The Ron Paul Smear Campaign

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=7166 ^ | Doug Kendall

[Zon]

It is increasingly obvious that the only thing that the pseudo-Conservatives attacking Dr. Paul have to offer is aspersions and insult. In the past two days, there has been a virtual absence of any intellectual content in the attacks. Generally, they misrepresent what he says, then oversimplify the issues involved, and hurl sloganized rant in response to the straw man created.

Ironically, or maybe not, the general public, call them Joe six-pack, sheeple or  whatever, the general populace understands the difference of what you said -- enough to side with Ron Paul and shun the pseudo-conservatives. Why? See tag line?

[tpaine]

-- he wouldn't stand in a debate and say we needed to "understand" the "Soviet Anger."

Get rational.
Paul didn't stand in the debate and say we needed to appease the terrorists. -- That was Rudy's spin.

[Zon]

I gave Ron Paul my ears until I heard him say we should ask Al Qaeda why they are angry at us

If it's so obvious then almost everyone should know why they're angry at us. So why are the angry at us? Or, is it that they aren't angry at us? Who is us?

[Pelham]

Yep, and it’s likely they haven’t heard of the bishop of Smyrna either.

Conservatives, being great patriots, fall prey to a belligerent nationalism that has its roots on the Left. A Jacobin leader waving the flag and eager for war gets hailed as a great leader. I can recall when National Review objected to utopian foreign policy fantasies, now they promote them.

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry Truman get reborn as ‘conservatives’. Hannity has been one of the louder proponents of this nonsense.

[haircutter]

Ron Paul is NOT Presidential material...

he should retire and remember his good, old days, plant a garden,read a book, take a walk, enjoy what years are still left, but lead the Greatest Nation in the world??? NO WAY.

[Ohioan]

Jefferson would have put a bullet through Paul’s head.

Your comment suggests sociopathic tendencies, but in the interests of trying to bring you back to some appreciation for reality: Can you name one stand, which Ron Paul has taken, which conflicts with something Jefferson wrote or said? One stand?

[Ohioan]

You make a good point. When I was more directly involved in politics, years back, I found that plain and ordinary blue collar types were easier to persuade, with a traditional Conservative message, than many of the pseudo-intellectuals with a degree; people who had a need to sound trendy. It is the psychology of the crowd, fawning over the Emperor's New Clothes, that drives most of the talking heads in the media; as it does much of the political crowd in Washington.

It does not take a super genius to understand that if your Government was created by a written Constitution--that it had no existence, as such, before that Constitution;--that you had better look to that Constitution to understand the functions and duties of that Government. Nor does it take a genius to understand how political office holders may grasp for power they do not have.

The history of the earth is replete with the history of the overreaching, the grasping. It was with that history in mind, that the Founding Fathers sought to strictly limit the Government that they were creating. Ron Paul has become their voice in the 21st Century.

William Flax

[Sam Gamgee]

He made himself clear in the debates. From the jackasses mouth.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yeah, that the US brought 911 on itself for messing in Arabic affairs.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes he did - he said we should dialogue with Al Queda.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yup - Paul is anti-war. Jefferson was not.

[Ohioan]

I would suggest that you read Jefferson's first State of the Union message, where he reports to Congress on how the Frigate with Marines, which he sent to protect our shipping in the Mediterranean, seized the cruiser of the Barbary Pirates, inflicting heavy casualties on them, with none of our own. He then reported, that since Congress had not authorized the retention of such spoils, we had returned their bloody ship to them--bloody with their blood, not the British slang.

I would suggest that this is the same way that Rep. Paul would have handled the matter. (You will recall that Paul, immediately after September 11th, proposed a bill to authorize the destruction of bin Laden and his assistants.)

To suggest that Wars should be declared, is Jeffersonian. To suggest that you do not wage war to change other people's cultures, is thoroughly Jeffersonian. On the other hand, you punish the "first insult," as Jefferson advised President Washington.

To understand traditional American foreign policy, and why it is superior to what we have had since under the guidance of Internationalists like Dean Rusk (Kennedy/Johnson) and Condi Rice, see An American Foreign Policy.

William Flax

[Zack Nguyen]

There is no doubt that Osama Bin Ladin was furious at our sanctions in Iraq, and out bombings. But that really isn't the point - unless you want to start formulating our foreign policy around the opinions of Islamic terrorists. And I'm not saying that Ron Paul wants to do this - but the fact is that he and the rest of the anti-war right needs to start telling us what he would do differently.

The lewrockwell.com crowd is very good at criticizing the Bush Administration in the most vitriolic of terms. But what would Ron Paul have done? Not sanctioned Iraq? What about Hussein's violation of ther terms of the ceasefire? What about his fanatical hatred of the Kurds? Would he instead, after our invasion of Kuwait in 1991, have allowed Hussein to rebuild, rearm, reinstitute his WMD program, and take over the northern part of the country, possibly killing lots more Kurds?

Foreign policy is often about trade-offs, and I never hear the anti-war right (or for that matter the anti-war left, it's close cousin) acknowledge this or present a comprehensive alternative vision. It is always Bush is abhorrent, American foreign policy is systemically evil, and of course Iraq was destined to go bad.

This is not a vision. It is carping from the sidelines, really no better than Nancy Pelosi.

[Zack Nguyen]

There is no doubt that Osama Bin Ladin was furious at our sanctions in Iraq, and our bombings. But that really isn't the point - unless you want to start formulating our foreign policy around the opinions of Islamic terrorists.

And I'm not saying that Ron Paul wants to do this - but the fact is that he and the rest of the anti-war right needs to start telling us what he would do differently.

The lewrockwell.com crowd is very good at criticizing the Bush Administration in the most vitriolic of terms. But what would Ron Paul have done? Not sanctioned Iraq? What about Hussein's violation of ther terms of the ceasefire? What about his fanatical hatred of the Kurds? Would he instead, after our invasion of Kuwait in 1991, have allowed Hussein to rebuild, rearm, reinstitute his WMD program, and take over the northern part of the country, possibly killing lots more Kurds?

Foreign policy is often about trade-offs, and I never hear the anti-war right (or the anti-war left, it's close cousin) acknowledge this or present a comprehensive alternative vision. It is always Bush is abhorrent, American foreign policy is systemically evil, and of course Iraq was destined to go bad. Bush never receives the benefit of the doubt - he is simply the embodiment of evil. I reject this simplistic characterization.

It is not vision. It is carping from the sidelines, really no better than Nancy Pelosi. And until (or unless) the anti-war right can present a comprehensive vision for defending America and our allies from terrorism (beyond "sealing our borders") they will remain a fringe political movement.

[Sam Gamgee]

I am no fan of internationalists - but is your objection that Congress did not officially sanction the war? They could have, but chose not to put their reputations on the line, correct? The problem is how would have Reagan contained the Sandinistas without the use of secret ops outside the scope of Congress? How would we have fought the Cold War at all?

My contention with Paul is that he does take sides. He took Hezbullah’s side for instance in the war last summer.

[Sam Gamgee]

Von Mises would be ashamed by people like Lew Rockwell using his name. Objectivists can’t stand him - just like Rand could not suffer Libertarians.

[tpaine]

I not only watched the debate, I was able to understand what Paul said, and what Rudy claimed he said.

Yeah, that the US brought 911 on itself for messing in Arabic affairs.

Yep, thats Rudys spin.
Actually, Paul is an isolationist of the old Geo Washington school; and they don't want us messing in ~anybodies~ affairs.
-- Which is impossible in todays world.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

An explanation is not the same thing as assigning blame “Einstein.” My God, do you not even have a LITTLE bit of embarrassment at being so obtuse?

[x]

I’m not a Paul supporter, but he’s a thoughtful man who deserves not to be mau maued.

Ron may be right, but "thoughtful" isn't the best adjective to describe him. He comes across as pretty knee-jerk.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

You did a VERY good job Ohioan. However, to put it in parlance Mr Gamgee can understand, what you want to do, is when the Arabs see the Marines/Army/USAF/Navy pulling out,after they have killed everyone they can find in leadership, and they see the piles of smoking rubble around them, Mahmoud turns to Emir and says "by Allah, we will NOT try that shit again!" Even religious fanatics eventually get that message. What is more, the LEADERS of the crazies have the guns and money and the desire to keep both. They will exterminate their own vermin if they fear for their own lives.

Bush's plan is simple. Our alternative is also simple. He (Bush, and the rest of his neocon enablers) want to make it (Iraq) a place where they LIKE us. I personally don't give a rip whether Iraq, or England, or Germany, or Ecuador, or Zaire or Micronesia or anwhere else, LIKES us. I just want them to FEAR us. The second is way cheaper than the first, and way more effective. Ron Paul would have us strike with a MURDEROUS RAGE (I think he called it a "spasm") at those who harm or seek to harm us.

GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU BUSHBOTS!!! THE DIFFERENCE IS, AFTER WE KILL THE ONES RESPONSIBLE, WE COME HOME. We do not hang around trying to build a nation that is friendly to us. That is what we have against this so called "war." I am literally sick of the lies, distortions, and boneheaded thickness of the goobs here who either lie or are so pathetically ignorant they think that not supporting the Muslim nation building exercise we have undertaken is being "soft on terror."

Bush won't simply do the job AND GET OUT because we are a petrojunkie, with an oil syringe hanging out of our arm. He wants a friendly nation in the ME, and is convinced he can make it happen. It is a fool's errand, and the clowns who blindly bleat along with him are fools with him.