Ron Paul: The US will end up occupying Pakistan

posted at 3:22 pm on May 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Via the Daily Caller, consider this a palate cleanser for the afternoon.  Ron Paul appeared on Morning Joe this morning and tangled a bit with Mike Barnicle on the MSNBC show over the Obama administration’s handling of Pakistan.  If you think the moment of highest irony comes at the one-minute mark when the Congressman who plays footsie with Truthers like Alex Jones talks dismissively of “conspiracy theorists,” stay tuned.  That’s just the irony warm-up:

“I see the whole thing as a mess,” he said. “And I think that we are going to be in Pakistan. I think that’s the next occupation, and I fear it. I think it’s ridiculous, and I think our foreign policy is such we don’t need to be doing this. So when I talk about doing it differently, I talk about in the context of our foreign policy and not in the fact of whether or not we should have gotten him. As a matter of fact, I voted for the first authority. I think what’s the real tragedy is that we didn’t get him 10 years ago when we could have and should have. But yet we now have spent $1 trillion. We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden. And to me, we have to reassess the foreign policy just like we have to reassess our economic policies here.”

Later in the segment, “Morning Joe” co-host Willie Geist asked if Paul had any information an actual invasion was in the work. Paul said he didn’t but based it on the past four decades of American foreign policy.

“No – just because I look at what has happened in the past 30 or 40 years of all the unintended consequences and what we have done and how we are spreading and how we are spreading in the attitudes that has been pervasive in our government for the past 10 years that we have this obligation to spread our goodness and protect our financial interests,” Paul said. “And right now Pakistan is a big problem. And the people there, we have created a civil war there. And the fact that we go over there and we violate their security and the people rebel against the government because they see their government as being a puppet of the American government, so it’s total chaos, and I am afraid — I hope I’m absolutely wrong — but I’m afraid we will be in Pakistan trying to occupy that country, and it will probably be very unsuccessful.”

Nor is this the only conspiracy theory that Paul spins in this segment. Two minutes after dismissing conspiracy theorists, Paul states that he doesn’t believe the account from the White House on when Osama bin Laden was killed, when they got the DNA, and asks if anyone at MSNBC has any information on it. “But — that’s a conspiracy theory!” the panel says, sounding shocked, shocked! that Paul might float such a notion. Don’t stop there, though, because Paul then explains the factual basis of his prediction that the US will occupy a nation of over 140 million people, armed with nuclear weapons.

And to think that some people don’t take his presidential bid seriously …

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I see no reason to thank you from something so poorly thought out from beginning to end. Are you an affirmative action student? OBL was very likely never in Iraq and probably split Afcrapistan for Pakistan very-very early on.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Thanks for admitting with your first two sentences that you can’t debate me with facts . Saul Alinsky taught you well.

First of all, I am not a student. But your suggesting I am an Affirmative Action student could be considered a racist statement.

I never claimed bin Laden was in Iraq, you assumed that I did.

But I have some facts on my side. I’m sure you’ll weakly respond by insulting me some more.

1. In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, and their Federal Indictment clearly states that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots.

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

2. In 2002, the Authorization that many Democrats signed off on stated that al Qaeda members were in Iraq at the time.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Didn’t you say something to me about not feeding the trolls?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I really hope not…but if there’s one thing Obummer has proved he can do war-wise, it’s to get us entangled in even MORE useless little pissing contests with groups of Turd-World savages.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 18, 2011 at 10:01 PM

So we have 1,000, or more troops in Afcrapistan, and 1,000, or more contractors, in Afcrapistan for every 1 AlQ in Afcrapistan. This makes the U.S. Post office look stellar by comparison.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Good Lord. And for all that…we just now got Osama and still haven’t been able to drag the goatherders out of their Stone-Age mentality.

Man up and raze the place stem to stern or just get the hell out already.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 18, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Didn’t you say something to me about not feeding the trolls?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

On occasion a smackdown is necessary, especially when the person you’re “debating” with can’t refute the facts you cite and responds with 3rd grade schoolyard insults.

And I didn’t even mention that a Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton in US District Court in Lower Manhattan concluded after hearing the trial evidence in a lawsuit by 9/11 family members that al Qaeda and Iraq had been in cahoots at the time of those attacks.

Of course, by the time that ruling took place in 2003, we had already liberated Iraq, so it was lost in the Fog of War and didn’t really matter.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Ed you suck at Ron Paul posts. This guy is the easiest target on the republican side and yet you only try to hit him on something that her sounds halfway sensible on. If Pakistan’s nukes were ever in danger we would be occupying that country with a quickness. I don’t understand how you have so much trouble actually putting together a decent hit piece on the guy

snoopicus on May 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2