McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul
Not Invading and Occupying other Countries Branded 'Isolationism'
In a new low of despicable looniness, at the Republican debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain equated those Americans who want to stop militarily occupying Iraq with Hitler-enablers. He actually said that, saying that it was 'isolationism' of a sort that allowed Hitler to come to power.
It gives a person a certain amount of faith in one's fellow Americans that McCain was booed by the Republican crowd for this piece of calumny. Comparisons to Hitler should be automatic grounds for a candidate to be disqualified from being president.
But then McCain is the same person who joked about bombing Iran. He thinks that killing all those children from the air would be funny?
McCain also repeated his standard lie that Iraqis would attack the United States if US troops were withdrawn from that country. He contrasted the Vietnamese Communists, who, he said, just wanted to build their workers' utopia in Vietnam once the US left, with Iraqis, who he continues to confuse with Usamah Bin Laden (a Saudi living far from Iraq who never had anything to do with Iraq).
Of course, back in the early 1970s, if you had asked McCain, he would have said we have to fight the Vietnamese because of the Domino effect, and if we lost there then International Communism would be in our living rooms. Now, he says the Vietnamese Communists weren't expansionist at all, and just wanted socialism in one country.
So then, John, if that was true and there was never any danger of a domino effect, why did we sacrifice 58,000 US lives and kill a million to two million Vietnamese peasants? You just admitted we weren't in any danger from them, even if they defeated us.
But since you were wrong about the domino effect with regard to Vietnamese Communism (which I remember arguing in a class debate as a teenager in 1967 was just a form of nationalism), how do we know you aren't just as wrong or wronger about your fantastic Muslim domino theory? After all, international communism was a big important political movement to which many governments adhered. Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come out of their caves, who don't even have good sleeping bags much less a government to their name.
McCain is so confused that he thinks Shiite Iran is supporting "al-Qaeda." When I think that people who say these crazy things serve in the US senate and are plausible as presidents of our Republic, I despair a little. (When I see a nut job like Tancredo on the podium, he of 'let's nuke Mecca,' I despair a lot, but that is a different story.)
McCain also insisted that we never lost a battle in Vietnam. He still doesn't understand guerrilla war. What battle did the French lose in Algeria? You don't lose a guerrilla war because you lose a conventional set piece battle. Then it would be a conventional war and not a guerrilla one. You lose it because you cannot control the country and it is too expensive in treasure and life to go on staying there.
Ron Paul was only allowed to reply briefly to McCain's outrageous and mean-spirited diatribe. Although the transcript says he was applauded for saying that it was only natural that the Iraqis would want us out of their hair, just as we wouldn't want somebody invading and occupying us-- I heard a lot of booing in response to that point.
At another point, Paul made the point that the quiet parts of Iraq -- the Shiite deep south and the Kurdistan area in the north-- are the places where there are no foreign troops to speak of. Unfortunately, he forgot the name of the Kurds and seemed to get confused, so I'm not sure he got the point across.
Here is the exchange.
"McCain: . . . I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
(Applause)
And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...
(Applause)
We allowed ...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.
McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.
(Audience booing)
And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...
(Applause)
Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...
(Applause)
All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.
Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
(Applause)
What John is saying is just totally distorted.
(Protester shouts off-mike)
Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.
(Applause)"
The rest is here. This is what Ron Paul said about Iraq:
"Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.
(Applause)
Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.
The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much.
So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here.
What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam.
So it's time for us to take care of America first.
(Applause) "
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/29/2007 12:37:00 AM
|
Facebook
70 Comments:
And McCain was 100% correct. I've not much liked McCain. But his slamming of Ron Paul and Ron Paul's idiotic surrender-tarian views has caused me - a Rudy supporter - to give him a second look.
Ron Paul actually said that Vietnam was "now a friend of ours"?
My gosh! Has he forgotten of the millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians who were slaughtered after we pulled out, at the hands of the Communists?
That was simply the worst, and most offensive line of the night.
Ron Paul is NO libertarian. He disgraces the word. Goldwater would have been ashamed of him.
"McCain also repeated his standard lie that Iraqis would attack the United States if US troops were withdrawn from that country."
I believe that could happen... Now.
Along with a bunch of other items of interest such as the fact that Saddam Hussein kept the religious fundamentalists and other fanatics such as AQ from having any power in Iraq, we seem to have 'Fixed' a number of things about Iraqi-American relations.
Makes one wonder which side the U.S. war planners were REALLY on.
(Hint: If America didn't HAVE a bogeyman.... It would have to CREATE one.)
The Military, the monetary
They get together whenever they think it's... necessary.
http://www.zmag.org/Songs/workforpeace.htm
Can someone invoke Godwin's law on McCain? He automatically lost that debate.
A noninterventioinist libertarian Paul or a closed-border nationalist Buchanan are the only sorts of anti-imperialist candidates the US is ever likely to produce. However, liberal interventionists loathe the former and business interests dread the latter. Neither pleases the Greens. Either type of candidate gets blames for aiding and abetting any past or future Hitler. No one asks how all the heavy arms or global swaggering are supposed to deter terrorists.
So what we get is a bipolar, schizoid muddle of inverventionism and nationalism. This, coupled with the Red America cult of arms, warefare, and "duty," assure election of someone who will prolong the Iraq occupation even when it makes no strategic, military, or economic sense, not even for the alleged covert beneficiary, Israel.
Paul will get no support from the Religious Right because he opposes their cherished death penalty, thinks the state should stay out of religion, defends habeas corpus, and questions the sacred rite of war. He is completely at odds with the "annoited of God" unitary executive model. In the unlikely event the GOP elects him, liberals voters will prefer the pro-war Hillary over the anti-war Paul. She will accuse him of being soft on Iran (etc, etc), and the GOP attack hounds will cower and be reluctant to defend their candidate for being less swift with the sword than a Clinton.
It seems more or less settled that the 2008 nominees will differ on Iraq in about the same degree that a Big Mac differs from a Whopper. Both will e more or less "me too" on global matters. Even on "global warming," the Democrat will waffle: a carbon tax, if and when other nations agree (lol). The Bush legacy will indeed prevail.
Sir, you may hear the insane ramblings of people who don't understand the Shiite, Sunni, etc and despair a little. I shudder in despair knowing their rhetoric has been polished to seem more acceptable and there are people who support and encourage such ignorance.
McCain was answering a question about a national sales tax when he said Ron Paul was helping Hitler.
As someone who leans more towards the Democrats, I thought "I hope this guy gets the Republican nomination".
Unfortunately McCain is visibly loony and has no chance of winning that nomination.
Olmert is continuing his running series of "let me say something stupider." His first entry: was hard to beat. His second entry: "Iran can't be allowed to become a nuclear power like Israel" was also a classic.
His newest entry: "If the Palestinians do not accept a two state solution, they will win a struggle like that against South Africa"
I think the series must be over. There is nothing stupider a sitting Israeli prime minister can say than this.
All three statements were true. The problem is that all three statements are things that critics of Zionism should say, that supporters of Zionism should be able to challenge their opponents to prove without an admission from Israel's elected Prime Minister.
This is nothing like the thousand plus Lebanese civilians and hundred of Israeli soldiers who died for no Israeli strategic advantage, or the hundreds killed or maimed by cluster bombs Israel rained on Lebanon to Israel's strategic disadvantage (every explosion makes Hezbollah more powerful in Lebanon). But it is bad enough that anyone thinking of a career in politics should know to avoid these mistakes.
Olmert is a very bad Israeli prime minister. And I can't even explain why because he is not a relative of a previous prime minister. Sometimes even countries with competitive political systems get bad leaders.
Professsor, You got that right. McCain's a militaristic nutcase, and of the worst kind (as if there's a good kind). His first instinct in problem-solving of international relations is the threat and/or use of force of arms. That's been his family upbringing, and that's been his constitent rhetoric and policy in his years in the Senate. This single facet of his personality trumps all notions of his "affability" and of his "maverick" status in the media. He's a dangerous man, too dangerous to lead a powerful nation in these dangerous times.
Unlike every other Republican candidate on the stage in last night's CNN/YouTube debate, only Ron Paul demonstrated that he truly "gets it" when it comes to foreign policy. Witness his comment in reply to an attack on his position on Iraq. He said, "The best thing we can do for the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do." He went on to make a great point about Vietnam. He said, "Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam is now a friend of ours. We trade with them. Their president comes here. What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the Americans and the French being in Vietnam. So it's time for us to take care of America first."
How true! What we and the French and the Chinese (don't forget them!) did in Vietnam was terrible, yet Vietnam survived. They rebuilt. And what Dr. Paul did not say, because there wasn't enough time to say it all in 30 seconds, is that Vietnam represented the nightmare scenario of cold-war hawks. It was the key domino in the Domino Theory. Remember the Domino Theory? That was the idea that if Vietnam fell to communism, then the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, and this would be a catastrophe for American interests. President Eisenhower first voiced the idea in an April 1954 press conference in which he said, "Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."
Well, America ended up withdrawing from Vietnam in the mid-1970s, and sure enough, Vietnam fell to communism, as did the rest of Southeast Asia. Now here's the key point. Despite this, despite the fact that the worst DID happen, Vietnam is our peaceful trading partner today! And I submit that if we hadn't interfered for 20 years, Vietnam would be much closer to becoming a free society today. It was our interference that has helped keep them in the communist embrace, but over time it is becoming increasingly clear that the communist embrace will dissipate and is dissipating.
So when I hear modern day neo-con hawks and their allies claiming that we can't leave Iraq because it will undermine American interests, I have to ask myself what kind of drugs are they smoking? It's clear to me that the hawks are never going to learn that continued American military presence in other countries based on fear of what might happen to American interests if they withdraw does not produce positive results (except if you're a company like Halliburton, of course).
The discouraging part is that every Republican candidate on that stage last night talked the neo-con line except for one. The encouraging part was that the one exception was Ron Paul. Call it the contrast of Ron Paul vs. the Seven Dwarfs.
Senator McCain shot back that, "We never lost the battle in Vietnam; it was American public opinion that cost us the war." Senator McCain obviously doesn't get it. Public opinion didn't cost us the war in Vietnam. Rather public opinion pulled us out of a bad foreign policy in Vietnam, which resulted in things getting better, not worse. McCain's limited vision that wars are all about "winning" the war (by which he means using military intervention to force other countries to bend to our national will) shows its tattered logic when compared to the reality of what happened after we left Vietnam as the "losers." The reality is that America's leaders over that 20 year period set us up to be the losers by putting us there in the first place. In that scenario, the only way to "win" was to withdraw.
McCain went on to claim that the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Vietnam didn't want to follow us home, that Al-Qaedda wants to have a base in Iraq in order to launch attacks against the U.S. He said, "Their ultimate destination isn't Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, and Arizona." Ron Paul isn't the most graceful speaker in the world. He stumbles and trips over his own words. But the message is what is driving his campaign and his supporters, not the man himself. He managed to shoot back at McCain the following, "[Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz even admitted that Al-Qaedda was organized and energized by our military base in Saudi Arabia. He understood why they came here. They come here because we're occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country." This kind of clear understanding is why Ron Paul has more financial support from active duty servicemen than John McCain has. That financial support is also why McCain is so upset with Ron Paul.
The only thing wrong with his statement is that Paul should have said that we're occupying their countries, in the plural, and I'm sure that's what he intended. Al-Qaedda isn't just about Iraq. They're also about Saudi Arabia, and Palestine, and Egypt, and all of the other more than 100 countries around the world where American troops reside on a regular basis and are used to force American views and American pressure on the governments of those nations and other nations in those same regions. And before some neo-con objects that Palestine isn't a country, can we agree that they should be? Even President Bush, in his fevered mind, thinks so these days. He's holding talks at the Naval Academy toward that end. His approach can't work, because it's based on forcing America's will on other countries, but nevertheless even he now recognizes that there must be a country called Palestine.
Tom Tancredo shot back that America is under threat from Radical Islam and that we would be under threat even if there was not a single American serviceman outside of this country. But what's his evidence for this claim? What is the evidence of any advocate for this claim? The only evidence is their own fear. Tancredo gave no evidence, and neither did anyone else. All of the other six Republican dwarfs on that stage accepted Tancredo's claim as a given truth, not to be touched, not to be questioned.
It's nonsense, of course. But what's worse is that it flies in the face of what American public opinion says: that we shouldn't remain in Iraq, that it's time to find a way to leave. McCain claimed that American public opinion is what lost Vietnam. As I showed above, his claim is wrong, because his idea of what is a "loss" turned out to be not a loss at all, but McCain and the rest of the Seven Dwarfs are using that ill-named "loss" to convince themselves to ignore American opinion and blame it for our failures, atrocities, and horrible mistakes regarding Iraq. They're threatening that if America withdraws from Iraq, then American public opinion is at fault.
The reality, however, is quite different. It is the Bush administration, the neo-cons, the hawks, who are at fault where Iraq is concerned. They're the ones who got us in that mess in the first place, in pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which we know didn't even exist. Bush knew they didn't exist all along, but neo-cons try to sweep that under the rug. Instead, they keep chanting their same old mantra about not leaving Iraq until we "finish the job." Except it's a job that America can't finish. It's time to hand Iraq back to the Iraqi people.
The Seven Dwarfs are out of step with American public opinion, and by insisting on rallying the Republican Party behind any other candidate besides Ron Paul, they are guaranteeing a showdown on Election Day where the majority of Americans are asked to voice their support for Bush administration foreign policy, which the Seven Dwarfs all support. That will mean almost certain defeat for the Republican candidate if it's not Ron Paul, regardless of whether Paul stays in the race as a third-party candidate or not.
"Ron Paul is NO libertarian. He disgraces the word. Goldwater would have been ashamed of him."
And yet Barry Goldwater Jr. has endorsed Doctor Paul.
John Koch... Paul will get no support from the Religious Right because he opposes their cherished death penalty, thinks the state should stay out of religion, defends habeas corpus, and questions the sacred rite of war. He is completely at odds with the "annoited of God" unitary executive model. In the unlikely event the GOP elects him, liberals voters will prefer the pro-war Hillary over the anti-war Paul. She will accuse him of being soft on Iran (etc, etc), and the GOP attack hounds will cower and be reluctant to defend their candidate for being less swift with the sword than a Clinton.
Mr. Koch is as ill informed on this matter of Ron Paul's belief with respect to religion and the Constitution as Professor Cole, who I mormally admire for his understanding of the ME, is with regard to the dangers of Ron Paul's isolationism. That's not to say that McCain is right. Both Ron Paul and John McCain are wrong. Maybe both are half wrong and half right. It's even more complicated than that.
Ron Paul most definitely does not believe in the separation of church and state. Paul even believes the Constitution is "divinely inspired". It is like the Bible, the sacred Word of God.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
That's just total crap. The word "God" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Zero. Ron Paul is a kook. McCain maybe half right, but neither al-Qaeda nor Iraq or Iran, not even North Korea, are able to threaten us in the manner that Germany and Japan did during that crisis. Calling Hillary pro-war is as dishonest as calling McCain pro-peace. Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, will return us to the Powell Doctrine:
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
That's the sane FoPo middle ground, especially now that the world is as full of trouble and turmoil as the Bush/Rumsfeld Doctrine could manage to stir up.
I work for an American company that does business around the world and business is starting to boom in Vietnam, the people are becoming wealthier, more free, and the country more open. Vietnam is a friend now and is growing more free every day. Ron Paul is right. Bombs did not spread freedom, trade and business does.
"And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement."
John McCain
First, Hitler was a product of the Versailles Treaty. If the U.S. had not intervened in W.W.I, there would have been no Hitler. It was interventionism under Wilson that led to Hitler.
Second, it was FDR's demands on the Japanese Empire to leave China that led to an oil embargo of Japan that brought about a Japanese attack. That is what brought the U.S. into W.W.II. It was interventionism that caused the War, not American neutrality.
It is insane to suggest people who do not want war are to blame for it. What sort of logic is it that leads someone to believe murdering millions of innocent people is the fault of those that didn't let it happen sooner?
John McCain should be committed to to a mental hospital, not elected to the White House.
Elect Ron Paul. Embrace the RevolUTION!
Hey Eric, who does this sound like?
"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”
Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960: Victor Publishing Company, Shepherdsville, Ky., p. 17.
"My gosh! Has he forgotten of the millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians who were slaughtered after we pulled out, at the hands of the Communists?"
No. I also doubt he's forgotten that neither they, nor many of the millions that were slaughtered by us would have died if we never went there to begin with. He probably also hasn't forgotten that perhaps wasting billions of dollars along with the lives of tens of thousands of UNWILLING SLAVES was not a particularly "American" idea. He probably also hasn't forgotten that the alleged reason we went there, to fight the communists so they don't take over the world, proved to be one of the most asinine wastes of life and resources in our nation's history.
Ron Paul is NO libertarian. He disgraces the word. Goldwater would have been ashamed of him.
Maybe you didn't hear, but Goldwater's son (who is apparently a chip off the old block) endorsed Ron Paul.
Dondero, doesn't your big government supporting self ever feel any shame?
Goldwater Jr and Vic Gold (Goldwater's speach writer) have both endorsed Paul and have gone as far as saying Paul is the only Republican candidate that Barry Sr would recognize as a Republican. What makes you more familiar with Barry Goldwater than his son and speachwriter?
Just to make sure, I just checked the news and apparently the commies haven't been slaughtering Vietnamese and Cambodians for almost 30 years. From your viewpoint, I guess the British and Germans aren't our friends either.
Yep, Dondero is quite intelligent.
If you're a libertarian then it must mean that libertarians are nation building, welfare supporting, big government imperialists. And, if that's what libertarians are, the word has already reached maximum disgrace.
What's funny is that you're the only war monger I ever heard who thinks we should still be in Vietnam. Even Cheney doesn't think we should still be in Vietnam.
I should like to add that my use of the term "kook" to describe Ron Paul is based largely on his economic views, (he's an adherent of the Austrian School), although the term applies in several other contexts.
But to the extent these schools reject the core building blocks of neoclassical economics
— as Austrians reject optimization, for example — they are regarded by mainstream neoclassical economists as defenders of lost causes or as kooks, misguided critics, and antiscientific oddballs. The status of non-neoclassical economists in the economics departments in English-speaking universities is similar to that of flat-earthers in geography departments: it is safer to voice such opinions after one has tenure, if at all.
There are also things like this from Kevin Drum:
RON PAUL
RON PAUL....Speaking of Ron Paul, check out the Unabomber-esque fundraising letter he recently sent out to his supporters. Hoo boy.
It really says something when a guy who drones on about "fiat money," thinks we ought to abolish the Federal Reserve, claims the UN wants to confiscate our guns, and apparently believes that Canada is conspiring to annex us, often sounds like the sanest Republican on the stage.
An excerpt:
I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.
The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.
The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty...
Maybe it was "ghostwritten" without his knowledge like that racist/survivalist newsletter in the 1990s. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Mr. Dondero is deluded. He seems to hate America, hate the constitution, hate freedom and liberty.
You should learn some history. German involvement in WW2 was caused by the onerous Versaille Treaty, which was enabled, in large part, by U.S. involvement in WW1. If we hadn't "gone over there" in 1917, the war would have ended earlier, and, most likely, Hitler would never have risen to power.
But you think whatever you like, pal. The rest of us will try to restore the vision of the Founding Fathers, that this is a nation of laws, not men. That our rights are granted us not by the government, but by our Creator. And that government is to be "of the People, by the People, and for the People."
Not for special interests. Not for war profiteers. Not for anti-American, anti-democratic elites.
It's called 'The Contagion of Liberty.' And it's catching.
Why does Mr. Dondero think the majority of donations from active-service military personnel in Iraq go to Dr. Paul?
Probably because they have a better understanding of the situation on the ground than anyone else does. After all, they're there, they're doing the fighting, and they support Ron Paul.
All Americans who believe in freedom and liberty will support Dr. Paul, once they hear his message.
It's either Ron Paul or another corporate-owned whore.
Your choice.
Eric Donderrrrrooooooo said:
"Goldwater would have been ashamed of him."
Eric joins the legion of kooks in the neoconservative movement who have consistently claimed they could read minds.....
Paul is not a "polished candidate" so in the 30 second he was given to respond to McCain's slander it's no surprise he muffed Shia and Kurds. Cut him some slack when his substance is right on the mark. We should withdraw as soon as practicable and will see improvement in the condition (and for the delusional surge backs, there is the "inconvenient truth" that 2007 has been the most deadly for US troops of the entire war).
With exception of Paul, the GOP primary is a battle of who gets to be 2008's version of Bob Dole, a tired, hackneyed party aparatchik who cannot win.
Now my wife and I are definitely giving money to Paul.
(P.S. Eric Dondero (a fired ex-aide of Paul's) must troll the internet seeking an opportunity to bash Ron Paul. Dondero has been rejected by the Libertarian Party as well as all libertarian activist groups that I've read mentioning him. No surprise he'd show up here.)
No time for a long reply, but your slur against McCain can be rebutted point by point: He did not, in fact, equate Paul to Hitler. Your essay is a demonization campaign against the senator, and despite your academic credentials to the contrary, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.
Eric Dondero,
Everyone knows you are not exactly unbiased when it comes to Ron Paul. While I respect your right to say what you want, you're still a moron.
Eric Dondero forgets that McCain was replying to a question about FISCAL policy, with a response about how desperately necessary our interventionist FOREIGN policy seems to be.
Mr. Dondero, it seems clear that you believe that the government and military should be used to establish liberty abroad, even though this clear contradiction with the legitimacy of government intervention here at home doesn't seem to occur to you. I'm sure you would refer to McCain as a "mainstream libertarian", since he is certainly more libertarian than your man Giuliani.
But in the end, the fiscal policy question has to be answered. Can liberty possibly be served when our own government is bankrupt and our country is on the auction block to foreigners that are less than liberty-minded? Don't we serve liberty by rebuilding the most free and prosperous nation in the world to its former glory and setting an example for others to follow?
You can duck and dodge the real questions and screan "9/11! Terrorists! Caliphate!!" all you want.
But it is clear that only Ron has the courage to state the obvious: the foreign policy is the leading edge on a coming bankruptcy. And that bankruptcy will be disastrous for world freedom when the U.S. is left defenseless.
Actually McCain needs to read up on some history. Prescott Bush was a
good buddy of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was apparently the richest man in
Germany at the time when he bankrolled Hitler.
Maybe we could blame the Bush Crime Family for the rise of Hitler.
Chris
Just so everyone knows, Eric Dondero (first post, above) is a disgruntled former Ron Paul staffer. He is apparently still sore about having been fired.
Mr. Dondero's ignorance knows no bounds. He thinks Rudy Giuliani is a conservative. He also believes that, in order to be a "true" libertarian, one must love and promote the biggest of all big-government programs, war, along with its concomitants, nation-building and the domestic police state.
And he doesn't even know that Barry Goldwater Jr. has endorsed Ron Paul.
Hey Eric, what ever happened to your plans to take Ron Paul's congressional seat next election? Are you now too busy promoting the left-wing, high-tax, anti-gun cross-dresser Giuliani for president?
Eric Dondero are you totally unbiased (nothing personal against the good doctor, hey?) or do you have a hidden agenda? I wonder.
You say, "Ron Paul is NO libertarian. He disgraces the word. Goldwater would have been ashamed of him."
First, thanks for pointing out that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Constitutionalist. If you support Rudy, why should you care if he disgraces the word? Second, what Goldwater says here below, perfectly describes Ron Paul (wrong again, pal):
"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given.
It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic.
Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.
'I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.
'I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.
'And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”
Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960: Victor Publishing Company, Shepherdsville, Ky., p. 17.
Truth in adversting. Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former employee of Ron Paul who was fired. Of late, Dondero has been describing Rudy Giuliani as a "libertarian."
Here are a few of Rudy's "libertarian" views: zealous prosecution of the wars on drugs and pornography, empowerment of the police to shoot down innocent black guys, and defense of waterboarding as long was we do it. Nuff said.
As to the other post, Paul made a brief slip on the Kurds. Anyone who has ever heard him before knows that he has done his homework on the Middle East and knows the difference between Kurds, Sunnis, etc.
I'm afraid it is time for the Thought Police to pay a visit to John McCain. His misunderstanding of history, the term "isolationism," and the realities in Iraq, coupled with his jingoistic rants, are more than I can bear anymore.
Last evening should have been his last stroll onto the stage. He has become a national embarrassment.
McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul. ROTFLMAO
How the heck can anyone think that Ron Paul was helping Hitler. That is ludicrous. Hitler was already in power in 1933. Paul is 72 years old, so he was born in 1935. He was only 10 years old - a CHILD - when Hitler was finally defeated.
McCain is insane. Just like Bush.
Looks like the MSM marching orders involve promoting Huckabee endlessly. Ron Paul had 2-3 questions and limited time. He still crushed them all (how come every article forgets to include his comeback to McCain which mentioned that Ron Paul gets more Military Contributions than any other candidate?). Mitt is dead after desecrating the Confederate flag. Many Southerns died under that flag. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
McCain has gone completely mad.
McCain wasn't right, but hey look, out of the swamp comes Eric Dondero to try and take pot shots at RP and raise his name recognition.
How is that run in TX's 14th district going for? Since you are so big and bad are going to beat Paul for his Congressional seat.
Eric Dondero, lol. Go crawl back under your rock and cuddle with a bootle. You are a ranting drunk from everything I have read from you. At this point you are king loon of the internet. You have zero credibility and are a joke to anyone who has heard of you.
Just ask the guys at Reason, lol. they even make up Dondero sock puppets to joke about how ridiculous you are, lol.
Just make it simple, McCain is a slime worm, and no question about that...
NYT columnist wraps it up with humor and wit.
Well, I love that this silly exchange ends with Paul using the phrase "America first," the name of the vast isolationist movement pre-WWII.
Unfortuantly, Paul did not show much knowledge there either. He couldn't remember the name of the group that rules Northern Iraq (the Kurds). He looked senile with his failed attempt to come up with it. You would think that would be something somebody running for President would know.
Here's a video of just the transcribed parts of this post.
youtube.com/watch?v=vFFD3vTiVKA
Dondero has no credibility. He worked for Ron Paul for 6 years - 6 years! - and now he bashes the guy with every insignificant breath.
One wonders from whose payroll Mr. Dondero pays his mortgage.
The notion that Iraq, or any other Muslim country, would attack the U.S., is as preposterous as it is impossible.
Especially if Paul is elected and our troops are brought back home to defend us.
Am I the only one who sees how simple this solution is?
Eric Dondero thinks he can declare who is and who is not a libertarian.
This despite the fact that here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123587.html#comments
he expressly advocates genocide and war crimes as deliberate policy, and here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123665.html#comments
he regaled fellow libertarians with his theory that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is not a person who gets to decide who is and who is not a libertarian.
World wide communism killed a lot of people, but it was not America's fault, in Vietnam or anywhere else, nor was our duty or within our power to stop those killings. The rest of the world is going to have to sort out its own problems; if we invaded every place where people were being wrongly killed we'd have to invade most of the whole world.
Dr. Paul's point, which was accurate, is that we're friends and trading partners with Vietnam now and the people of Vietnam are slowly becoming westernize\democratized as a result of our trade and other ties with them. We're accomplishing in peace what twenty years of war failed to accomplish.
Eric Dondero
Before you get all puffed up vain and launch into an academic argument for continued US fascism and colonialism, you need to check your facts.
Those millions killed after the citizens of Vietnam kicked our Jolly Green Giant a*ses from Ha `noi to Timbuktu were not killed by communists - they were killed by the "Kamer Rouge", organized by CIA operatives - dope runners and staunch anti-communist.
Maybe your Mr. History Shtick is a workable pickup routine at your local drunk fat womens' hangout and in the potty stall next to Senator Larry Craig, but it don't skate beyond your "touch myself" vanity.
Give it a break - read - quit blowing off your face. Rudy - the corrupt teror attack Mayor of the US - Mr. Ground Zero at 911 and UK 77 has been selling security services to those alleged to have (under CIA and Mossad Guidance) been responsible - you dweeb!
I've got two words for Mr. McCain:
Prescott Bush
McCain's statements about Hitler were goofy.
Is he claiming every security threat has the potential to evolve into the next Third Reich?
How does Iraq plausibly develop into a manager security problem for the United States?
FACT CHECK:
Eric Dondero was formerly employed by Dr. Ron Paul, and was FIRED for reasons that Dr. Paul has been gracious enough to not share with the world.
Perhaps his opinion on the matter isn't very unbiased.
This is a message to those who see the economic meltdown on the horizon. To those who are supporting Clinton or the other 'leading' candidates.
We all see prices going up at the grocery store. This is inflation. It is going to get much much worse. Many banks are bankrupt.
Hilllary Clinton will not change anything.
Hillary Clinton's number one contributor is Goldman Sachs.
Mitt Romney's number one contributor is Goldman Sachs.
Barack Obama's number one contributor is Goldman Sachs.
Current US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson worked for THIRTY YEARS at Goldman Sachs , ultimately the Chairman and CEO.
Clinton's US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin worked for TWENTY-SIX YEARS at Goldman Sachs , ultimately as Vice Chairman and co-CEO. Rubin just recently was appointed as emergency CEO at the financial black hole called Citibank.
I don't see how anyone who really sees the economic problems can honestly argue Hillary Clinton somehow represents a deviation from the current path to financial insanity, with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan calling the financial policy shots.
On top of this, we are using Enron accounting to finance the Iraq war. We simply cannot afford it. The Federal Government is going bankrupt.
This is why I support Ron Paul. To me, he is the only candidate that represents a change in course from the insane trajectory we presently follow.
If you agree , you should vote in the Republican primary.
Thank you.
http://ronpaul2008.com
LWM said...
I should like to add that my use of the term "kook" to describe Ron Paul is based largely on his economic views, (he's an adherent of the Austrian School), although the term applies in several other contexts.
But to the extent these schools reject the core building blocks of neoclassical economics
— as Austrians reject optimization, for example — they are regarded by mainstream neoclassical economists as defenders of lost causes or as kooks, misguided critics, and antiscientific oddballs. The status of non-neoclassical economists in the economics departments in English-speaking universities is similar to that of flat-earthers in geography departments: it is safer to voice such opinions after one has tenure, if at all.
Wow, now that's a neat trick, character assasination via an institution!
I'll also point-out that the true flat-earthers, misguided critics, and antiscientific oddballs in this case are the followers of the con-man named Keynes. These are the people who believe that conspiring with the criminals in DC to undermine the value of our savings, in order to create 'liquidity' to be spent by their political cronies can create a productive economy/society, (instead of the results so the economic/social decay we see today).
In return for this sell-out of humanity, Keynes was made into an international celebrity, and was used as a tool to kill the sound/honest SCIENTIFIC Austrian monetary theory promoted so well by F. Hayek.
Keynesian economics is nothing but a scam, designed to keep the sheep at the gov. feeding trough of other people's money, while they notice not that they are being fed their own tails. In other words, it is the most effective wealth transfer mechanism short of revolution and war.
Does anyone really believe that stealing from the poor is the best way to help them? Personally, I believe that government shouldn't be making them poorer in the first place.
If that makes me a kook, then so be it. Economics is about the consequences of human choice, not about abstract mathematical models that says government spending is "good."
“Mathematics has given economics rigor, but alas, also mortis -- Robert Heilbroner”
Ron Paul understands the inherent danger of Keynes. All the rest worship the power he has given them.
A large number of comments to Dr.Cole's latest post - and more odd than usual .
I'm Canadian , and ask very politely for some help here .
The reply post from LHM mentioned Canada's intention to annex the USA .
Could someone please give a reference to this ? I'd like to read more !
In a democracy , entertainers have as much right to comment as do professors . I urge readers to listen to the lyrics of a song : "American Woman" by Guess Who , recently a second time around hit by Lenny Kravitz .
The song captures most Canadians' attitudes to our cousins to the south .
Annex the USA ?
We don't need your ghetto scenes -
We don't want your war machine -
We'd like to help -
but at present , USA is more of a mission impossible than Afghanistan .
Sorry , we're not about to intervene .
4:18 PM Anonymous is right. There's already a law for this situation; it just needs to be publicized outside the Internet.
Let's have a Kucinich/Paul ticket and watch the empire-defenders of both corrupt right and corrupt left
squirm big time! Or Paul/Kucinich.
At 3:01 PM, Eric Dondero said.. "My gosh! Has he forgotten of the millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians who were slaughtered after we pulled out, at the hands of the Communists?"
I blogged a piece by William Blum on that particular nasty piece of mythology/propaganda as applied to Iraq a few months back:
As the call for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq grows louder, those who support the war are rewriting history to paint a scary picture of what happened in Vietnam after the United States military left in March 1973.
They speak of invasions by the North Vietnamese communists, but fail to point out that a two-decades-long civil war had simply continued after the Americans left, minus a good deal of the horror which US bombs and chemical weapons had been causing.
They speak of the “bloodbath” that followed the American withdrawal, a term that implies killing of large numbers of civilians who didn’t support the communists.
But this never happened. If it had taken place the anti-communists in the United States who supported the war in Vietnam would have been more than happy to publicize a “commie bloodbath”. It would have made big headlines all over the world.
The fact that you can’t find anything of the sort is indicative of the fact that nothing like a bloodbath took place. It would be difficult to otherwise disprove this negative.
“Some 600,000 Vietnamese drowned in the South China Sea attempting to escape.”[4]
Has anyone not confined to a right-wing happy farm ever heard of this before?
They mix Vietnam and Cambodia together in the same thought, leaving the impression that the horrors of Pol Pot included Vietnam.
This is the conservative National Review Online:
“Six weeks later, the last Americans lifted off in helicopters from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, leaving hundreds of panicked South Vietnamese immediately behind and an entire region to the mercy of the communists. The scene was similar in Phnom Penh [Cambodia]. The torture and murder spree that followed left millions of corpses.”[5]
And here’s dear old Fox News, July 26, reporters Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, with their guest, actor Jon Voight. Voight says
“Right now, we’re having a lot of people who don’t know a whole lot of things crying for us pulling out of Iraq. This — there was a bloodbath when we pulled out of Vietnam, 2.5 million people in Cambodia and Vietnam — South Vietnam were slaughtered.”
In Full
Ron Paul is an ultra right paleoconservative. He is no libertarian. Barry Goldwater wouldn't support him if he were alive today. Barry Goldwater Jr. is not his father. Ron Paul is a proto-fascist right wing populist. End of story.
First, Hitler was a product of the Versailles Treaty. If the U.S. had not intervened in W.W.I, there would have been no Hitler. It was interventionism under Wilson that led to Hitler.
Second, it was FDR's demands on the Japanese Empire to leave China that led to an oil embargo of Japan that brought about a Japanese attack. That is what brought the U.S. into W.W.II. It was interventionism that caused the War, not American neutrality.
It is insane to suggest people who do not want war are to blame for it. What sort of logic is it that leads someone to believe murdering millions of innocent people is the fault of those that didn't let it happen sooner?
John McCain should be committed to to a mental hospital, not elected to the White House.
This person should be committed to a mental hospital. There is a reason why Murray Rothbard waxed poetic about Harry Elmer Barnes and Raimondo still does. Who was Harry Elmer Barnes?
The Barnes Review?
The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as "The Myth of the Six Million" and "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," which states, "When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him."
The Barnes Review is named after Harry Elmer Barnes, once a well-known and respected World War I historian and revisionist whose obsession with conspiracy theories led him to virulent anti-Jewish bigotry and support for Nazi policies during World War II and to a later belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. It was founded by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another organization engaged in Holocaust denial. Carto founded the Barnes Review after he was forced out of the IHR in 1993 in an apparent dispute over funding and ideology.
Shortly after the commencement of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Barnes Review was associated with an attempt to exploit anti-war sentiment by circulating fake whistleblower memos on media bias in the Iraq war.
The Barnes Review is notable for its development of a new bit of PR doublespeak: "junk history," similar to "junk science".
Jason_M said...
Well, I love that this silly exchange ends with Paul using the phrase "America first," the name of the vast isolationist movement pre-WWII.
An excerpt of research on "Support for Hitler (or Fascism) in the United States":
THE AMERICA FIRST COMMITTEE
The America First Committee was a different animal than the German American Bund or the homegrown Fascists, and they were far more powerful. These were Americans from many different backgrounds who shared a desire to end the war with Germany and Japan, but not out of any pacifist streak. The most prominent member to us today would be Colonel Charles Lindbergh, an internationally known figure due to his solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927. Along with Lindbergh, other prominent members of the Committee included: World War I air ace Eddie Rickenbacker, industrialist Henry Ford, Thomas McCarter, the Director of Chase National Bank, Robert Wood, Chairman of Sears Roebuck, Douglas Stuart, a member of the Quaker Oats family and owner of the Fascist publication Scribner's Commentary, and even Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Teddy Roosevelt's socialite daughter and a distant cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. At its peak, the Committee boasted a following of 5 million members. (Higham 1985, 13) They had friends in high places, too; from Senator Wheeler, who supported the America First Committee by selling them a million franks (the free postage given to Congress and Senate members), and from Senator Lundeen, who was later killed in a mysterious plane crash with the FBI man following him. Lundeen had hired George Viereck as a speechwriter; Viereck was later convicted as a Nazi agent. (Hoke 1946, 105, 108)
George Viereck was also linked to the publishers of the Fascist Herald and Scribner's Commentary in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Scribner's published articles by Lindberghs and many other Fascist apologists, and when the FBI raided the Lake Geneva complex, Fascist Ralph Townsend disappeared into Canada, while several German agents were arrested. (Hoke 1946, 158) The future members of the Committee were not detered. In November 1939, Charles Lindbergh wrote the following for the Reader's Digest: "Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on a strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German airforce, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence...we can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races." (Seldes 1943, 149)
The Reader's Digest, not surprisingly, was owned and published by the pro-Fascist and anti-labor DeWitt Wallace. (Seldes 1943, 175) Among the other right-wing, if not outright pro-Fascist publications were the Chicago Tribune, the Hearst newspapers, the newspapers of Frank Gannett, the Scripps-Howard (later UP) Syndicate, and the Washington Times-Herald. (Seldes 1943, 208) Throughout the 1930s, the Chicago Times offered rewards of $1000 to $5000 to prove that certain items in the Tribune were NOT lies. The rewards were never claimed. President Roosevelt himself denounced William Randolph Hearst, the UP Syndicate and the Chicago Tribune for their support of Hitler. (Seldes 1943, 223-224)
Originally, the idea for the Committee began at an amazing 1939 meeting between the German Consul of Boston, the German Consul of San Francisco, representatives of General Motors and Pierre DuPont, Colonel Lindbergh, movie mogul Joseph P. Kennedy, then ambassador to Britain, industrialist Henry Ford, Fascist advertising director Bruce Barton, former President Herbert Hoover, and Senator Vandenberg of Michigan. (Seldes 1943, 75-78) Not all of these men were Fascists, of course, but all of them were interested in making peace between the Fascist powers and the United States. O.K. Armstrong of the American Legion and Lindbergh created the No Foreign War Committee in June 1940, but Lindbergh pulled out by 1941 because the Committee was infiltrated by members of Father Coughlin's Christian Front. The America First Committee was also eventually taken over by members of the German American Bund and the Christian Front, but not before Lindbergh finally destroyed his credibility with the American public in September 1941 by blaming the British, the Jews, and President Roosevelt for dragging the United States into war. (Hoke 1946, 209, 214-216) On 17 December 1941, just a week after Germany declared war on the United States, Lindbergh offered to help negotiate a peace agreement, subjecting him to further ridicule.
One of Lindbergh's closest associates was Lawrence Dennis, a critical figure in the growth of American Fascism. Dennis had been a minor diplomat for the State Department in Romania, Nicaragua and Honduras. Dennis was also an intellectual who wrote numerous books and articles, edited the Fascist periodical The Awakener, assisted Lindbergh with his speeches and helped his wife, the popular columnist Anne Morrow Lindbergh, with her fascist apologia and anti-war book The Wave of the Future. (Dennis 1935, 73; Higham 1985, 56) This book was disturbing to many Americans, including my own grandmother, whose copy I now own; although pacifist in tone, it was openly supportive of the German position, and Colonel Lindbergh's thought that Dennis himself stated that Fascism was the party of peace. "Fascism has been denounced by the liberals, pacifists and socialists as a war breeder," he said, "yet, at the time this book went to press, it was the latter who, along with the international banking and pro-English interests and sympathizers everywhere, were on record in the Italian-Ethiopian situation as supporting sanctions which could only mean a world war." (Dennis 1936, 282) An odd remark considering his own close ties to major American banks, but for what the Communists and Socialists did for hyperbole, the Fascists in the 1930s seemed to do for mendacity. Just a year before, Dennis stated, "...I see the captains of industry, along with the realistic leaders of radical reaction to prolonged depression, climbing on the fascist band wagon." (Dennis 1935, 63)
The difficulty regarding the Lindberghs, according to my grandmother and other sources, was the enormous popularity of Mrs. Lindbergh, who had suffered through the tragic kidnapping and murder of her child, and for years wrote a popular and interesting column on the Lindbergh's global travels.
I believe Ron Paul is speaking what most intelligent people know. No matter how long we are in Iraq, no matter how much money we spend, or how many people get killed (on either side), no matter how many bullets or bombs are dropped...we will NEVER be able to make Iraq a permanent democratic nation.
As soon as we let our guard down, or leave...either some dictator will arise, or some other middle east country will invade Iraq. The middle eastern people will NOT allow democracy to spread in the middle east, nor will Russia, nor China.
What this means essentially is...we lose! It's a no-winner, and we need to realize that it IS another Vietnam.
We are bankrupting our own country and destroying ourselves to accomplish...NOTHING!
If Dr. Paul is stupid, well...I guess I am too. But I do believe we should look realistically at the entire situation with open eyes.
Dr. Paul is right...the military is supporting him...they know it's not going to work over there!
Ron Paul sounds like 1964 Goldwater. The 1984 Goldwater was far more logical.
So in a decade or two, I suspect Paul would make a decent president. Right now he, like the others on the stage, has major deficiencies that disqualify him from the job.
I can think of at least six Democratic candidates with lesser deficiencies than any Republican at that debate.
Mr. Dondero,
The only ones who should be ashamed are those that participated in or supported this unnecessary War which has now killed nearly 1 Million Iraqis (a death toll of Genocide proportions) and destroyed a countries civilization. Not mention those who either participated in or supported Torture as means of interrogation.
As the line from V from Vendetta goes, "Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror." Mr. Dondero needs to look into the mirror because it's not a pretty picture.
The Neocons that celebrate the death and destruction brought about by the War Machine ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Not Ron Paul.
In Defense of Ron Paul - NOT
Eddie "D" says: Ron Paul is NO libertarian. He disgraces the word. Goldwater would have been ashamed of him.
Well Eddie, it seems Goldwater actually predicted the day would come when the American people would rise up and elect a person exactly like Ron Paul. A revolution the way it was intended by the founders of our nation. I question the intent of your comment and your knowledge of history.
Books like Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative" might be of interest. This passage from page 17 is very interesting.
"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”
.
Gee, Dr. Cole,
what drove all this [#} traffic to the site,
and what happened to my beloved "Informed Comment ?"
Avid Student
"And McCain was 100% correct. I've not much liked McCain. But his slamming of Ron Paul and Ron Paul's idiotic surrender-tarian views has caused me - a Rudy supporter - to give him a second look."
Yes, a Rudy supporter who has Norman Podhoretz as his chief foreign policy advisor. Whose the read idiot here? Dr. Paul or the clown who supports an out and out fascist who prays that Bush will bomb Iran?
Ron Paul=common sense!! The talking head establishment will do anything not to let his voice be heard since his voice is the voice of sanity, social justice, Govt.reform, Ron Paul defines every American to afraid or to brainwashed in to sheeple, as voters that can change the consensus that it's to late the military congressional Carlyle complex has taken over everything important and will kill anyone or anything that gets in it's way
My grandfather fled Stalinist Russia to come to America, because he was considered a 'kulak' He later fought and bled for this America in World War I.
My father attended a military academy and fought and bled in the Vietnam war.
I have no tolerence for these arm-chair neoconservatives with Ivy League that somehow equite the Iraq war with World War II. These wars are not identical.
Islamic or Pan-Arab totalitarian ideologies can be fought through cutting off financing, bringing together moderate Muslims, using limited force when necessary, etc.
The idea that this is an "all exterminating war for the survival of ___vague ideology___" is they EXACT same thread of thought which permeats all totalitarian arguments.
Please, let's start reading and add a bit of common sense to our perspective.
Certainly Russia and China are totalitarian powers. Islamic fundementalism is a totalitarian ideology. But what about America? Can't see see how we are become the same? Secret prison systems with torture that operate outside the rule of law? Private mercenary armies unaccountable to the public (Blackwater)? Where do we find ourselves if in the process of fighting totaltiarian ideologies if we become the dragon we seek to slay?
On top of this, we simply do not have the money. Very shortly it will become clear our economy is a giant mortgage bubble finances on Chinese and Japanese savings.
I am voting for Ron Paul because he is one of the few remaining statesmen. I think he can address the oncoming economic hell which awaits us due to 15 years of reckless policy and spending under Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, and Bernanke.
Thank you.
http://ronpaul2008.com
There is absolutely NOTHING brilliant in what McCain said. His lesson is what we were told in grade school about the war and it is a lie.
The truth as to what caused the Second World War is exactly what caused the US to get involved in the first, the second and later, to become the target of militant Islam: a policy that wavers, or a policy that is stationed somewhere in between interventionalism and isolationism.
Keep in mind that when we said we were isolationists, we never were. You want real isolationism? Go to Switzerland. Playing favorites in the Middle East is not isolationism, nor was giving aid to Britain in the First World War, publishing smear campaigns against the Germans, or lying about our involvement (guns on board the passenger ship Lusitania). Either you act as an isolationist or you don't, its that simple.
As for what caused World War II, look no farther than the same issue of inconsistant policy:
Britain and all the interventionalists got involved in WW1 and later created a Versailles dictate. It revealed HOW LITTLE THEY UNDERSTOOD MAINLAND EUROPE - case in point, lumping three ethnicities into one country (Czechoslovakia), creating a "Free City" where Germans would be servicing Poles (not the most brilliant of ideas as far as avoiding tension) and playing with the map in a way that invited revanchanist sentiments.
To the opposite degree, the former allies of World War II then became isolationists, allowing Hitler to reform a German entity along ethnic lines. Some old WW1 personalities even agreed with Hitler's goals of reclaiming what was taken.
Then, after a regime change, the opposite message was sent when Britain wanted to be involved in brokering a deal between Poland and Germany. Britain stood behind Poland in deciding who owned what in the area (again, back to Versailles). Britain was also interventionist when war broke out and the country vowed to continue fighting Germany after Poland was defeated. Britain was again interventionist when it attempted to land in Scandinavia and cut off Germany from key resources. Britain was again interventionist when it decided not to help the French and would rather fight on later. Britain was again interventionist when it attacked the French fleet before it could be turned over to Germany. Britain was again interventionist when Germany launched an attack on its real political/ideological/territorial enemy, the Soviet Union, and Britain again vowed to fight on.
Either you stay out of other peoples affairs, or you don't. It is as simple as that.
But when you are involved, don't be surprised to see enemies emerging strictly because of your policy and striking back via terrorism.
OH, and by the way...
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Another blogger, from Canada writes "Why Ron Paul Matters"
check it out here: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/blogs/2007/11/11/why-you-should-care-about-ron-paul/
I don't give a crap about McCain or Ron Paul, but I think these Republicans should keep on debating. "I'll use all the torture techniques imaginable to keep America safe." "Oh ya, well I promise if I'm elected I will bomb a different country every month". "Oh ya, well if I'm elected I'll do house to house searches in America for terrorists. I promise." I don't see a better way to get a Democrat elected next year then to keep these Republican A-holes competing for which one is the biggest a-hole. They are a discrace to everything American about America. Good ridence to this endangered species of a party.
Eric Dondero and LWM in the same comment thread. You should feel blessed, Mr. Cole. These two loudmouth establishment nuthuggers could drive a wedge between anyone.
And LWM likes to leave out annoying little facts. For example, when LWM tries to smear Rothbard as being antisemitic, he conveniently ignores the fact that Rothbard himself was JEWISH, and so was Mises, whom Paul studied and has a picture of in his congressional office. But those facts seem to get in the way when LWM is trying to convince everyone that Ron Paul hates everyone.
LWM is just butthurt because he is a True Believer when it comes to the Federal Reserve and RP doesn't worship at the alter of the central bank and is working to expose the ponzi scheme that LWM has devoted his educational career to. I guess I'd be pissed too if I found out that my Ph.D. was a waste of time and is contributing to the destruction of the US.
Help us, Obi-Ron. You are our only hope!!
"My gosh! Has he forgotten of the millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians who were slaughtered after we pulled out, at the hands of the Communists?"
My God, did you forget about the US support for the Indonesian occupation of East Timor just after pulling out of Vietnam, killing 200,000 East Timorese Catholics under this occupation in which the U.S. was the sole supporter of this?
McCain should read my US Foreign policy textbook. In terms of World War II, the isolationists make the case that if the US wasn't meddling in Japan and the region first, the Japanese wouldn't have felt threatened and resorted to bombing Pearl Harbor. As regards Europe, 80% of the concentration camp prisoners died in the Holocaust, the US and its allies were powerless to stop it. Even if the US didn't intervene, Germany could have lost anyway or an armistice could have been reached. (Not my opinion, but the textbook's)
While I don't advocate isolationism (or its trendier titles like "Non-intervention" or "redeployment"), the Iraq debacle has made me cynical enough to lean that way for now.
When politicians start talking about Hitler they either want to start a war or they are don't have anything to add to the discussion.
Ron Paul is my candidate and he just might win. Read:
President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-121407.html
Post a Comment
<< Home