the Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, were contrary to the original intentions of the founders (or at least their majority). If they weren’t, they would have been in the Constitution from its origin. But our founders, in their wisdom, incorporated into the document a way of changing it so it could adapt to the needs of the People.
unclesmrgol on February 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM
what an ignorant whack job.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM
not really. he is just a petty bigot who latched on to an economic theory with some viable aspects, and is abusing it to support his loony ideas.
runner on February 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Paul is a Rothbardian crank, they associate with the Extreme Anti-American Left on Foreign Policy and drink all the kool-aide, all of it.
Paul, Rockwell, etc. are not Anti-War. They are Anti-American, thats why they blame all this stuff on America and never on the Jihadi’s, or Soviets, etc.
Rothbard wanted Reagan impeached and called him a “Warmonger”, this is nothing new.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:16 AM
In response to the idea that we would have had to have an occupation of Afghanistan, I really think we would not have. But my point was more in response to people who say “doesn’t he remember he voted for the Afghanistan occupation!” He didn’t, the bill he voted for authorized the use of force against those responsible for 9-11, and included no language of an extended stay, or nation building, etc.
Pointing out his vote for this is a favorite of Allahpundit’s – showing the “hypocrisy” of Ron Paul for criticizing the occupation, but it just strikes me as a half hearted argument, done more for a reaction than anything.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Criticizing American foreign policy is no more anti-American then criticizing American domestic policy. Providing constructive criticism is something someone would do if they loved the country and wanted to see it improve.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 AM
quit the bullshit. Paul knew exactly what he was voting for, as it was openly debated and the entire world new we were coming at Afghanistan.
Then the Paultard gets into Conspriacy theories later on about Afghanistan, claiming that the ONLY reason we went into Afghanistan was to build Oil Pipelines. i.e. Michael Moore’s idiotic and wrong theory.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Liked his speeches about Iraq when he was the maverick against the occupation.
He has a point on Afghanistan.
getalife on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Excuse me jp, but why are you always so hateful? Is it an act or something? Because it’s not an effective strategy of debate. Paul did know what he was voting for, and you can look up what he was voting for too if you try a google search. You will find there was no language in it that spoke of nation building or occupation.
He has never said the only reason we went to Afghanistan was oil pipelines.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Paul never criticizes the Jihadist and their GLobalist Sharia Conspiracy, ever. Just like Murray Rothbard thought it was the United States, not the Soviets, who were the “Evil Empire”
they are both nutjobs, living in an altnernate universe. Whackjob land.
by definition, if you were truely Anti-War(not anti-american foreign policy), you would spend a good deal of time reading and understanding Jihad, the last 1300 years of history on it, etc, etc.). He does not, he just finds some far left source that he can repeat that will blame america for all ills in the world.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM
See libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
founder of that site was Paul’s aide at the time, he can tell you all about the Afghan vote you are spinning. They all threatened to quit working for him if he didn’t vote for it, so he did. eventually some did quit working for the whackjob.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Robert Bidinotto, editor of the New Individualist, an Objectivist Republican outfit, tore Paul to shreds last year several times. snippet:
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM
He has criticized those who use religious hatred as a rallying cry for war. He doesn’t “blame America” for all the ills of the world – he recognizes, however, that the same unintentional consequences domestic policies cause, can be caused by foreign policy. Its not my fault, or your fault, when affirmative action causes racial tensions (even though its ‘meant’ to reduce them.) Is it anti-American to point out that it does?
Of course not, nor is it anti-American to point out when government policy overseas is harmful.
As far as Eric Dondero goes, I have dealt with him myself quite a few times (albeit online) and from my discussion with him doubt his sincerity. Take this discussion, for instance: http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-side-to-ron-paul-vicious-cruel.html
After his criticism of Ron Paul was shown to be incorrect, he backs off the debate and falls back, essentially, to saying I would never convince other people of this – saying “Perception is reality.” He sees the perception that Ron Paul is hated by some conservatives as permanant – and as someone with libertarian leanings essentially concedes this point to others, hoping to get others to concede other points towards his position. It’s a debating tactic, I wouldn’t use it like him, but where suitable it is effective.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM
whats hilarious is alot of his idiot followers, currently beleive China/Hong Kong is the place for Liberty in this world. Many talk of moving there.
ignoring that the only reason Hong Kong is such a great place of Business/Economics is because of what they hate: British IMperialism.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I read somewhere that a lot of college-age Paul fans attended CPAC 2009 and cheered him.
I suspect that a substantial number of young conservatives are Paul supporters. Shouldn’t the Republican Party be trying to find ways to accommodate Ron Paul and his views, if it is to grow and succeed? You can’t win by dissing the youth of the party.
Frivolous on February 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I’ll just assume, to be nice, that your extreme lack of Historical and Current events knowledge is leading you to this naive and foolish view. This stuff is much more complex, and Ron Paul is either ignorant or Lying when he tells his tales.
See the Objectivist take on much of that above, I posted. For one of many examples.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Its not possible, at all. They are uncompromising and their views are 1) Wrong/Lies in many cases 2) conspiracy theory related.
This is nothing new, WFB and Goldwater kicked these same loons to the Curb a long time ago(Rothbard and the Birchers), they are a cancer to the cause. Paul called Ronald Reagan a Traitor, left the GOP and ran on CIA/Drug Dealer Conspiracy theories in 1988.
If you hate Reagan, you hate all Republicans. They are trying to redefine a party into something it never was(and is impossible to actually govern under), into Rothbardian Anarchism and basically invite the world to conquer us which they would.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
whoever at CPAC invited him should be fired.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I can’t speak for all, but the people I have talked to agree that the United States is not only the place with the most freedom, but the most potential for freedom. We actually have a constitution which, if followed, would be limiting government. Other places don’t have this at all – and while the end result is somewhat the same (big government,) at least with the United States you can say “hey, we aren’t following the rules!” It’s a huge aid to pushing back the advance of big government – and one that just doesn’t exist in other places.
I’m not sure how this is a response to my post.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Who hates Reagan? I think Reagan talked a great game but, unfortunately, his actions were not consistent with them. Does it mean I hate him because I don’t like how he ran up the deficit and set a trend of building huge amounts of debt we still follow today?
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I am not sure what the whole point of adoring Reagan is. He hasn’t been President in a very long time. A lot of people don’t even remember him as a living person, and sure don’t think of him as the the paragon of conservatism.
I don’t hate Reagan, by the way. I just wanted to point out how he is not as relevant as people think he is or should be. He’s just too old.
Frivolous on February 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
My point is that because human nature is what it is, pure laissez faire is impossible and should be impossible. At some point, if one is not going to commit cultural or civlizational suicide, the idea that liberty can go her, but not here, has got to be accepted. At some point, you have to contradict the principle so as to save the principle.
The greatest modern example is the idea of free speech, and the live and let live ideology which leads to multiculturalism and which is presently killing Europe and soon may do the same to the US. If everything is allowed, nothing is allowed.
But the point is moot because any free market worth having must have mechanisms built in that in the least enforce contracts, punish fraud, and protect private property.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
How is it not possible? I serve with several other libertarian-conservatives on my county’s Republican committee, and as the secretary of my town’s Republican committee. At the county level, libertarian-conservatives worked with other reformers and grassroots supporters to oust the entrenched leadership which had led the county committee for years – and provided virtually no help for candidates or anyone running.
If anyone is a “cancer” to the parties, its the establishment who gets so distant from Republican principles, and so focused on power (occasionally their own) and nothing more, that they can no longer run a party effectively. It becomes a country club. This story isn’t unique, its the case around the country.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I think there is a serious inconsistency in modern conservatism. Many of the comments on this site reflect both a relentless suspicion of domestic government policy and an unyielding faith in the virtue and moral superiority of our foreign policy. There is nothing conservative about the latter. Ron Paul, who resembles historical American conservatism more closely than any other politician right now, is simply being consistent in his opinions. To call it anti-American is to fail to understand the point. The American government neither is nor ever was a friend to conservatism, Christianity, or traditional culture as a whole. President Bush, at least in principle, tried to justify his actions as consistent with our national interests, but, ultimately, Iraq is simply an outgrowth of the same social engineering that liberalism holds so dear.
Innocent Smith on February 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM
its a ticking time bomb, if he didn’t hurt the GOP and help the Libs/Dems, the MSM could easily smear all Conservatives and GOP by starting to investigate him and his past. Things like his racist/crackpot newsletters, all the Bircher stuff, etc.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Vintage Pillage Idiot: “Ron Paul chats with his cocker spaniel” about American interventions back to something like the Peloponessian War.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM
this is a lie, the founders were not Isolationist err “non-interventionist” its one of the biggest myths about them. Aside from that, the main period the GOP was isolationist was the 1920’s and 30’s and that wasn’t just the GOP it was the consensus with the Dems at the time. It produced Hitler ultimately and the nation snapped out of that insanity for the COld war, thank God.
of many little known facts Ron Paul ignores: Robert Taft supported the United Nations entry
jp on February 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM
The MSM can always launch false smears of people, no matter who it is. He has already addressed the newsletter issue: he no longer monitored the newsletters after he left public office. He should have known better than to let his name be associated with something he no longer monitored. He took moral responsibility for the contents of the newsletter, while strongly condemning the contents.
They want to smear him for that? Alright. But it won’t intimidate me from supporting him.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Responding to attacks by pirates is not a violation of non-intervention. It’s acting in self defense, in the same way responding to terrorists is acting in self defense.
While we responded to them, however, we did not occupy Tripoli and attempt to set up a democracy.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
good article by Jonah Goldberg
The Tradition of Ron Paul: Defeated in the Cold War its back again
Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy are two entirely different realms of the world, they are not the same.
Limp Wristed Conservatism is not Conservatism, it is Rothbardian Anarchism, completely discredited for the crackpottery that exist within it.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Only because we couldn’t at the time!
Jefferson wanted an Empire, he advocated the United States sending its forces into Canada and we could have them that easily. Same with Cuba(Jefferson advocated conquering it), see the Louisanna Purchase.
He also wanted an “alliance” with France which the Federalist thought he was nuts over(they wanted to ally with the United Kingdom). Both sets of early adminstrations engaged in alliances and traded with nations via force of arms all over the world.
Washington called America a “Rising empire” and Jefferson of course an “Empire of Liberty”. Its what they wanted, to reshape the world, not hide behind our oceans.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM
hahahaha, right because that is an acceptable spin/answer that everyone will accept. While he is at the same time praising the Birchers and going to speak to 9/11 Truthers and lunatics like Alex Jones.
He is guilty as sin with his 15 year long Newsletters, much of them wrote in the First Person and that he had his Wife and Daughter on the Payroll of.
jp on February 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM
No. I take Islam seriously for what it is and for what its adherents believe it to be. I think it’s an insult to Muslims not to take it seriously.
Thus, Islam is entirely incompatible with western traditional political and social norms.
Now, as you suggest, there is a difference between the threat of Islam which exists via violence (9/11, etc) and the threat that exists via immigration. I don’t deny the difference. But, in total, there exists in Islam itself an existential threat, and this threat cannot be fobbed off (as Ron Paul and others do) on US intervention, occupation, support for Israel, etc. even though those things have a role in the present struggle.
But those things did not start this fight.
The fight started the moment Muhammad hallucinated that he was a prophet. And the struggle has existed in one form or another ever since.
You can’t say that Islam is a force that we can learn to live with, the same way some said that Hitler was someone we could learn to do business with; that just so long as he only takes this and that country, but stops there, he will be tolerable.
Does this mean perpetual war? In a sense, yes, though not always or even mostly of the violent sort. But if there aren’t those in the west with the power and nuts to be vigilant in understanding the absolute differences between the west and the rest, and who aren’t afraid to insist that “This is ok, this is not,” then we’re dead.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM
That’s because most Republican voters want a policy wonk like Jindal or throw out damaged goods like Palin.
Paul is a great candidate. Unfortunately, too many people watch American Idol as well.
Notorious GOP on February 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM
How is taking moral responsibility spin?
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM
This is true.
The irony in all of it is that Ron Paul and other paleos line up with the far left (Chomsky, Zinn, et al) with regard to present American foreign policy, or what they called American Empire. And yet the libertarians argue from the myth that the founders were libertarians as themselves, when even a cursory glance at the research done by their anti-imperialist comrades on the left proves the exact opposite! Have none of them read Zinn’s classic? There are your “libertarian” founders!
The founders were paternalistic, imperialist, and hell-bent on conquest and confiscation! And all of that wasn’t just mere slips here and there from “libertarian” principle. These guys wanted to conquer their world, and they in fact did so, right from the beginning. They also happened to be geniuses, scholars of Western civilization — men who understood their history, theology, biology, and how the world works. And thank God for them.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM
I notice that JP keeps equating conservatism with the GOP. The GOP is not nor ever has been the home of conservatism. At least, though, you have admitted it. You, along with many other pseudo-conservatives, desire to reshape the world. The belief that the founding fathers also wanted this provides you with a convenient justification. There is nothing conservative about wanting to reshape the world. There is nothing conservative about desiring to become a hegemonic power. How can you justify any of these opinions as traditionally conservative? War is, by its nature, revolutionary and not conservative. There is nothing in the conservative tradition anyone can use to support this war or most of the other wars waged by the American Empire.
Innocent Smith on February 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM
No it’s not. Some are, some aren’t. The American “Revolution” was not revolution, the French Revolution was. Some aspects of America’s War for Independence might have been revolutionary, but the totality of the war was essentially conservative.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Whether or not they “wanted” to is beside the point. They in fact did.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM
And thus we see how the future determines the past. The founding fathers were essentially neoconservatives. How splendidly ideological!
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”
You’re right. This quotation is basically a command to go forth and remake the world in our image. Any reader who has been properly indoctrinated can see that.
Innocent Smith on February 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM
How can Drum claim that the American Revolution was not a revolution? Do we next claim that the Pacific Ocean is not an ocean and only the Atlantic is?
Frivolous on February 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM
You take one quote out of zillions. You do the same with Ike’s “military-industrial complex” speech. Look at what the men did, not only at what they said. Indeed, if you’d stop obsessing over one or two sentences and look at the rest, it might help you along.
Nonetheless, entangling alliances began almost immediately after independence!
I’m not saying they neocons. They were what they were. The mythologizing about the founders that exists in paleo circles is every bit as noxious as that which exists around, say, Lincoln, among the neocons.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Its opening a messy semantic can of worms. If you want to look at revolution as entailing the replacement of old ideas with “revolutionary” ones, of course the American revolution was a revolution – they were putting in place a limited government which respected liberty, over an expansive one which did not. On the semantic level, I dont see anything revolutionary about the communist takeover of Russia or elsewhere – whats revolutionary about taking out one despotic regime and putting in another?
But in the “armed revolution” sense, of course both the US Revolution, Bolshevic, french, etc were revolutions.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I would agree with Drum to a certain extent. The French Revolution was the triumph of liberalism as a political and moral philosophy. Men shedding the blood of their countrymen for the sake of abstract principles like Freedom, Rights, Equality etc. The American Revolution was not so liberal in its essence. The men of the revolution were claiming nothing other than the rights of Englishmen. The founding fathers did not see the revolution as the beginning of a new world order based upon universal human rights and Democracy for all people. They fought for their people on their land in order to continue to live peacefully in their traditions. This distinction is key to understanding why America was a federation of independent republics and not an Empire like that of Napoleon’s.
Innocent Smith on February 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Because it was a preservation — a conservation, if you will, of British and western norms and traditions. They never appealed to some New Man. There was no turning upside down, and there was most emphatically no sentimentalizing over some non-existent liberty-loving, free market economic nature, that exists in man which must be appealed to. They were not libertarians! They loved liberty, that’s for sure, but they surely did not think of it or approach it in the sense that Mises, or Hayek, or the Cato Institute, does. I’m not dissing any of those folks — we ignore them at our peril. But the founders were more than mere economists who were enemies of the state.
Read Albert Jay Nock! If ever there was a free market ideologue who washed his hands of the state, it is he. And yet, he recognized the flaws and contradictions that existed left and right in the men he admired: Jefferson, Adams, Paine. He knew that they knew what real economic liberty lies (the English tradition), and yet he knew as they knew that they were men of the world, and the sucks.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I meant, “and the world sucks.”
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM
It’s nice to point out that GWB ran and won in 2000 on a platform opposed to nation-building and policing the world.
And the GOP wonders why so many have left the party in disgust.. after they became the party of war.
popularpeoplesfront on February 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I personally liked ron paul for his economic stance.
But and i use this very carefuly
BUT..
He doesnt have a clue about the islamic threat worldwide.
His innocence stance is similar to that of the libs…
If we leave them alone they will do the same..
this is sheer idiocy..
Hasn’t anyone actually READ bin ladens letters.?
I have all of them..
and zarchawis and the others too
They simply state they are at WAR with ALL infidels
and they will NOT stop until we are ALL DEAD, or defeated..
This is why i voted against ron paul..
I like the guy personally but..
What good is his stance on the economy when entire nations and continents are falling like dominos before the black flag of islam..
He doesnt seem to realize that if we are all DEAD..
the economy wont matter..
jcila on February 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM
You’re hinting at a war of attrition, but if that were our goal, then we are doing very badly at it. There are 1.5 billion muslims and what %10 are radical, so that means we need to take out 150 million. The body count just isn’t large enough to support the suggestion that we’re fighting a war of attrition.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Much as I normally dislike replying to opi magnus, there are a few points that bear replying to:
No, WWII was clearly a victory, as the party that led us into the war continued in power. The party that led us into in Iraq has been marginalized worse than any time since the Great Depression. The American people spoke, and it was clearly against the War in Iraq.
To say, today, that Iraq was not a threat, is hindsight. To have said it during the debate in the runup to war was not hindsight… it was prescience. The fact is that those who lusted for war got it wrong, and those who cautioned against war got it right. We realize you don’t like it, because the truth hurts.
Just because someone can carry out an attack on the United States does not mean they are a threat to our National Security. Anyone, in any place, can coordinate an attack like we saw on 9/11. In fact, many countries other than Afghanistan were involved. I notice we didn’t invade Germany, even though that’s where most of the planning appeared to have taken place. A threat to our National Security involves our nation not surviving. Whether we took over Afghanistan or not, nothing there was a threat to our national existence. And the Bush Administration proved it when they gave Afghanistan the ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Had they done so, we probably would not have invaded. Threats to National Security should be treated more seriously, n’est pas?
No, in fact, no WMD’s dispels the notion of “Iraq has WMD’s.” It is that simple.
Disingenuity, thy name is Baxter. If that were really the case, we would have gone into Iran, not Iraq. No state in the ME support terrorism more than Iran. Invading Iraq was about settling old scores.
I’ve never said Bush lied, nor did I imply that. He didn’t lie… but he was horribly, incompetently wrong, and our party paid the price for it. A few inside the DC GOP were right about Iraq, and Ron Paul was one of them.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM
So, Ron Paul supporters, I had a question: other than defense, for what purpose does government exist?
/Wow, this thread is still going?!?!
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM
You realize that with this statement, you insult the entire nation of Turkey, one of our closest and most important allies during the Cold War, right?
And yet, we never really had a problem with them until we started intervening in the affairs of the Middle East, and Arabia in particular. Meanwhile, countries that are free like Switzerland, and rich like Japan, and powerful like China, still have yet to face any peril from them. Are we to believe that this is just happenstance? I believe Occam’s Razor (a tool of a Muslim?) would say otherwise.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I would argue with you, but you clearly think that most to all Muslims need to be killed, so I won’t.
It’s all a matter of definition…
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Ooookkaaaaayyy Captain Hyperbole, calm down a bit.
“This threat is one hundred billion trillion times worse than all other previous threats in the history of the world!!!!”
“I’m super, super serial.”
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Generally, I would argue that the purpose of government falls into a few catagories, not necessarily well-defined.
First, it clearly exists to provide a neutral arbiter and enforcer of contracts.
Secondly, it exists as a sole repository of legitimate use of force, in order to do violence against those who would do violence.
Thridly, it exists to deal with what economists call externalities; that is, when the benefits of economic activity receive the benefits of that activity, without bearing the costs of that activity. The usual example of this is pollution.
Fourth, the government exists to distribute what are known as public goods; that is, goods that once you distribute them to one person, you distribute them to everyone, and; the cost of providing them to additional people approaches zero. Defense is usually the best example of a public good, but there are others (museums, libraries, radio and TV frequencies, etc.)
Those are the purposes I can come up with off the top of my head.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Here is a quote from your post I replied to:
Your the one who wants to draw them to a central location and fight a proxy war. I just entertained your suggestion.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM
You don’t think European nations are having a problem with Muslims? You ever hear of Geert Wilders? His only issue isn’t his hair. Japan doesn’t allow immigration, and has only business dealings with muslim nations, so if your suggesting we adopt their practices then I agree, but that won’t solve the problem for Europe. If even one nuclear European nations goes Islamic the world becomes too small a place for isolationism. You might not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I want to kill terrorists, not civilians; I understood from your comments that you are lumping them into the same category. If I misread, then I apologize.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM
That’s why I took the time in my post to figure out, without a calculator, roughly how many radical muslims exist in the world, and state that if we’re fighting the war your suggesting then we’re doing a poor job of it.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:22 PM
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I hear you.
‘The Constitution of the United States’
Legislative: Article I, Sections 8-9
Executive: Article II, Sections 2-3
Judicial: Article III, Sections 1-2
The difficulty comes from the fact that government has been growing in size & scope since George Washington’s term onward. Also, the Founders were divided over such issues as public education. Do I like the New Deal, Great Society, etc.? No, but the sacred cows created therein are now a fact of our society. It’s an honest question–do you pare back the size & scale of these programs, knowing that some would truly suffer; or do you reduce the government over a scale of many years? Can it even be done?
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I think it’s going to be done, whether we like it or not. The system cannot continue to grow indefinitely, and I think we are close to the time when it will topple under it’s own weight. That doesn’t mean the behemoth won’t thrash and spasm during it’s demise, and I think that’s what we’re seeing now.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:22 PM
The issue is keeping those nations in check & drawing in the terrorists that exist within each state. I think there is a difference between terrorists & potential terrorists. But there is more to this ‘proxy war’ than just military action; you must starve them of their funding, show these rogue nations that that you are not a paper tiger, etc. However, turning Tehran into a sea of glass is not a viable solution. Iraq, with it’s varied population, actually stands a chance of being another Turkey or Lebanon. This would be another prong in this proxy war.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 4:36 PM
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM
You’re right, it can’t. But how much should be kept? Politicians don’t appreciate moderation, but I would like to see some of these programs kept for those who truly need them. In a perfect world, the Church would fulfill these roles, but they’re not.
I really liked President Bush’s ideas of Social Security reform, tort reform, etc.–but Congress balked en masse at these ideas. So, we would need a reform-minded Congress to complete the task of overhauling the size of government.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM
It is a viable solution, just not to us. Islam isn’t a huge threat to the soviet union, nazi Germany or some other type of regime that would simply destroy 150 million and move on. We brought about the end of the cold war because we played our strengths against their weaknesses, and Islam is doing the same to us. We can try to use the tools you suggested, and I think de-funding is one of the more powerful weapons available to us, but ultimately I’m not sure the West as she currently exists can survive.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:43 PM
I agree with you, but once the pendulum swings things change in drastic ways, and many good programs will be done away with in the zeal of a new doctrine. I don’t know that the church wouldn’t it’s just that the government has stepped in and taken it’s place. Remove the government and the church might step back in and pick up the slack.
His ideas for SS were great, because it limited what you could draw out to what you had paid, and thus would have made it a sustainable program, and of course tort reform is needed. I wish I knew how things were going to shake out, I would get rich, but were just going to have to wait and see.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 4:52 PM
So an attack that brings down two towers in one of our largest cities,strikes our pentagon and results in the deaths of over 3000 people is not a threat to National Security.
You could at least try to make sense.This is just ridiculous on it’s face.
finding tons of Sarin and mustard shells after our invasion is finding WMD, it is that simple.
The fact that Saddam could still make and restock his supply of biological and chemical weapons may not seem important to you, but then you just got through stating that
the events of 9/11 don’t constitute a threat to our National Security.
Reality is apparently not your strong suit.
Ignorance thy name is Johngalt.
Did Iran have a surrender agreement that it had not adhered to.
NO.
Did Iran have over 15 UN resolutions that it had not adhered to.
NO.
Did Iran start two wars in the hope of ruling a large part of the worlds energy supplies.
NO.
Your conspiracy theories about “old scores” is ridiculous and without fact.
Once again,reality is not your strong suit.
Well then so was the rest of the world.
Maybe you see a genocidal dictator that supports terrorism around the world being taken out as a big mistake,that is up to you.
Taking down Saddam and freeing over 25 million people to become a representative country and ally is a major accomplishment.
Iraq has been won.
You will just have to get over it.
Baxter Greene on February 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I haven’t insulted Turkey. One can be allies and not culturally or religiously compatible. Moreover, of all Islamic countries, Turkey has been for the past century tended toward the secular, alas, not without consequences. Nonetheless, it’s a beautiful and at least till recently, an incredibly friendly country to visit.
As for the trouble with Islam, you’ve conveniently forgotten 1300 years of history, and only sited the last 100. That there is little trouble with the nations you mention ought to tell you something about its existential goal. China and Switzerland and Japan are not (yet, in the case of China) roadblocks to world domination.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist.
Isolationism is non-inteverntionism and protectionism. Libertarians oppose protectionism.
For example… I wave to my neighbors, but I don’t walk into their houses and rearrange their furniture.
Mark Jaquith on February 28, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Sorry to come in late, but it seems to me that Rush assumes explicitely that Obama’s loss will be the country’s gain, ie, if enough people are disillusioned with socialism, they might just go back to freedom. I don’t think Rush has any delusions about mainstream Republicans.
Christian Conservative on February 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Are you going to sit there and tell me, with a straight face, that the events of 9/11 were a risk of bringing our government down, that the US, as an entity, was at risk because of 9/11?
Stop. Just stop.
If you are going to say that terror attacks are, in and of themselves, a threat to national security, where does it end? What if only 1000 people had died? What about 100? Was OKC bombing a threat to national security?
National Security is a bright line, no matter how you try to blur it. Pearl Harbor and subsequent events were a real threat to the existence of our government. 9/11 was a bunch of thugs who had no more chance of overthrowing this country than they do of putting a man on the moon, your cowardice notwithstanding.
Do the world a favor, and stop shaking in your boots at the threat of Islamic terrorists suddenly becoming our leaders. You’ll sleep better at night, our governemnt will cost less money, and we just might kill less people around the world.
Really?? That position puts you at severe odds with your man-crush, GWB.
Bush Admits No WMD
To wit: At a news conference today, Bush also conceded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
So, are you just ignorant of this massive foul up, or are you deliberately lying to the members of this board?
Once again, Iraqi WMD’s have become the world’s most famous punchline, whether you like to recognize this reality or not.
Why the hell should I care about any of that?
My government doesn’t answer to the UN… it answers to the national interest of the American people. If we were, as you claim, fighting this war to rid the world of states that contributed to terror, Iran should have been ahead of Iraq on the go-to list.
Frankly, it sounds like you are admitting that you were being disingenuous about the claim of fighting terrorism, and admitting we were settling old scores. We went to Iraq because of failure to comply, or its ability to start wars in its own backyard(one of which they waged with the encouragement of the United States, btw), not because of its ability to aid terror, which was far behind Iran’s ability.
Once again, explain to me why I should give a tinker’s dam about the freedom of the Iraqi people. It is the equivalent of FP masturbation; it feels good to talk about, but doesn’t further our national interest, as measured by our National Security, one iota.
Sorry, but being a patriot, I don’t measure our success or failures by the yardstick of the rest of the world. Just because they all got it wrong by jumping off a bridge, doesn’t excuse our leadership’s failure by doing the same. I congratulate those who got it right, and excoriate those who got it wrong. Once again, truth hurts, doesn’t it.
Sadly, genocidal dictators are cheap in this world. I notice you don’t advocate going after the thugs in Myanmar, or Darfur, or Somalia, or Venezuala, or… well, I think you get the point.
As far as supporting terrorism around the world, let’s be straight. He didn’t support terrorism around the world… he supported terrorism in Israel, and that’s what this whole thing is about, isn’t it?
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Oh, I think certain European countries are having very serious troubles with radical Wahabbist Islam. My point, however, was that the problems they are having are of their own doing (lax immigration policy, low native birthrates), and are not going to be solved by us going to war in the ME. We could bomb the ME flat, and the Europeans wouldn’t be any closer to solving their problems with radical Islam.
HEY!!!
I like Geert Wilders’ hair. :)
Once again, why this fear of radical Islam taking over European nations? These people are incapable of providing themselves with flush toilets, and we’re really worried that they’re the next Great Power in Europe?
And if they do, then our problems get quite a bit simpler. At that point, any problems they pose fall under National Security, and we counter them with Mutually Assured Destruction. Actually, given our realtive arsenals, the Destruction would be rather one sided.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM
What was Lebanon like before they decided to take in the Palestinian refugees? It was actually very pleasant from what I hear, but not anymore.
I really don’t think M.A.D. works with fanatics, who already use the practice of martyrdom as a weapon.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 8:55 PM
I still desire to know how Ron Paul and other conservatives that disagreed with the war can be defined out of conservatism. What does it mean to be conservative? If history has anything to say about it it is supporters of our recent wars that must justify themselves. Being thoroughly suspicious of sweeping government actions, war included, is the default conservative position.
Also, how can a man like Ron Paul be called crazy constantly by a bunch of people who voted for McCain? If you are a modern conservative, McCain was right on only one issue, the war. He was absolutely awful on almost everything else. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was more than stellar on every single issue except the war. How can one be insane and the other be the man whom you voted for president?
I just heard Ann Coulter, an otherwise seemingly mainstream conservative, speak very highly of Ron Paul. She even suggested that he be the GOP candidate in 2012. It seems that she sees something conservative within him, at least.
Innocent Smith on February 28, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I’ve heard the same thing. But Lebanon ain’t Europe, and it ain’t anywhere close to being the next nuclear power.
Which is exactly why radical Islam isn’t going to come to power in Europe. Europeans aren’t going to allow martyrdom fetishists anywhere near power. To whatever extent Islamists gain a foothold in Europe, they will have to do so through existing democratic procedures. Any Islamic movement that preaches martyrdom on a national scale will be rebuffed.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 7:58 PM
No the punchline is your ignorance on pretty much any issue you have brought up.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers say.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/
WASHINGTON–
You will probably contiune to ignore the facts that are right in front of you because they don’t lend well with your
talking points.
I will go slower with you since you seem to possess some type of learning disability.
Biological….weapons….were ….found….in….Iraq….after …..our….invasion.
This….is….WMD.
Saddam still possessed the ability to manufacture and create biological and chemical weapons and would have when the UN backed off.
This was a threat to people in touch with reality that deal in facts and not hyperbole that you deal in.
It’s also hilarious to watch you write about how unreliable
and wrong Bush is and then use Bush to validate your opinion.
Make up your mind,is Bush ignorant or not.
Plain and simple.
Denying the events of 9/11 as not being a threat to our national security puts you in the same credibility position
as Cindy Sheehan on this subject.
Only an ideological moron could not see that the attacks against America had intensified over the years and with the
trafficking of nuclear/WMD weaponry, a small group could now do incredible harm to any country.
Panel warns biological attack likely by 2013
Report recommends Obama administration prepare for germ warfare
updated 11:00 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 1, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28006645/
But this is no big deal to super smart JohnGalt.
Apparently the billions of dollars,and massive amount of man
hours and attention being put forth to preventing a major attack from terrorist is no sign at all that this is a threat to our National Security.
Yea,John,you would make Sheehan proud with this ignorant drivel.
Well I would not expect you to care about a country that we defeated in the Gulf War not living up to their surrender agreement,UN Sanctions,and continuing to build up their WMD capabilities.
This would put them as a high priority to the people in touch with reality.
Someone who does not think 9/11 was a threat to our National Security would not be expected to possess the intelligence to see this.
Which pretty much relegates you to the same abyss that Ron Paul is in when it comes to credibility on domestic and foreign affairs.
Yes,the truth that Iraq is now a success story must hurt
the Sheehan “It’s America’s fault”crowd.
The resolution to go to war that democrats and Republicans voted on was right in the vast majority of its statements.
The world and it’s Intelligence agencies carried a constant message:
SADDAM WAS A THREAT AND HAD TO GO.
He is now gone,Iraq is free and now an ally,and the world is better off for it.
Ideological mental midgets that can’t accept this will be viewed the same way the people who yelled and whined against
WWI and WWII are viewed: IGNORANT.
The facts on the ground that Iraq is a success show your viewpoint to be incompetent and without merit.
But keep telling yourself how smart and insightful you are.
You fit right in with the Rosie O’donell’s,Sean Penn’s,and Cindy Sheehan’s very well.
Baxter Greene on February 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Perhaps it is impossible for Ron Paul to get a fair hearing. He does himself no favors by subscribing to the ludicrous civilian casualty numbers in Lancet.
BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, though Paul makes it easy for the intellectually lazy, such as Allah, to dismiss him he does have many fruitful and illuminating insights.
For instance we have no business getting involved in foreign entanglements until and unless an unequivocal national interest is demonstrated and only AFTER a formal declaration of war by the US Congress.
The fed is at the center of what is wrong with the American economy today. Fiat money with its attendant susceptibility to political pressures is part and parcel of this problem.
We’ve invested too much power into the Executive branch in opposition to the intent of the Founders and to our national detriment.
Those who dismiss Paul out of hand are doing themselves a great disservice for his viewpoint is indispensable in the pursuit of economic and political truth.
Charles Martel on February 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM
It looks like we’ve reached an impasse. I’m not going to convince you that Europe will fall, and you’re not going to convince me that it will stand, but time will tell the tell.
DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM
BTW, I didn’t watch his talk, BUT his point about our involvement in WWI being the proximate cause of many of the ills of the 20th century is precisely correct.
WE HAD NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED IN WWI. Wilson did his country a grave disservice, and as importantly he did Europe a grave disservice. Had we stayed out of WWI there would have eventually been a more equitable peace agreement obviating the pressures for WWII. Clearly WWI did not make the world save for Democracy.
Now I know Allah has a very difficult thinking out of the progressive neo-Conservative box, but folks, do yourselves a favor and start thinking for yourselves.
Charles Martel on February 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM
You’ve made some good points on this thread, but are just plain WRONG here. For starters, there are NO democratic procedures, in any meaningful sense, in place in the EU today.
Charles Martel on February 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Honestly, one reason I like Ron Paul is he’s an underdog. He fights very bravely for what he believes in, without descending to rudeness and personal attacks.
Frivolous on February 28, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Ron Paul is our party’s (GOP’s) crazy uncle. His followers that go to the conventions are ALL moonbats and COMPLETELY UNHINGED. I have faith that the sane Pajamas media , our party’s conscience will be able to disseminate the details about his unfitness for the presidency before he gains steam.
If he wins the 2012 nomination the US is in deeeeeeper doo doo.
Lothar on February 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Yes,the great Ron Paul who says we have no Business getting involved in wars overseas,except when he votes for them of course:
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
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/18/ron-paul-we-did-exactly-what-bin-laden-wanted-by-invading-two-arab-countries/
This guy must be getting foreign policy advice from Harry Reid.
Baxter Greene on March 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Ron Paul obviously doesn’t know who David Petraeus is.
He’s also needs to brush up on his history…
Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM
The WMD’s weren’t there.
That’s not JohnGalt saying it… it’s GWB.
Bush On WMD
There you go… POTUS speaks. Accept it. You seem to have blindly accepted everything else he fed you.
The fact is, Baxter, you’re an amateur, and you’re scared. You see Islamo-terrorists under every bed you cawer in, and threats to our security, when no such thing exists.
I have no time for cowardly children, as I’ve spent too much time on you already.
JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM
Fair enough.
JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2009 at 2:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »