Archived Ron Paul Newsletters. The gifts that keep on giving (remember: last night, Paul said there are only eight or ten regrettable sentences in all of the decades of his newsletters! Count them yourself!)
Posted on 12/30/2011 12:24:19 PM PST by mnehring
One of the more insane claims in Ron Paul’s newsletters was that the Israelis were behind the WTC bombings in 1993:
Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.
This claim is of course so ridiculous and absurd that even Paul has to protect himself by claiming that “a Jewish friend” told him about it. What a handy rhetorical device! If only Paul had had the foresight to couch all his racist remarks in the newsletters in this way, he wouldn’t have any problems right now! “As a black friend of mine once told me, 95% of all black people in DC are criminal or semi-criminal.” See how effective that is?
Dan has already covered some of the statements in Paul’s book (which he has not yet disavowed writing) that sound a lot like the newsletters he now disavows. One of the excerpts CNN did not cover was Paul’s section on the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. You’ll never guess who Paul thinks was responsible:
The Middle East, in the last forty years, has soaked up billions of dollars in the name of American security and peace. The more we give Israel, the more we must give their Arab enemies. The height of this folly was vividly and tragically dramatized on October 23, 1981, with the killing of the 241 Marines in Beirut when their barracks were destroyed by radical Moslems. The terrorists probably were aided by Iran and supplied with explosives sold to them by Israel, originating from the United States and paid for by American taxpayers.
I have to admit that this is somewhat of a new spin on the usual anti-Israel conspiracy theory associated with this particular event. One thing that seems clear is that Paul’s natural instinct is to disbelieve that Muslim terrorism can exist unless those rascally Jews are behind it somehow.
Thanks for that. Apologies for the double post. We’re up to c. 200 billion on Israel. I agree they need strong defense. Peace and prosperity are worthy aims. Just wonder why we are paying for it. I do not trust BIG GOVERNMENT, and I do not believe everything I hear or read.
We don’t treat them like our ‘welfare population’. The last time I checked, we didn’t sell missile systems and F111s to our ‘welfare population’. They are capable and are pretty good at making their own technology, but they are also savvy and know it is sometimes cheaper to buy something from an external partner instead of producing it themselves.
Israel is not a welfare child, she is a partner.
We treat them like a strategic ally and a democratic outpost for our interests. They are a customer for our military technology in the same way dozens of other nations are. Being a customer for that technology is part of that alliance and keeps them from allying with, say, China.
You may recall in the 60s, there was actually a race between the US and Russia on making Israel her ally and partner- we obviously one and Russia chose to ally with Egypt and Syria instead.
If you look at detail into most of the transactions, more often than not, we are just selling it at a steep discount or is part of trade agreements. If we don't someone else will and that outpost will then have an interest to that party instead of to us.
Think strategically. If you are setting up a base of operations and a perimeter, you want to have the highest hill. Having an agreement with your neighbor to use that hill is in your interest and letting an opponent have that hill is against your interests. Israel is the biggest 'hill' in a region of the world that is strategically vital to our interests lest we have Ottoman Empire Part 2 have us in a stranglehold over a large percentage of our energy resources. We may not like it, but that is the reality of the situation and to play head in sand like Paul does (or worse, blame that ally for the ills of the world like he did in the source of the original article) works directly against our interests.
It is funny though+, Paul claims over and over to be a 'non interventionist' but he, as a representative of the US Government, constantly speaks out against us and our allies attempting to drive a wedge in there emboldening our opponents. If that isn't interventionism, I don't know what is (the difference is he is choosing to work against our treatied allies instead of for our interest). He has even gone to Iran's state media several times with these games. He is an interventionist of the worst kind.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
*Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike. ( Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.239-240 Apr 2011)
*We're endangered as a result of our foreign policy. (Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 40 Apr 2011)
*We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad. (Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.131 Apr 2011)
On the Issues got the quotes from his book Liberty Defined.
I don’t consider a country where EVERYONE serves in the military to be a victim of any sort. They deserve my tax money far more than our domestic welfare slackers who have no sense of duty, honor, patriotism, self-respect, dignity or work ethic.
This is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen.
The muzzie do it and the Jews get the blame.
Yea...right!
On the face of it, yes. From the perspective of accountability between people and governments it is a question that needs to be asked. (Did you buy your oppressed neighbor a Sigarm P22 for Christmas?) Israel has tremendous resources, both natural and human. They are a blessed, and great people. Above that tough as nails. We could learn a few lessons from them.
Ultimately wars are born from lack of faith in God's provision. So there will always be wars. It's not kooky or insane or ridiculous to assert that the United States and its people live prosperously and peacefully without expecting the globe to follow her ideals in terms of what constitutes freedom. Same goes for Israel.
This is not just about wars and the middle east, but about good government. Good government is a blessing from Above. At the same time, Above did not plan this world to last forever.
Ron Paul is nothing more than a modern day version of WWII’s “Lord Hee-Haw.”
I understand the need to promote stability and be strong. Paul’s concern is in regard to our attempts at setting up cultural, political, religious ambitions in regions where our ideals are not accepted.
While we are dedicated to univeral propositions that addend to civility, we should not be so naive as to expect worldwide-wide acceptation. Where those ideals are not accepted, Ron Paul would prefer dialogue over war. It appears kooky in terms of the status quo, but . . . thinking locally . . . if the drug dealer next door is willing to barter for my services, I would not think it wise to threaten him with “accept Jesus first or go to jail.” At the same time, if that drug dealer would make any attempt to take my life or property he’d be dead before he could say “NaNCY pELOSI.”
I just don’t see Ron Paul as many major threat to American interests. I trust the people of this country and God Who made all things enough that hurling insults at Paul or his detractors is not at all beneficial.
You have a very sanitized view of Paul as evidenced by the fact, you aren't even addressing his views in the source article. He uses this as his front statement to the masses, but as we both know, he goes well beyond this to positioning the US and her allies as a force for evil in the world while being apologetic to our enemies. Worse, he gives our overt enemies too much power- for example, encouraging the belief that Al Qaeda attacked us simply because 'we were there', both false in application as well as it gives AQ credence in countries where they have no authority to speak. For example, Osama did mention we have US bases in Saudi Arabia (actually just one but that is semantics). Paul giving lip service to AQ's reasoning first both rejects the history of the Islamist movements but it also gives AQ a false authority as to saying who can or can't be in the region. Our base in Saudi Arabia was there at the invitation of the Saudi government and AQ had no authority in it whatsoever.
To be frank, I see little difference between stuff like this and Paul's going to Iran's state TV and denouncing us, and Hanoi Jane.
Gee, those Jooose are pesky little critters. If we can get someone to fire up the oven, Ronnie can bring his stash of Zyklon B. “My dad has a barn...let’s put on a show!”
And yes, that is a poor attempt at humor. Ron is just nuts.
Another aspect of this I would like to know: How much have our representatives benefited financially and politically by requesting provisions for Israel’s defense? Do you have any figures?
It can pay to be a victim, and it can pay to be a friend of victims.
WTF? Why are we accepting Saudi provisions and stipluations in the first place? Have we no balls? Have we no resources right here at home?
One useful thing that may come of it, though is that later on in the campaign, when we bring up questions about zero's documentation, we'll be able to ask these media outlets why it is that Paul's writings of 20+ years ago were relevant, but zero's aren't. Something to keep in mind for later.
Democracies have a far better track record of not engaging in wars with each other than dictatorships. Muslims have a far higher likelihood of getting into wars than other religions. A basic component of our national security ought to be promoting democracy and doing whatever we can to suppress or reform Islam.
There is a substantial difference, inasmuch as Ron Paul would prefer to see the USA strong and prosperous, where Hanoi Jane would see us morph into mediocrity.
It is naive to consider the attacks on Beruit Barracks, WTC I, and WTC II as anything less than blow back for specific dabblings in places where our ideals are not accepted. Folks who cry out "looney tunes" to this proposition are weak of mind. It is not that we are trading in wrong principles, but that we have been delinquent in applying them tactfully.
I may be sanitizing Ron Paul. He has his problems, as does anyone who serves publicly. If human nature is any sign of how politics go, perversions of interpretation and repetition are troubling. We should not be dealing in innuendo and implications. The gist of Ron Paul's approach is smaller government, fairness, and a mean defense. No wonder big government types squeal like pigs at any hint of his ascendancy.
Appreciate your cordial, thorough responses, and will side with you any time in the bigger scheme of things.
Good points, but it still would be interesting to follow the money while asking: “Why can’t people of different beliefs live under one flag in one land like we’ve done for 200 years?”
Archived Ron Paul Newsletters. The gifts that keep on giving (remember: last night, Paul said there are only eight or ten regrettable sentences in all of the decades of his newsletters! Count them yourself!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.