The Ron Paul Smear Campaign

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

[Zack Nguyen]

I agree that declaring “mission accomplished” was wrong. I might even listen to the argument that democracy should not be our priority over there. But Congressman Paul goes beyond that, misstating the objectives of the terrorists. Osama Bin Ladin hates us for what we do, but also for who we are. Ron Paul thinks the sanctions in Iraq and our bombing of Iraq helped cause 9/11, but that is a grossly oversimplified answer. The ultimate goal of the terrorists is a global Islamist empire. The first stage is re-establishing the caliphate in Iraq. Their god makes comprehensive claims. They believe that the universe belongs to Allah, and they are willing to wage jihad to make it so.

That’s why leaving Iraq now would be a mistake. But Paul doesn’t seem to take this into account, and doesn’t present an alternative vision as to how he would have handled Saddam, and how he would fight the terrorists.

[Sam Gamgee]

Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years

These WERE his words.

[tsowellfan]

us = anybody in the world who allows woman to leave the home with their face uncovered, us = the gay Thai in Bangkok who had his head chopped off for being gay, us= anybody in the world who refuses to pray 5 times a day to allah and us = especially libertarians

[Zon]

I gave Ron Paul my ears until I heard him say we should ask Al Qaeda why they are angry at us45

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?183

us = anybody in the world who allows woman to leave the home with their face uncovered, us = the gay Thai in Bangkok who had his head chopped off for being gay, us= anybody in the world who refuses to pray 5 times a day to allah and us = especially libertarians

Well that was easy enough to answer. What I most wonder about is the answer to the two easier questions I asked. I wrote: "If it's so obvious then almost everyone should know why they're angry at us. So why are they [Al Qaeda] angry at us? Or, is it that they aren't angry at us?"183

[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 Rudy's 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.

Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years
These WERE his words.

You [and Rudy] claim those words alone mean Paul believes the US brought 911 on itself for messing in Arabic affairs.

Paul has said Congress should authorize killing the individuals who brought 911 upon us, - hardly the words of an 'arabic affairs' apologist.

Get a new line Sam, you and Rudy have beat this one to death.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes, but Ron Paul opposes holding any rogue states accountable, only the terrorists themselves. Ron Paul had no problem making comments against Israel last summer - so much for the disinterested isolationist. He then confirmed what he said with Hannity post debate - that we brought the 911 attack on ourselves.

He’s not quite the loser Buchanan is since he is actually a fiscal conservative.

[x]

Have you ever seen or read Paul before the debate?

I've seen his articles at lewrockwell.com.

The impression I got is that they've programmed him well.

That's probably unfair, but Ron doesn't seem to have a critical, skeptical, questioning mind.

He's more a true believer.

[tpaine]

Ron Paul opposes holding any rogue states accountable, only the terrorists themselves.

Rogue states are lead by rogue individuals who support terrorism. If Congress authorizes killing terrorists and those who support them, shazzam, no more problem. - It's a constitutional concept, - do you oppose it?

Ron Paul had no problem making comments against Israel last summer - so much for the disinterested isolationist.

The founding of the Israeli state in the middle east 60 years ago is arguably the basis for all of the current problems the West has with the Muslims. So say the isolationists, -- and a lot of other rational people who can understand history.

He then confirmed what he said with Hannity post debate - that we brought the 911 attack on ourselves.

By not killing terrorists when we have the chance?

He is not quite the loser Buchanan is since he is actually a fiscal conservative.

Paul is a strict constitutional conservative. - Buchanan is a typical politician in the republican party mold.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Thanks for the good question, Zack. I think Ron Paul's position on this is similiar to mine. I believe that the "job" was to eliminate the leadership of Iraq. The problem here is defining what the "job" is. This is a great example of what used to be called "mission creep" in Vietnam, consisting of an ever expanding and metastasizing job of the "mission" in Iraq. We originally defined it as a democratically elected gov't in Iraq. Well, we have had that for over a year now. I would be amenable to listening to reasonable definitions of a "mission" in Iraq, OTHER THAN the alternative mission floated, which is to have a secure, stable democratic republic there. This is nation building and I will not sign on to such a pipe dream. I believe we should announce we are pulling out and tell the Saudis, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis, and the Syrians that we are leaving, and they had better decide to fix the trash dump in their own back yard. If not, we can always come back and wreck it even more, if they come after us. The idea of fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq is just stupid. It is not like they are sending senior leadership over there screaming "ALLAHU AKHBAR" charging out against the Marines. They may enlist some 19 year old mental defect and send HIM to strap on a bomb vest. They might elist him from Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt, but the leadership ain't doing it. We just provide them with a local target by being there, and the people who think we are "killing terrorists" by being there are abysmally stupid. We are killing cannon fodder, and at last count there were about 1.2 billion more of those. We don't even have that many BULLETS.

Your question is a good one. I wish we could get the leadership in the USA to ask the same question, AFTER they have given us a definition of what our mission is over there.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Wow, you support an Al-Queda lover.

I neither do that, nor give pathetic liars the time of day. Have a nice one.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

We mind our own business?

......And that's it? Are we allowed to publish Mohammed cartoons? Are we allowed to make anti-Muslim films?

We mind our own business, and we use force when they don't mind theirs. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? If you want to take a crap on the Koran on the sidewalk, they can gyrate and writhe in hatred over it all they want to. They bring it here, that is another story. Btw, seen any muslim bombings in Copenhagen lately? They have a gigaload of sheetheads over there. WAY more than in the USA.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I recommend decaf.

Don't drink it myself. It interferes with my vocal cords when I want to throw back my head and howl at the moon. It's the residue or something.

Cordially, DoP

[AmishDude]

Be more specific, exactly what should be done?

For example, if an Islamic country invites and, in fact, urges our military forces to be on their soil, should we feel free to comply or not?

[tpaine]

Zack:
- leaving Iraq now would be a mistake.

I agree

But Paul doesn't seem to take this into account, and doesn't present an alternative vision as to how he would have handled Saddam, and how he would fight the terrorists.

Paul wants Congress to declare a bounty on terrorists and those who support them.

Polycarp:
Thanks for the good question, Zack. I think Ron Paul's position on this is similiar to mine. I believe that the "job" was to eliminate the leadership of Iraq.
The problem here is defining what the "job" is. - We originally defined it as a democratically elected gov't in Iraq. Well, we have had that for over a year now. I would be amenable to listening to reasonable definitions of a "mission" in Iraq

Our unannounced 'mission' has always been to establish a base of power in the middle east, to prevent WWIII. - You can bet we will be there until the Muslim/Israeli situation is resolved.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Polycarp.

This is nation building and I will not sign on to such a pipe dream. I believe we should announce we are pulling out and tell the Saudis, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis, and the Syrians that we are leaving, and they had better decide to fix the trash dump in their own back yard. If not, we can always come back and wreck it even more, if they come after us.

I might agree that nation building is a problem and we should have stuck with simply wiping out the Saddam cult of personality, but to leave now and tell the rest of the M.E. to handle it would be a mistake.

Politically, once we leave their we are gone forever. Remember when our soldiers pulled out of Vietnam? The first thing the liberals in Congress did was pass legislation keeping us from going back. I suspect something similar would happen after we leave Iraq. Besides, by leaving we would lose all momentum on fighting Iraqi terrorists. There can be no going back, and no President would sanction it.

The idea of fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq is just stupid. It is not like they are sending senior leadership over there screaming "ALLAHU AKHBAR" charging out against the Marines. They may enlist some 19 year old mental defect and send HIM to strap on a bomb vest.

I disagree with this. The Al-Qaeda leadership has made it clear that Iraq is their top priority. If we leave they will likely establish a safe haven there.

[The_Eaglet]

Quite a few conservative voices were silenced such as National Empowerment Television.

I didn't follow NET closely, so I'm not aware of how that was "silenced."

At least we still have the Conservative Roundtable.

[The_Eaglet]

So, along come Ron Paul, who asserts that, well, maybe we should just mind our own business in this world... and people can't even process that perhaps he might not be a liberal who wants our troops to die.

I have seen comments on FR and elsewhere that they are seeing the light on this issue, even if they do not necessarily support Paul's campaign (yet?!).

The more people hear what Ron Paul has to say rather than what the media says Ron Paul says, the more they will understand Paul's desire for a more conservative foreign policy.

[LdSentinal]

I neither do that, nor give pathetic liars the time of day. Have a nice one.

Oh, I thought you support Ron Paul, a well known Al-Queda lover.

[cva66snipe]

At least we still have the Conservative Roundtable.

I forgot about that one. I'd like to hear Phillips and Bill Lind discuss out of control illegal immigration and the coming cultural war sometime.

[Irontank]

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.

Absolutely correct. I used to believe that one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives was that liberals form their policies based on their feelings and conservatives form their policies based on logic. Liberals feel that no one should be poor. So they advocate that governnent eradicate poverty. Conservatives, while also feeling that no one should be poor, understand that one cannot reduce or eliminate poverty by creating bigger government...that the issue is more complex than having government just declare a War on Poverty and pass a few laws...rather that government policies just exacerbate the conditions they ostensibly are created to address.

Reading the posts from "conservatives" on here over the last week has been depressing. Those condemning Ron Paul offer no logic in support of their positions...only a lot of feeling. That Ron Paul is just blaming "us" (I have no idea how the US government and the American people have combined to become "us" seeing as how the vast majority of the American people know virtually nothing about what the US government has been doing in the middle east since the 1950's and RP is specifically talking about US government policies) for the 9/11 attacks...that Islamic terrorists want to kill us all only because we're so good and free...that Islamists will "take over the world"..."topple Western civilization"...and force us all to convert to Islam...unless the US government further escalates its presence in the middle east so that "we" can kill all of the terrorists"...those are the type of simplistic, childish (US-government sponsored) type of "feelings" that I used to only associate with liberals