West: Ron Paul isn’t the “kind of guy you need” in the White House

posted at 12:45 pm on August 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mi amigo bloguero, Javier Manjarres at the Shark Tank, posted this clip of Rep. Allen West over the weekend, in which West addresses the foreign-policy problems of the current administration — and of one Republican candidate as well. West calls Barack Obama “Sir Neville Chamberlain … on steroids,” calmly criticizing Obama for his lack of respect for our friends and his inability or unwillingness to leverage American strength. Iran continues to conduct a proxy war against American troops in Iraq, and the Saudis have become disgusted with this administration ever since it threw Hosni Mubarak under the bus while continuing to wheedle Bashar Assad.

But West saves his most passionate criticism for Ron Paul, whose view on Iran is so irrational that West considers it disqualifying (via Katie Pavlich):

That’s not the kind of guy you need to be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

West mentions this in the beginning of the clip, but it’s worth more thought. There were a few reasons why we lived with the Soviets having nuclear weapons, chief among them that we had no choice in the matter. The MAD strategy (Mutually Assured Destruction) wasn’t a policy of choice, but of lack of choice. If we had an opportunity to keep the Soviets and everyone else from developing nuclear weapons, we would have done so, but that was a choice taken from us by an effective spy network that stole the secrets and handed them to the Stalin regime — although they eventually would have figured it out for themselves anyway.

MAD only worked with the Soviets (and with China) because leaders in both countries were rational actors.  That is, their strategic aims had nothing to do with getting destroyed, but in acquisition and control.  They didn’t launch a war against us, at least not directly, because they knew we would have destroyed them — and the same is true for us as well.

Iran is a non-rational actor, which is not necessarily the same as an irrational actor.  The mullahs’ strategic goals are metaphysical; they want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule.  According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the US, or both.  If they get a nuke, they will certainly use it, because that is a rational tactic for their non-rational strategy.  That is the reason that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is most certainly a very big deal, and if the mullahs remain in charge for much longer, they will have one to put on their rockets and launch.

Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between Iran and the Soviet Union in nuclear issues doesn’t belong in the White House.  That’s true of Ron Paul, and it’s equally true of Barack Obama.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

HA, please replace the picture. It makes Mr. West’s eyes white and it not becoming. There are plenty others. Thank you.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM

West: Ron Paul isn’t the “kind of guy you need” in the White House

Understatement of the year.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

West has now added laser eyes to his already formidable presence.

PackerBronco on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

To be sure, I meant the picture at the front of the thread, not the one in the video.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Neither is Romney.

FloatingRock on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

So many Ronulans’ hearts breaking over this.

I’ll take the Army Colonel who recognizes the threat of Islam and doesn’t blame us for their attacks over a whiny isolationist who wants Israel treated like dirt but Iran treated like gold.

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM

ROFL

My first glance at that pic looked like his eyes were bulging out and staring upward. I was WTF?

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Soon Newsweek will feature Mr. West’s eyes as “crazy”.

May they explode, already, the hounds.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Allen west is a Bliderberg neo-con.
///spathi

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM

If we had an opportunity to keep the Soviets and everyone else from developing nuclear weapons, we would have done so, but that was a choice taken from us by an effective spy network that stole the secrets and handed them to the Stalin regime — although they eventually would have figured it out for themselves anyway.

Not entirely correct Ed. We had a choice, just not a palatable choice. We could have vaporized the Soviet Union once we knew they had the bomb. The Soviets did not go from 0 to 100 in a day.

NotCoach on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Patton had a strategy long before MAD appeared.

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Allen West is a traitor.

The GOP will betray you.

Goddamned Jews.

-True_King

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Sir Neville Chamberlain would be a vast improvement over Barry O’downgrade.

NMRN123 on August 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM

HA, please replace the picture. It makes Mr. West’s eyes white and it not becoming. There are plenty others. Thank you.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Agreed. I thought that it was a mocking photoshop of West. The glare on his glasses created that “whites of his eyes” look, but it looks like a parody of the bigoted pictures of times past of Blacks being frightened of ghosts.

onlineanalyst on August 15, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Allen West is a traitor.

The GOP will betray you.

Goddamned Jews.

-True_King

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM

One of these days ‘True_King’s’ mask is going to really slip.
I’m surprised that it hasn’t happened already.
When it does he won’t get banned.
If they woouldn’t ban odie1947 or whatever its name is…

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM

That’s not the kind of guy you need to be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Dirty Pajamas with skid mark – Check

Tattered Robe – Check

Arms flailing aimlessly in the air – Check

Messed up hair and crazed look in the eye – Check

Missing one slipper – Check

High pitched cracking voice – Check

Spathi naked with a dog collar and it’s own jar of vaseline – Check

Yep…

… Ron Paul in the White House would make for some very restful nights.

Seven Percent Solution on August 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM

OT: andrea mitchell calling it what it is a campaign stop in minnesota for dear leader

and on our dime to boot….

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT !

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7646/41978817.jpg

William Amos on August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

OT: using the brinkmanship meme…blaming the gop…this is definitely a campaign stop NOT a listening tour…

if W even thought about doing this, the 24/7 outrage

bloody infuriating!!!!!

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Agree, change that picture!

IowaWoman on August 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM

King Barry on the boob tube on his Magical Misery Tour throwing the Republican’s under the bus and still blaming earthquakes.

And to think I’m paying for this. Sigh.

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:04 PM

This is nothing compared to how Mark Levin destroyed him on Friday’s show, correctly pointing out that Paul is a McGovernite on utopian foreign policy AND that he would not have voted for the Constitution had he been around at the time of the Convention…..and correctly pointing his listeners to Lew Rockwell’s website to find out who Paul truly is, insane.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Iran is a non-rational actor

The problem with Iran is not so much irrationality as it is that they have dangerous assumptions. They are fully rational given their assumptions, and their assumptions are no more irrational than any other religious belied — it’s just that it leads to exeptionally dangerous behavior.

Count to 10 on August 15, 2011 at 1:05 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Already has.

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

putting partisanship aside…just like what you are doing there champ?

yeah, right…

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Seven Percent Solution on August 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM

De Niro singing show tunes in ‘Analyze That’.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Shared sacrifice.

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Already has.

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Good lord.

Vyce on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I will be painfully honest and say West is technically correct.

Ron is a good man and far more qualified than Obama…but he’s not what America needs right now. Our biggest problem is the crumbling economy, and we need someone who might be able to turn it around.

If we weren’t facing default and skyrocketing unemployment, West would be just another drop of water in the sea of opinion. But with the situation we’re facing, he’s right.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If Ron Paul was appointed to chair the Federal Reserve, I wonder what he would do.

Count to 10 on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Iran is a non-rational actor, which is not necessarily the same as an irrational actor. The mullahs’ strategic goals are metaphysical; they want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule.

No they don’t. That’s what they tell the people. They want to maintain power first and foremost. And they know that starting a nuke war with the US will mean that 10 minutes later they will no longer have the power.

angryed on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Already has.

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Both Odie and TK should have been banned.
It’s troublesome that they haven’t been!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

King Barry on the boob tube on his Magical Misery Tour throwing the Republican’s under the bus and still blaming earthquakes.

And to think I’m paying for this. Sigh.

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Unexpectedly. Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the most blameless one of all? Glad it’s you and not me paying/

derft on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

West calls Barack Obama “Sir Neville Chamberlain … on steroids,”

RACIST!

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Shared sacrifice.

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

indeed…

our monies put to good use
/

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Good lord.

Vyce on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

odie makes true-king seem like David Ben Gurion .
Yeah-he’s that bad.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM

VEEP! VEEP!! VEEP!!!

RedNewEnglander on August 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Campaign speech indeed. He just said “if you elect me”

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Alternate Headline: Kind of Guy You Need In White House Comments on Kind of Guy You Don’t Need In White House

The Mega Independent on August 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Allen West
Congressman
Village of the Damned, Florida

PackerBronco on August 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Ron Paul is also a non-rational actor if he believes that we should just allow Iran to get nukes.

The Right Scoop on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

angryed on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Amahminnyman is a true believer. Not the most powerful twit there, but powerful enough. You also need to understand their doomsday prophecy. They are not waiting for the 12th Imam’s return. They believe they must destroy the world to facilitate his return.

NotCoach on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Knucklehead on August 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM

cripe….

cmsinaz on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Alternate Headline: Kind of Guy You Need In White House Comments on Kind of Guy You Don’t Need In White House

The Mega Independent on August 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Thread WINNAH!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

No they don’t. That’s what they tell the people. They want to maintain power first and foremost. And they know that starting a nuke war with the US will mean that 10 minutes later they will no longer have the power.

angryed on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

So, we should ignore the stated beliefs and stated intents from the Mullah’s, that entire brand of Islamic Theology on this assumption that they are secretly ‘rational’ actors???

Why exactly would this be wise?

Also, lets keep in mind this is the same ideology that produced 9/11 and straps bombs to children and sends them into shopping malls to kill Jews, Americans and infidels in general.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Allen West represents the vanguard of the alien invasion Krugman needs to restart the economy.

PackerBronco on August 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM


HEH!!!

BigWyo on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Oh, man, I was reading the Perry speech post on PJ Tatler. My stars and garters, the comments thread veered way off the main road into Crazytown. It was infested with several mentally ill Ronulan spammers. Black helicopter stuff–NWO, GHW Bush had Reagan shot, and Perry is Satan.

juliesa on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Not entirely correct Ed. We had a choice, just not a palatable choice. We could have vaporized the Soviet Union once we knew they had the bomb. The Soviets did not go from 0 to 100 in a day.

NotCoach on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

We didn’t have ICBMs back then – our “launch platform” was still the B-29 (the B-36 was just beginning to enter service). It wasn’t a matter of just turning keys to “vaporize” them.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Has anyone checked Memri to see if there are any Iranian TV segments praising Ron Paul?

I know Russia Today(which is Kremlin financed and Pravada 2.0 directed towards Western Audiences) will often feature our Useful Idiots: Ron Paul, Kucinich, Chomsky, etc. to promote their anti-American views.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

And they know that starting a nuke war with the US will mean that 10 minutes later they will no longer have the power.

angryed on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Heck, 10 minutes later they would no longer have Mecca or the leadership of basically every terror org. Everything east of Israel would be radioactive ash.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Oh, man, I was reading the Perry speech post on PJ Tatler. My stars and garters, the comments thread veered way off the main road into Crazytown. It was infested with several mentally ill Ronulan spammers. Black helicopter stuff–NWO, GHW Bush had Reagan shot, and Perry is Satan.

juliesa on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

They’re as nutty as LaRouche’s followers.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I thought about voting for RP once……

Then he opened his mouth on foriegn policy.. and…….

44Magnum on August 15, 2011 at 1:22 PM

The 20th century would’ve been more peaceful had we listened to Patton and taken out Stalin after defeating Hitler.

The West lack of moral clarity in looking Evil in the eye and calling it for what it is and dealing with it appropriately has caused greater conflict and more deaths and loss of Liberty.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM

We didn’t have ICBMs back then – our “launch platform” was still the B-29 (the B-36 was just beginning to enter service). It wasn’t a matter of just turning keys to “vaporize” them.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

No, but close enough. We could have destroyed their ability to manufacture anything almost overnight.

NotCoach on August 15, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Actually, MAD didn’t work on the Soviets. It did work on us.

Can you name one situation in which the fear of US retaliation with nukes discouraged the Soviets from fomenting proxy revolutions in the Third World, or from suppressing the populations of Eastern Europe with armed force? The weren’t stopped from doing the things they wanted to do by the MAD regime.

The Soviets never wanted to attack the US with nukes. They did want to gradually undermine as much of the world as possible with Marxist revolutions and totalitarian, Soviet-friendly governments, until the US, Western Europe, and Japan were isolated and weakened. MAD never stopped them from doing what they really wanted to do.

All that said, West is right about Obama and Ron Paul.

J.E. Dyer on August 15, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Ron Paul is to the presidential debates what a clown is to a rodeo. Good for a laugh.

dragondrop on August 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Oh, man, I was reading the Perry speech post on PJ Tatler. My stars and garters, the comments thread veered way off the main road into Crazytown. It was infested with several mentally ill Ronulan spammers. Black helicopter stuff–NWO, GHW Bush had Reagan shot, and Perry is Satan.

juliesa on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

They’re as nutty as LaRouche’s followers.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM

A ronulan on Fox Nation’s FB page called Perry the antichrist.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I’ll take the Army Colonel who recognizes the threat of Islam and doesn’t blame us for their attacks over a whiny isolationist who wants Israel treated like dirt but Iran treated like gold.

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

MadCon, why do you keep claiming Ron Paul wants to hurt Israel? For Pete’s sake, he wants us to respect Israel’s sovereignty and stop bossing the Israelis around! Here’s what he said when Obama called for a return of Israel to her 1967 borders:
Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

He also wants to cut off all foreign aid to Israel’s Muslim and Arab foes, who together receive 7 times more US taxpayer money than Israel! How is that treating Israel “like dirt”?

We talked about this on the weekend. Did you not read one thing I said then?

Inkblots on August 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM

angryed on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

back in the 1920′s hitler wrote a book spelling out exactly what he would do when he took power. it seemed so crazy and ridiculous that no one took it serious, even after he started doing those things. lesson is, when someone crazy talks crazy take them seriously.

chasdal on August 15, 2011 at 1:37 PM

West has now added laser eyes to his already formidable presence.

PackerBronco on August 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM

The black Chuck Norris…

Fartnokker on August 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Inkblots on August 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’d also point out that Ron Paul’s position of letting Israel do what they need to and not trying to hold them back is probably the best way to ensure Iran stays contained.

Inkblots on August 15, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between Iran and the Soviet Union in nuclear issues doesn’t belong in the White House. That’s true of Ron Paul, and it’s equally true of Barack Obama.

I’ve been saying this for a long time. I wrote a blog article about it awhile ago.

Ron Paul simply doesn’t deserve to be in the White House any more than Barak Obama. We elected a guy who went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for many years. We can’t afford to elect Ron Paul who is good friends with well known racist named Don Black.

Conservative Samizdat on August 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I see fear politics is still making head ways with the war hawks around here.

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Amen, Allen.

nickj116 on August 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM

MadCon, why do you keep claiming Ron Paul wants to hurt Israel?

Inkblots on August 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Because he opposed a resolution two years ago supporting Israel and denouncing Hamas as a terrorist organization…and claimed Israel created Hamas? Because he denounced them over the flotilla raid last year? Because when they respond to thousands of rocket attacks, he accuses them of a “preemptive war”? Because he just can’t take all these evil neocons suggesting that Iran is making nuclear weapons…until it’s unarguable, and then he defends their right to do so, regardless of their stated intentions?

If what you claim is true, then why the hell does every one of his comments either attack Israel’s decisions or defend those of their enemies?

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM

But West saves his most passionate criticism for Ron Paul, whose view on Iran is so irrational that West considers it disqualifying

Absolutely!

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM

This is 2-3 days old. Is news that slow today?

ProfessorMiao on August 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Oh, man, I was reading the Perry speech post on PJ Tatler. My stars and garters, the comments thread veered way off the main road into Crazytown. It was infested with several mentally ill Ronulan spammers. Black helicopter stuff–NWO, GHW Bush had Reagan shot, and Perry is Satan.

juliesa on August 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

They’re as nutty as LaRouche’s followers.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM

A ronulan on Fox Nation’s FB page called Perry the antichrist.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I agree with the three of you. There ARE economic points and views that Ron Paul makes that are worthy but then his supporters take over after Paul breaks out in irrational screeching suggestive of some sort of love affair with Iran that blames the U.S. for just about everything ill in the rest of the world (as he said in Iowa, “we just can’t mind our own business” which is Paul denigrating the U.S. defenses, quite abnormally in my view). But his followers are obviously a mix of quite Leftwing and Liberal and seem to try to hide with the “I’m a Libertarian” tag — which both contributes terrible reputations to Libertarians and ruins confidence in Paul simultaneously (if one needs to be covert about one’s political affiliations, one isn’t trustworthy politically).

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Long ago, a short while after 9/11, there was this webring came forth that was Ron-Paul-associated AND which received funding from the evil George Soros, and that gave rise to the “9/11 Truther” crowd. Most who participated were/are Leftwingers, not Conservatives and though someone label themself “Libertarian” it does not deny that they’re Leftwing, among their most heated concerns.

I am guessing that a great deal of the fervor associated with Ron Paul has more to do with “legalize drugs” demands than anything else. And among those demands can be found a lot of the Left and a lot of criminal, foreign interests.

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Long ago, a short while after 9/11, there was this webring came forth that was Ron-Paul-associated AND which received funding from the evil George Soros, and that gave rise to the “9/11 Truther” crowd. Most who participated were/are Leftwingers, not Conservatives and though someone label themself “Libertarian” it does not deny that they’re Leftwing, among their most heated concerns.

I am guessing that a great deal of the fervor associated with Ron Paul has more to do with “legalize drugs” demands than anything else. And among those demands can be found a lot of the Left and a lot of criminal, foreign interests.

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM

To restate the obvious, among Soros’ keenest interests is legalizing drugs, particularly marijuana, and destabilizing economies.

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Ron Paul is to the presidential debates what a clown is to a rodeo. Good for a laugh.

dragondrop on August 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Did you mean PBHO there?

HomeoftheBrave on August 15, 2011 at 2:14 PM

West is the kind of guy we need to replace Gates at the DoD with. Iran will have nuclear weapons! Pakistan does have nuclear weapons. I believe that the idea that a nuclear weapon will be lofted at a target is an antiquated idea! In a sneak attack scenario it’s much easier and cheaper to place the weapon at the target and detonate it then to advertise it’s arrival. Iran is crazy enough to target the Saudi Royals, what’s the response to that?

bigmike on August 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Ron Paul is also a non-rational actor if he believes that we should just allow Iran to get nukes.

The Right Scoop on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Yes; if there’s anything that summarizes why Ron Paul is alarming, it’s that position/statement of his.

Lourdes on August 15, 2011 at 2:21 PM

The tone of this post is a lot different from the apoplexy the Ronulans were having yesterday when this was in the headlines thread.

catmman on August 15, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Some Paulbot was all over my case the other night when I tried to explain to her why RP was wrong when he tried to compare the Soviets and Iran. Paul supporters are completely intellectually incurious when it comes to foreign affairs. One other thing – the longer Ron Paul stays in this race, the longer it will take Rand Paul to extricate himself from the suspicion that he might be as nuts as his father.

That said, West/Ryan 2012! :)

Connie on August 15, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Someone remind me again, how did Iran become so ‘dangerous?’

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Someone remind me again why Iran isn’t dangerous?

catmman on August 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Someone remind me again why Iran isn’t dangerous?

catmman on August 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Could they even defeat the Virginia militia of 1776?

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:39 PM

If what you claim is true, then why the hell does every one of his comments either attack Israel’s decisions or defend those of their enemies?

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM

So glad you saved me the effort of looking those things up, and there is more where that came from including Paul claiming AIPAC runs our Foreign Policy for Israel, all proof that Ron Paul is anything but Neutral.

For paultards though, all that matters is dear leaders rhetoric claiming to respect sovereignty and claiming to be neutral.

Paul doesn’t even respect American Sovereignty or he wouldn’t have criticized the Bin Laden raid, placing Pakistani Sovereignty over American Sovereignty

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Could they even defeat the Virginia militia of 1776?

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:39 PM

So this is what passes for a serious question for a Paultard? Of course you’re joking?

catmman on August 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM

There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another…

- Ron Paul

I don’t get WHY this idiot simply doesn’t understand that the ONLY way Iran (or most Muslim states) would ‘work out their differences with one another” is by wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Gee whiz… THIS IS THEIR STATED INTENSION fer goodness’ sake!

psrch on August 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Paulbots are nuts.

If Ron Paul’s foreign policy had been US policy after WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today. His idea of “national defense” is to wait until the enemy is coming up the Mississippi River in rowboats and take potshots from the banks.

His anti-Israel policies have already been noted above:

MadisonConservative on August 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Paul has also taken money and counted among his supporters some serious anti-Semitic groups and individuals, repudiating them only after coming under repeated fire for the associations.

He has been one of the GOP’s leading pork barrel spenders and earmarkers for decades, but he always got his spending inserted in committee. Then, when the final Omnibus bill was certain to pass with a big majority, he would make a huge show of voting “NO” and claiming to be against spending. This worked for 20 years because his supporters were too stoned to check the record.

Paul has touted gold for decades, too, without mentioning that virtually all of his personal wealth is in gold stocks, so anything he does that pumps up the price pays him directly. His “gold standard” is sheer nonsense – there is barely enough gold in the whole world to back US currency in circulation, and the US controls about 25% of it.

So either he has to invade and steal other countries’ gold, use the “fractional standard” he and other gold bugs always said (correctly) was no real standard at all, or trigger such massive deflation as to make the Great Depression look like a day at the beach. And for what? We used to HAVE the gold standard, the economy was no more stable then. We had inflation, deflation, booms and busts, recessions, panics, bank runs, and even the Great Depression under the gold standard – more instability than we have had since.

Then there is his mystical immigration policy. For his whole life, and as the LP candidate for President in 1988, Paul espoused an “open borders” philosophy, which was a basic tenet of Libertarianism. Only when his constituents began to sense the problems in the late ’90s did ol’ Ron change his tune – quietly. Some “man of priniciple” ya got there, Sparky!

So, we have Ron Paul, a two-faced lying fool with nonsense policies

Adjoran on August 15, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Someone remind me again, how did Iran become so ‘dangerous?’

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Carters’ derelection of duty, and Carter was a stronger version of what Paul is which is another sad indictment on Paul…..along with Islamic Theology.

The 1953 coup did not result in the Mullah’s, its a logical fallacy to state such a thing. Also, Paul lies in his little fairy tale. He doesn’t mention what Churchill and Eisenhower were protecting Private Property Rights of its citizens from the Communist stealing their property, and also doing the first duty of the Sovereign as articulated by Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations” by placing Iran on our side of the Iron Curtain and not the Soviet Side.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Iran is a much more cohesive country than Pakistan, which is nothing more than a make believe country of various tribes. Iran is going to pursue nuclear weapons. It would be irrational for them not too. They are surrounded on all sides by nuclear powers and they have suffered a devastating invasion in their recent history. The best “defense” against a nuclear Iran is friendly relations. There is no reason for the US and Iran to have a hostile relationship. Normalize trade and diplomacy and all the sudden a nuclear Iran is no more threatening than the Nuclear India or Nuclear China, and significantly LESS threatening than nuclear Pakistan.

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM

…and we shall then hold hands and sing Kumbaya and ride our purple unicorns into the sunset….

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:49 PM

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:46 PM

LOL at someone like Churchill caring about anyone’s property rights.

Iran doesn’t even like Russia. THey just distrust them less than us because they’re so terrified of us. The fact that people think Iran is dumb enough to use a nuclear bomb against us because they’re supposedly ‘irrational’ is insane.

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:50 PM

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:49 PM

There’s quite a difference between being friends and just acknowledging each other. Of course, the war hawks in this post fail to distinguish between the two.

USA! USA! USA!

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:52 PM

The fact that people think Iran is dumb enough to use a nuclear bomb against us because they’re supposedly ‘irrational’ is insane.

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:50 PM

The fact you believe Iran would try to stand toe to toe with a nuclear power is what’s dumb. Add to that you completely disregard the possibility they would use a proxy for such an attack is the real insanity.

catmman on August 15, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Message to Ron Paul: National Security Still Matters

Imagine the Republican outrage if a prominent Democrat became an apologist for Iran and its terrorist-backing, America-hating, theocracy, endorsing their drive for nuclear weapons and blaming the United States for strained relations. The GOP must display when one of their own presidential contenders, Ron Paul, takes these irresponsible positions in a televised debate in Iowa. Congressman Paul said Iran represented no danger to the US, he opposed economic sanctions against the Mullahs, and called it “natural that they might want a (nuclear) weapon.” Despite his strong showing in the Iowa straw poll, such statements demonstrate Ron Paul’s total inability to build a coalition to win the presidency. National security issues still matter to most Americans and his pro-Iranian fulminations, like his crackpot condemnation of the successful strike against bin Laden, place him far outside the GOP – and American – mainstream.

—-

jp on August 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM

There’s quite a difference between being friends and just acknowledging each other. Of course, the war hawks in this post fail to distinguish between the two.

USA! USA! USA!

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Newsflash moron: The Mullah’s that control Iran are not classical Liberals, they do not believe in Private Property Rights, they beleive in Sharia Law and a Caliphate they control. They believe in an Islamic Theology that demands they destroy the world to bring about their Messiah…..and they are the Chief Financier and Harbor of Islamic Terrorism, including Al-Qaeda and are actively at war, killing Americans(the “Great Satan”) to this day.

You guys are more suicidal and bigger Useful Idiots than Neville Chamberline ever was.

jp on August 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM

HA, please replace the picture. It makes Mr. West’s eyes white and it not becoming. There are plenty others. Thank you.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Good point . . . One “Newsweek” is enough.

rplat on August 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The problem with Ron Paul – and most Libertarians – is a common human fault. People often project their own motivations and desires onto others. It’s extremely difficult – if not impossible – to put ones self in another’s shoes and look at a situation from their perspective, especially when that other is from a culture completely alien to ones own.

Libertarians want others to leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit. This is a noble goal. The troulbe is that they assume everyone else wants the same thing.

Libertarians don’t seem to realize that Iran in particular – and Islamic extremists in general – have no desire to be left alone. Their religion, their prophet, their god promissed them dominance over all infidels, and by Allah they’ll achieve it, even if it means destroying themselves in the process.

OscarSchneegans on August 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Carter had Iran, Obowma has Egypt and Libya and both were terrible running the American economy proving, once and for all, Keynesianism FAILS.

dthorny on August 15, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Paul’s unofficial press secretary is pushing the conspiracy theory that RuPaul really won the Straw Poll and the “Warmongers” stole it from him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/08/the-straw-poll-was-probably-stolen-from-ron-paul/

jp on August 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM

If Iran wants nukes they are going to get them. There is no stopping them if they are determined. We didn’t stop Pakistan or India. We won’t stop Iran. Also, I would like to know if everyone who is criticizing Ron Paul on this would be willing to full scale attack Iran and invade the country? That is what you are advocating, as its the ONLY way they aren’t going to get the weapon. Full scale invasion and then nation building. Yea, that will help the image of America int he middle east.

thphilli on August 15, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Notorious GOP on August 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Jimmy Carter allowed the pro-U.S. monarchy to fall in Iran—not unlike the way Obama allowed Mubarak to fall.

Al in St. Lou on August 15, 2011 at 3:46 PM

threw Hosni Mubarak under the bus

We get it, conservatives would have continued to support the oppression of the Egyptian people. No need to keep reminding us how tight you guys like to get with tyrants.

ernesto on August 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Wow. A lot of moronic comments on this thread from people who have no clue about Ron Paul. I’m going to address one of them:

OscarSchneegans on August 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Libertarians don’t seem to realize that Iran in particular – and Islamic extremists in general – have no desire to be left alone.

The same can be said of US foreign policy. We routinely invade other countries and begin illegal wars of aggression with them. The US interferes with the internal affairs of sovereign countries everywhere in the world. But idiots like you are too blind to see what we are doing is actually worse than what most other countries do because of the scale we do it on. Ron Paul says we have no business doing it at all, and he is correct.

The world hates us because we can’t mind our own business, and if you can’t see that then you are a fool. But as Paul says, you’ll probably just call yourself a patriot because you’re already drunk on the koolaid.

woodNfish on August 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2