It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
And oh yes,according to Dondero, Ron Paul has some interesting views on Israel. He isn't just anti-Israel, he's against it's very existence and thinks it all ought to be given back to the Arabs.
That of course fits in with the amendment he offered lst February to cut off all aid and military sales to Israel and only Israel.And his endorsement in 2008 of avowed anti-semite and 9/11 truther Cynthis McKinney,who ran as the Green Party candidate.
Anti-semite? Naw. not Ron Paul! Just ask the neo-Nazis over at Stormfront who are raising money for him and have his logo on their site.
Ron Paul hanging out with Stormfront founder Don Black...birds of a feather indeed.
5 comments:
The Arab Spring needs to come to the US before "indispensable nation" fools, imperialists-for-profit and dual loyalists succeed in quagmiring the US in AfPakIran etc. and gas goes to 10 dollars a gallon and we need another Lindbergh to try desperately to pull us out of the unwinnable morass. This time, Russia and China and most of Europe won't be on our side.
Israel and America are NOT a majority, baby.
I fear that if Ron Paul becomes President, he will create a huge mess and make the world even less safe. His view of foreign affairs through the distorted lens of conspiracy theories is a major concern and should be evidence to disqualify him for the job.
The only comfort of such an event is that all those who saw through the Ron Paul personality cult can say to his supporters that "we told you so" when the ash clears.
Note the anonymous column above..you see what I mean about Ron Paul's neo-Nazi fans.
Maybe your hero Ron Paul can go to Iran and get a medal from the Jihadists before they try to cut our throats, just like your hero Lindbergh got a medal from Hitler.
What an ass.
As a general rule, the words of "former" members of a team about the team or the team leader should be treated with skepticism. Now with that said there do seem to be some problems with Dr. Paul's foreign policy. Specifically he seems to side to much with our enemies. Even so, our current foreign policy is a total mess and it seems can only end badly. While Dr. Paul's foreign policy is less than perfect, it likely would represent an improvement over what we currently have. Of course ANY person now running would likely be a vast improvement over what we currently have.
Specifically I think Dr. Paul's ideas about limiting our military involvement in other countries is spot on. His support for the posiitions of America's enemies, not so good. With regards to significant cuts in deployments outside of America unless we get a handle on our reckless spending and out of control debt pretty soon we won't be able to have a foreign policy much less be able to project power around the world.
Anonymous, writes "America and Israel are not a majority baby." While I can emphasize with some of what you write, for example there is nothing "indispensible" about the US and, if Iran were invaded right now or if Iran invaded the US gas would probably go to 10 dollars a gallon, this would not be helpful.
Furthermore Russia, China, and most of Europe would not be on our side. You are correct to point this out. Now given the fact that Islamic terrorists and the nations who support them pose a far greater threat to America than Nazi Germany ever did or likely ever could and America is much less powerful relatively speaking than the America of the 1940s, what can we do to confront and defeat this enemy? Perhaps deals can be made with Russia and China to some how get them to withdraw support from Iran. If this could be done, Iran would be much easier to deal with. You'd need some mechanism in place to ensure Russian and Chinese compliance with any deal. Given the intense and generally hostile media scrutiny America faces, American compliance is assured.
Just because America and Israel are not in the majority does this mean they should just commit suicide or curl and die becasue Europe, Russia, China, the Arabs, or Iran think they should? Obviously Israel and America are different countries. As such, we would expect their national defense policies to be different. Now just because a position is not held by the majority, if it is a correct position, this should not stop us from perusing it. Israel should not be expected to die simply because Europe, the Arabs, Iran, Russia, China, and some important officials in the US government want it to.
Finally, we allot of support for Dr. Paul with important members of Mr. Obama's team, the media, and others because there is very little dayligt between them and Dr. Paul on foreign policy issues. Should Mr. Obama some how lose, they want to ensure that the next President holds their positions on foreign policy. While there is a great deal of difference between Dr. Paul and "Libertarians" with the Democrats and team Obama on economic policy, there is little difference on foreign policy. Since foreign policy takes precedent with both groups over economic or social issues, close cooperation between the groups is hardly surprising and will likely incorease.
Finally, in the coming years assuming it is not already so, we will have to deal with a situation where Russia and China are the world's dominant powers. Persuing our economic and national security interests within this framework is certainly possible and good outcomes for our country are possible but first this truth must be acknowledged. Denying the reality of this gets us no where productive.
Post a Comment