Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point

FOXNews.com ^ | 5/21/2007 | Radley Balko

[The_Eaglet]

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

[P-40]

Apparently, you missed the debate.

I understand the argument. Sadly, few do.

[P-40]

Ron Paul’s method of dealing with Islamo-fascists seems to be to follow their orders.

Seriously, how in the world do you come up with something like that?

[webboy45]

When you’re a beacon you stand out in the world. And, there’s always some idiot that tries to shoot out the light.

[Red Phillips]

You big-government interventionists kill me. We should not have gone to war in the first Gulf War. The defense of Kuwait is entirely the responsibility of Kuwait. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the use of the US military to fight on behalf of Kuwait or anyone else. The purpose of the US military is solely the defense of America. So we should not have been enforcing the UN no-fly zone in the first place. Conservative should want us out of the UN.

You interventionists are whistling past the graveyard. No one except the already firmly committed still buys your rhetoric. Once firm interventionists are jumping ship or backtracking. (Sullivan, Kincaid, etc.) Those who have been anti-intervention but were afraid to speak up are now emboldened. Rightist anti-war, non-interventionist have always been out there but now we have a voice to rally around, Ron Paul. Paleos and libertarians alike are joining forces against the big-government Wilsonian interventionists who pretend to be conservatives. (Ha.)

Just watch the Internet for proof. At conservative sites that post pro-Rudy content and disparage Paul the comments usually run heavily in Paul’s favor. They used to could safely get away with posting pro-war boilerplate. Now they can’t. Principled non-interventionists and Paul supporters are everywhere.

Just look at FR. I used to be about the only person I ever saw posting anti-intervention comments here. Now I am not. Big-government Wilsonian interventionists, your reign is coming to an end.

[Gondring]

I’m disappointed in him because he didn’t really plan ahead and he had to know that he’d be hammered on Iraq. over and over again.

Likewise.

[The_Eaglet]

My eyes must be playing tricks with me. This is on Fox is it? What? Somebody that tells the truth decided to hack their site? Excellent news and well reasoned argument.

Their computers can tally text message polls reasonably well, too, despite Sean Hannity's complaints.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Paul Has a Point

Granted.

[Gondring]

Bill Mahar who said the terrorists that flew into the WTC are heros has also said Ron Paul is his new hero.

Please provide a single citation of Bill Maher claiming those who flew into the WTC are "heros"...

Perhaps you mean the conversation following this...

Dinesh D'Souza: Bill, there's another piece of political correctness I want to mention. And, although I think Bush has been doing a great job, one of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards.

Bill Maher: Not true.

Dinesh D'Souza: Not true. Look at what they did. First of all, you have a whole bunch of guys who are willing to give their life. None of 'em backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete.

I suppose D'Souza isn't conservative, either, huh? Do delusions come with conversion to neocondom, or are they a result?

I don't understand why neocons don't just join the Democrat party with the rest of the big nannies.

[billbears]

Dinesh D'Souza: Bill, there's another piece of political correctness I want to mention. And, although I think Bush has been doing a great job, one of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards.

Bill Maher: Not true.

Dinesh D'Souza: Not true. Look at what they did. First of all, you have a whole bunch of guys who are willing to give their life. None of 'em backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete.

That would be Dinesh D'Souza, held in high regards for quite sometime by the worthless Claremont Institute

Never knew Dinesh said that. Simply wow.

[Silverbug]

I’d like to know why Bin Laden hasn’t declared a Jihad against Amsterdamn. They have legal drinking under age 21, legalized marijuana, and legalized prostitution...all major sins under Islam.

Their culture is much more sinful, atheistic, and anti-Islam...so why aren’t they being attacked?

Oh right...because they’ve never had never had hundreds of thousands of troops on muslim holy land...and they aren’t trying to “reshape the world” through military force.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Thanks for the post.

Paul nails it.

Bite me, Paul bashers...

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Damn ... the "Monday Nite" boredom factor is "really" setting in ... especially when I'm compelled to even post about Ron Paul ... and his intellectually dishonest statements (last week) about the U.S. role in the Middle East.


Yeah ... I guess Moslems (the world over) have EVERY REASON to BLOODY HATE us Americans ...


Let's start with Israel ... oops, wait, we can't start there because "only" United States constraint (i.e. protecting the imbecile Arabs prevented Israel from conquering (permanently) Cairo, Damamcus, Beirut and the quite strategic Suez Canal ... in at least a couple of wars.


So much for "legitimate" Arab anger against the U.S. regarding Israel ...


BUT ... how about Afghanistan ?

Sorry ... it was the United States that helped the Afghans defeat their would-be Soviet conquerers.


So ... it must be BOSNIA ... and how (oops again) the United States stopped Serbia in their "alleged" genocide against the poor, pitiful Moslems.


Ron Paul & Company ... do you get my point ?

Islamics and Moslems HATE US because we don't stone adulterous Women in the streets, enslave and sexually assult little girls by the MILLIONS, placed the Apollo Missions square in the Face of their Moon God ... etc etc ect



Perhaps Ron Paul and Jimmy "The Imbecile" Carter are actually cut from the same idiotic cloth ...


Patton-at-Bastogne



.

[Theodore R.]

I believe Ron Paul first lost his House seat in the Carter tide of 1976. People then really believed in GA Jimmuh’.

[af_vet_rr]

If we left the Middle East entirely, tomorrow, do you suppose the radicals would just forget about us?

They would forget about us until they finished their little civil war, one way or another, and somebody came out of it as top dog and put together a caliphate. At that point they'd go after Israel, and we'd be faced with the prospect of getting militarily (not just materially) involved with the defense of Israel. If we didn't, and Israel faced a truly unified Islamic front/empire/whatever, with the Palestinians doing their bidding, I would not be surprised to see nukes flying.

We'd also face the prospect of terrorists coming across our borders (we can thank President Jorge Bush for leaving them unsecured).

There is no doubt in my mind that if we were to pull out tomorrow, that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would fall to the radicals within a few years, and I could easily see some kind of calphate including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (and potentially the small countries in the region sitting on the Persian Gulf). Sure, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt would resist, but I could easily see Jordan falling, and possibly Syria.

Tinfoil? Not all, it was less than 100 years ago that the Ottoman Empire fell. Pakistan is an assassination away from going under radical rule, and Saudi Arabia is already having to deal with would-be attackers against the Royal family - it's only a matter of time before somebody gets close enough. You reap what you sow - the Saudis have allowed the radicals to teach in their country for far too long.

[cva66snipe]

Ron Paul was the only real thinker with answers on the subject that night. Was Rudy scared he was going to be asked a foreign policy question he could not answer? Ron Paul's reply was well studied and considering it was an out of the blue question the Moderators would not have handed anyone else on the floor he handled it great. An accurate assessment was given and I only wish our other congressmen and senators had his insight and depth of thinking.

[af_vet_rr]

>> Yeah ... I guess Moslems (the world over) have EVERY REASON to BLOODY HATE us Americans ...

You should listen to what they say. They don't need a reason, they need a focus. The radicals try to focus the hate of their followers on the US. Saudi schools are full of people preaching that we should be destroyed.

I've been to Saudi Arabia multiple times, both before and after the first Gulf War. I felt very much despised by them. It wasn't just some local town elder raising a shit fit with me and then my commander because somebody under me made the mistake of carrying a Bible openly between tents 20 feet apart.

>>Sorry ... it was the United States that helped the Afghans defeat their would-be Soviet conquerers.

If you studied their history, that means nothing to them. The US was simply a tool they used against the Soviets. We didn't endear ourselves to them because we gave them weapons or training.

>>Islamics and Moslems HATE US because we don't stone adulterous Women in the streets, enslave and sexually assult little girls by the MILLIONS, placed the Apollo Missions square in the Face of their Moon God ... etc etc ect

In a way you're agreeing with Ron Paul and to an extent with me - they hate us because of some of what you just said, and our presence in the Middle East reinforces that hatred, because they see that everyday.

That's why their focus has been in the Middle East and not in the US.

Their view is that our presence in the Middle East is much worse than our existence in general. Once they find a way to get us out of the Middle East, then they will eventually come here (once they deal with Israel).

Don't be surprised - if the Democrats pull us out some how, combined with the open borders that Bush and his buddies want, if they come here. It might take them 10 or 20 years - Europe seems more vulnerable at this point, and more immediate, what with the problems in France, Belgium, etc., but they will come at some point.

[af_vet_rr]

>> Problem here is threefold I think. Paul doesn't seem to memorize soundbites so he shoots from the hip (sort of like politicians did when they used to tell the truth). Fox News Wendell Goler twisted his words to ask a question through insinuation Rep. Paul never said. Rudy Giuliani didn't keep his mouth shut and allow Rep. Paul to finish his statement.

In my mind, Rudy is grasping to stay relevant, and anytime he can bring up 9/11, he will do so. The Onion article about Rudy running for President of 9/11 rings true.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul's reply was well studied and considering it was an out of the blue question the Moderators would not have handed anyone else on the floor he handled it great.

It certainly showed more depth than an interruption with an accusation of absurdity that failed to address Dr. Paul's points of explanation.

[Gondring]

That would be Dinesh D'Souza, held in high regards for quite sometime by the worthless Claremont Institute

I actually like a lot of Dinesh D'Souza's work, yet the Claremont 'tute with its Lincoln worship doesn't really grab me.

The remainder of the exchange, which got Bill Maher in hot water, was...

MAHER: Exactly.

D'SOUZA: These are warriors. And we have to realize that the principles of our way of life are in conflict with people in the world. And so -- I mean, I'm all for understanding the sociological causes of this, but we should not blame the victim. Americans shouldn't blame themselves because other people want to bomb them.

MAHER: But also, we should -- we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. You're right.

The point is, Maher didn't call them heroes. A person may be courageous yet a scoundrel.

What I find quite interesting is that these Arabs copied in such detail an ancient Jewish tactic (suicidally take down a building to kill 3,000 enemies), yet I don't think anyone debates Samson's "cowardice" in his actions.

[af_vet_rr]

>> The danger is that some within the left will draw the incorrect conclusion that we should take an isolationist stance, or at least withdraw some of our military and intelligence assets in the Middle East, Stans, Persia, North Africa and Caucasus.

The problem is Bush and Cheney and the rest of their group are partly to blame for giving the Democrats the opening to pull us out. Rather than making a clear case for removing Saddam, they gave us a bunch of crap intelligence guesses and pretenses. I've always thought that we should remove Saddam, since the first Gulf War, because when he died, the country was going to fall apart. Bush is capable of making a clear case to the American people. I still am stunned by the what they gave us as the reasons for going into Iraq.

Iraq is like Yugoslavia - some countries should not exist - too much ethnic and religious hatred going back too many centuries - the Brits and French did a piss-poor job of drawing up national boundaries after WWI. I always felt that Saddam needed to be removed by us rather than us going in and picking up the pieces.

For whatever idiotic reason, Bush did not ramp up the armed forces and reverse the trends from the first Bush Presidency and then from Clinton, especially after 9/11, when it was clear we were going to need a lot of troops (our high tech weapons are great, but we still need boots on the ground, whether they are Marines or soldiers, and I say this as a former Air Force officer.

My sense has always been from May of 2003, after we were able to really assess the situation, that much of Iraq (and the people and military) did not feel like they were truly conquered. I'm not saying at the level of Sherman's march to the sea, or the firebombings of Germany or Japan, but there were large parts of Iraq that were left alone and too much military hardware was floating around, and had we had a few hundred thousand more American troops going through Iraq (not necessarily destroying/killing, just a presence), I think it would have truly sunk in that Americans and our allies controlled things.

Instead, we are now faced with the situation that parts of the country are out of our control, and will be for some time, and this emboldens our enemies.

>> It was common knowledge already before 911 and OBL made no secret about why he was attacking us time and time again. If you go back and sift through the media from khobar towers you’ll see references as to our presence in the holly land. How these little tid bits of information are pieced together by policy makers attempting to advance their career and sell themselves is what’s interesting and disappointing alike.

What's really disappointing to me is how many FReepers and critics alike ignore this. Time and again we were attacked, and time and again, we blew it off, like we were swatting at flies.

OBL did not hide the fact at all that he wanted Americans dead. We blissfully ignored it (or Clinton did - many of us in the military at the time were very much alarmed by OBL and others like him). Even today, people still make excuses for Clinton's actions (or non-actions) - even in this very thread.