Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The GOP Is So Insane That Ron Paul Is Their Foreign Policy Voice Of Reason
On today’s Face the Nation, Ron Paul got a chance to parse his criticisms of W’s foreign policy, push his anti-war stance and defend his right to do both.
Bob Schieffer pushed Rep Ron Paul to explain the difference between his critique of George W Bush’s foreign policy and it’s possible impact on terrorists and the notion that he was “with the terrorists.” From this moment, we get a moment of pure absurdity wherein Paul mentions the Republican candidates’ lust for bombing Iran, as seen in their last debate on foreign policy. No, the absurdity isn’t Ron Paul; it’s the other Republican candidates.
Here is the video from CBS News:
BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. We begin this morning with Congressman Ron Paul. The polls, Mister Paul, suggest that you’re now in the thick of it out in Iowa; basically in a statistical tie with Romney, with Cain, and with Mister Gingrich. So I want to ask you some questions. Now that you’re among the front-runners, we need to know more about your positions on the issues. And I want to start with foreign policy because your statements over the years posted on your website and elsewhere some of the things you have said in the debates suggest that you believe that 9/11 happened because of actions that the United States took. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (Republican Presidential Candidate/R-Texas): Oh, I– I– I think there’s an influence. And that’s exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That’s what the DOD has said. And that’s also what the CIA has said and that’s what a lot of researchers have said. And just remember immediately after 9/11 we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection. That doesn’t do the whole full explanation. But our policies definitely had an influence. And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don’t like American bombs to be falling on our country. And we don’t like the intervention that we do in their nations. So to deny this I think is very dangerous. But to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we’re free and prosperous I think is a very, very dangerous notion because it’s not true.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I– I would– I would question the import of what some of those commissions found that– that you’ve cited there. But basically what you’re saying, Mister Paul, is that it was America’s fault that 9/11 happened and it was our fault that it happened?
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL: No. I– I think that’s– I think that’s a misco– misconstruing of what I’m saying because America is you and I. And we didn’t cause it. The average American didn’t cause it. But if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it. When Ronald Reagan went in to Lebanon, he was deeply– he deeply regretted this because he said if he’d been more neutral those Marines wouldn’t have died in Lebanon because the policy was flawed. The same thing that McNamara said after the Vietnam War. He wrote in his memoirs that, you know, if– if he would have changed– if it– if we don’t learn from our policies, it won’t be worth anything. So I’m saying policies have an effect. But that’s a far cry from blaming America.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well–
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (overlapping): I mean, in America you’re supposed–
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. But– yeah– all right.
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (overlapping): –to be able to criticize your own government. You’re supposed to be able to criticize your own government without saying you’re un-American.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Of course. But what’s your–
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (overlapping): And that’s the implication is.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But what– what you are saying it– it was the government’s fault. That– that basically is what you’re saying. Let me move on to– from something else.
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL: I’m saying the policyma– the policymakers’ fault–
BOB SCHIEFFER: The policymakers fault.
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (overlapping): –contributed to it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (overlapping): Contributed to it.
Paul supported the notion of using diplomats with Iran and warned that the biggest danger is “over-reacting.” (WMD anyone?)
Schieffer interrupted pointing out that no one in the US government has suggested bombing Iran.
Paul countered that he was citing the Republican candidates robust lust for the notion of bombing Iran based on their contention that Iran has a nuclear weapon.
Fortunately, none of those people are in the US government right now, to all of our relief.
With Ron Paul leading in Iowa, he’ll finally get some air time and with that, some of the tougher questions that have stumped many of his brothers and sisters in the Republican field. Much can be said about Ron Paul’s fiscal Randian fantasies, but when it comes to foreign policy, his anti-war stance is resonating with a war-weary nation. Paul rightly points out that we should be able to criticize our government’s handling of a threat without being accused of being “with the terrorists” and Paul also rightly deflated the meme that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.
I’m not quite sure what Paul is doing running as a Republican, because while he leans right with his socially conservative leanings and his Somalian dreams of killing the fed, only neo-con hawks get the love in a party steeped in the nationalistic fever seen with all machines selling a war based on propaganda.
The fact that I am even writing a pro-Ron Paul foreign policy article is a condemnation of the remaining Republican candidates more than support for Ron Paul, whose black and white approach to foreign policy lacks nuance but makes up for that short-coming by failing to be insane.
Ron Paul is emerging as an interesting candidate this cycle. He may just have hit his stride in the 2012 election, when finally the audience for his anti-war message and anti-intercession message has widened beyond the Paulites.
Paul Ryan claimed today that he has more foreign policy experience that President Obama had in 2008, but ...
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was on CNN's Larry King Live last night, and he pulled no punches when the discussion t ...
Somebody at CNN’s Larry King Live thought that it would be a great idea to put Ben Stein and Rep. Ron Paul o ...
America, and apparently most of the GOP field, don't seem to care about the first Republican presidentia ...
Keith Olbermann took Ron Paul and his crazy supporters who put out a bizarre racist video about Jon Hunt ...
Reynardine
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Damn straight, it’s a sorry lookout for a party when a candidate like this is the only one that looks sane.
KarenJ
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Well…not the ONLY one.
I wouldn’t vote for any of these characters, but Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, and — sometimes — Jon Huntsman sound like the Republicans we used to know back before St. Ronnie broke into politics (and yes, I remember when Reagan used to host Death Valley Days).
Reynardine
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I remember when he was doing G.E. Theater.
Jay
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz agrees with Ron Paul:
“There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed–but it’s huge–is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia.
“Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.”
Source: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair (09 May 2003)
Jay
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“Bob Schieffer promised Ron 20 minutes on Face the Nation, but cut him off after 10, because he was demolishing that establishment shill. Catch Schieffer’s smirk. Also, there was a loud buzzing from Ron’s earpiece during the entire interview. Deliberate? Who knows, but the flaw had been pointed out again and again 15 minutes before airtime.” (Source: Lew Rockwell)
KarenJ
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
“Source: Lew Rockwell” alone is enough to discount your link-less reference, but maybe you can come up with a link to a source who isn’t a self-described anarcho-capitalist.
Yikes, Rockwell’s “About” page reads like the patient index at an asylum.
www.lewrockwell.com/about...
Jay
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Clearly you are more comfortable with socialists, fascists and other statists?
Boscoe
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Yes, CLEARLY. Wait… what?
I can’t speak for KarenJ, but I know *I’m* more comfortable with people who don’t advocate that unrestricted avarice and “every man for himself” is the answer to all worldly problems.
…or believe in fairy tales like: “the market will regulate itself”
Paul is another unfortunate self-defeating case like Nader was. For every sound idea, he’s got three batshit insane ones.
Brian
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
So you want to regulate the now unrestricted Internet? yes or no? because we know what a disaster that has been and we MUST immediately protect the poor people on there who can’t defend themselves…
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Who are the socialists fascists and statists?
Driftforge
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Think about how sorry the lookout for the party would be if there was no Ron Paul.
But yes, great article, I appreciate the perspective you’ve brought to it.
Ron Paul is confusing to many because he doesn’t fit the current right-left paradigm. He works from a consistent basis – follow the consitituion, promote liberty – that means that he can’t easily be stumped. If he runs into a situation he hasn’t been asked about, he has a basis that provides him with the consistent answer.
As to the Fed – well the answer there is that the Fed is the largest, most deeply entrenched, rent seeker in the nation. Every piece of money the Fed prints, every bit of interest it collects, comes out of wages and capital returns.
Just because something is acceptable, doesn’t make it right.
Keith
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I’m a Democrat. I will vote again for Obama. But, Paul raises some important issues around excessive spending. No, I wouldn’t do away with the Dept. of Education nor other government agencies, but I want answers to some hard questions involving our collective failure to do a better job of educating our people–and the high, increasing costs of a college education. I worked for the federal government: I think at least a 5% cut in government employment in specific agencies, starting with NSA and the CIA, wouldn’t hurt.
We should also reduce our role as the world’s policeman and close a lot of overseas bases, excepting South Korea. We have the sea power and drones and Rapid Reaction Forces to deal with small and large issues. Why do we keep bases in Japan and Germany, among others? Let’s save some money by reducing our presence where it is no longer needed.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
The entire failure of our educations system is the parents. The teachers cannot force kids to learn. The teachers cannot force kids to stay in school. Also the system has to change to meet the changing type of kids that are addicted to games and computers
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Its always been my contention that the US actions in the ME were in part responsible for the formation of 9/11. We must stop getting involved in other peoples problems
But as far as America being Broke, that’s far from true. Thats the Reagan gee we are going down the drain prop up the rich crap.
Ron Paul is not sane at all. Just saner
Mr Joseph Schmoe
Nov. 20th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I think there is a place at the bottom of the “circle” where the thoughtful left and the thoughtful right can ditch the populists and find common ground and start talking sense instead of getting swept up in so much of the spoon-fed drama and emotion.
Mr. Ed
Nov. 21st, 2011 at 9:56 am
I hate to rain on every-bodies parade, but just who will you vote for in 2012? Obama? Do you mean the guy who has broken about all of his campaign promises? The same guy that handed out “stimulus money” (that put us 10 more years in dept)to the very same corporations that had raped America in the first place? The one who as yet said anything about O.W.S.(as found trying different search engines)?
I have yet to hear about any other Democrats looking to fill the position, and the other Republicans are…taking Dr. Paul’s ideologies and using them to try to give themselves some form of realistic solutions to save America if they were the next president.
As far as Ron Paul the Republican goes, he said himself that he knew that it would be the only way to win the election. Considering how most Americans are fooled by this 2 party system he is right on target. He may seem an old doddering has-been but check his record. He has stuck to his beliefs since he started in politics. He believes in the Constitution and the American People. He knows that we can pull ourselves back to the top if the government would let us do what we need to do.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 21st, 2011 at 10:07 am
there is a website, and I’m not sure if it’s Politifact or what, but Obama has 84% of his campaign promises to date. So you are not raining on anyone’s parade, you’re just simply wrong. I’m sure someone here can provide the link to that site.
As for Ron Paul, if you wish to live in an environmentally destroyed land then go for him. If you want to work in a completely unsafe worksite than vote for him. If you want your parents living on charity that doesn’t exist, then vote for him. If you want your daughters and wives rights to take a backward step into the year 1500, then vote for him
BTW, the funds that went to Corporations came from TARP, a Bush idea