Supreme cult leader and whiner extraordinaire, Ron Paul, Libertarian/Republican from Texas, who was twice defeated miserably in runs for president, has continued the whiny performance we saw in the debates he participated in during the 2008 campaign.
Paul, know for blaming America for the terrorist attacks against our country during those debates, continues blaming America for the latest but thwarted attack on Christmas Day.
Asked by Larry King on the December 28, 2009 show about the thwarted attack on this past Christmas Day aboard NWA Flt 253, Paul whines in response, “One thing that is missing here is never asking the question what is the motive? He said why he was -- he did it. He said it was because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive.”
Once again, Paul blames America for terrorist attacks against us.
Apparently Paul whines more than doing his homework. As pointed out by ABC’s Jake Tapper,
“Omar Abdulmutallab was in the field long before that airstrike. (He purchased his plane ticket in Ghana the day before, in fact, and had been in Yemen for months before).”
Paul somehow, as brilliant as he supposed to be, completely missed simple news reports that the plan was put in place and tickets purchased prior to the December 17 strike in Yemen. How do you retaliate for something that had yet to happen?
Trying desperately to interrupt Stein, Paul keeps on whining, “why,” “What makes them terrorists” and “They're terrorists because we're occupiers” in response to Steins answer of, “They're terrorists and murders because they are psychos.”
Ben Stein rightfully lays into Paul pointing out his anti-semitism by telling Paul, “No, we're not occupiers. That's the same anti-Semitic argument we've heard,” which just brings out more whiny words from Paul, accusing Stein of a “vicious attack,” in his normal nasal whiny voice.
Cry me a bucket of tears, Paul.
Ron Paul and his glassy eyed worshippers make the claim that they are the true heirs to the legacy of Ronald Reagan and that Reagan would agree with Paul’s naïve view of foreign policy and fighting terror.
If any of them actually did their homework and researched what Reagan actually stood for, they would choke on that claim.
In the July 1975 issue of the Libertarian magazine, Reason, Reagan was interviewed and asked about Viet Nam (the war on terror had not started yet, for you Paulies). He replied about the outcome,
“Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you’re going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with, and this is where we made the mistake: to pour half a million men in there, to kill 54,000 young men in a cause that Washington, that the government was unable or unwilling to win.”
Who better fits the statement of “unwilling to win” than Ron Paul?
He’s not only unwilling to win, he blames America while ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary.
Little wonder why Paul never progressed beyond single digits in true polls last year and only won some 35 delegates.
Posts
10 comments:
Who better fits "unwilling to win"? Why, President Barack Obama, of course.
"...war on terror..."
You say it as though such a thing exists. Try to recall that our founding fathers were once labeled as terrorists by the British Crown.
Those people are not terrorists. Terrorists are people like the Joker; people who seek destruction for no logical reason. These Muslims have their religion, politics, or sovereignty as their motivations for acting. Hijacking planes, tying bombs to themselves, or whatever are the means they use, in lieu of having a standing army... Sounds crazy. But put it like this; If we had no standing army, and China invaded us, some of us may be driven to use the same tactics. You use what you have.
The problem is that "War on Terror" sounds good. A: it's a war. So I can get behind it. B: Terror is obviously a bad thing. So it's something we should fight... The problem is that these terms are generated for the general public. (Remember that in the debates, all candidates spoke at something like the 7th Grade level.) So to rely on the public to make intelligent decisions is a fool's errand. But to take advantage of the general public is pretty easy to do. Politicians do it every day.
"War on Terror" defines nothing. And to go further down your reading, defining 'win' is something that needs further clarification. To my knowledge, no one has been able to define 'winning' in this war. To suggest Paul has no desire to win (he voted for going into Afghanistan) is to suggest that somehow John McCain did. The problem is that neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama had any idea of what it meant to win this war.
The reason they can't come up with an answer is that there isn't one. Fighting a 'war on terror' is as futile as fighting a war on happiness or racism or obesity.
Where it benefits the government and media is that 'terror' or 'terrorist' is a very vague term. And practically anyone can be labeled a terrorist (like we came up with 'enemy combatant' to skirt international war rules). So going back to the general public, if a terrorist is someone that we're at war with and if all terrorists should die and if that vague term can be applied to (really) anyone (and for any reason), we run the risk of sliding down a dangerous slope.
As people who contribute with words on the internet and other forms of media, we owe it to ourselves to lift the public up and educate them. We need to quit using 'War on Terror' and 'terrorist(s)' and start using real words, words that define. As they are, those words are something our government and media use to pat us on the head and say, "Here ya' go. You can understand this."
Maybe to you there is no such thing as a "War on Terror," but you may change your mind should you be on he next NWA Flt 253.
What does it matter that whiny Paul voted to go into Afghanstan? He now says to leave and if memory serves, calls it a Civil War now.
You can whine, twist words, try some faux-intellectualism or recite from Paul's sacred writings, it all amounts to just smoke out of your ass.
In the end, it amounts to the same, whatever you personally wish to label terrorists (granting them legitimacy), it changes nothing. Had you been in the seat next to Omar Abdulmutallab, you'd be crapping your pants, forgetting all about your foolish diatribe.
But, what can we expect from someone who worships the world's premier kook?
Hey, let's compare them to a fictional character, like the Joker. That makes it all make sense, now.
And I don't recall that the FF were labeled "terrorists," rather "traitors." You know, for acts of TREASON against the Crown... as opposed to stuffing explosives in next to the family jewels to obliterate the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with anything these "non" terrorists are suffering from.
Unless of course, the flight was comprised entirely of right-wing extremists who voted for Bush, right?
Angie, how much credence can we actually give someone who preaches less government spending, then turns around and condemns Abraham Lincoln for starting he Civil War to free the slaves (which was NOT the reason for that war), saying he should have bought the slaves to free them, without giving any consideration to whether the slave owners of the time, both Black and White, would even sell them?
If they were willing, wouldn't that have been an encouragement of government spending?
In 1987 he wished to completely disassociate himself from Reagan and now, claims to be the true heir of Reagans legacy.
Paul may be a kook, but his adherents are much worse, Paulies Attacking Hannity
I don't really listen to much out of Ron Paul, myself. Of the few things I've heard, only one made a lot of sense, to audit the Fed.
Now, you wanna talk about "educating" people - and placing blame where blame is due - let's talk about the central banks of the world, particularly the Fed, EH, "INTEGR8D"?
Way I feel most days, Lew, sad to say, the events leading to the fall of our constitutional republic (not DEMOCRACY as younguns like Integr8d were taught and our fearless leader Der Fuhrer seems to believe, God help us all), set in motion a century ago, have pushed us past the point of no return.
All the crap sandwiches handed out over the short history of our nation, the past 100 years have proven to be the most filling. Amendments 16, 17, and 18 should never have seen the light of day. Creation of the Federal Reserve then expanding its "duties" and repealing legislation that held somewhat of a check on the system (Glass-Steagall). Gerrymandering nightmares from hell to keep malicious and malignant actors such as Barney Frank and many, many others (of both political flavors) in office. Welfare programs including Section 8, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (think Madison, unable to lay fingers on that article allowing taxpayer money to be spent on items of benevolence - harsh, perhaps, but FOR A REASON). The Dept. of Education. Energy This and That, Transportation, you name it. Not one damned thing that has Constitutional authority, and now they want to take over healthcare.
Worst of all, the pigs lining up at the trough then having the balls to bitch when there isn't enough in it.
I admit, I've not read Atlas Shrugged, but I think it's about to make its way onto my reading list - and soon. It's going to get ugly, one way or the other and sooner or later. There is no way around it anymore.
It's like laws of physics. You can't violate them, you can't suspend them, you can't pretend they don't exist. The question then becomes, do you want to feel the pain NOW, with a shot of anesthetic, or LATER, with a really big fuckin' chainsaw?
In so many ways I agree with your various writings, Lew, and here, you're dead wrong about Ron Paul.
I make full disclosure: I really like Ron Paul. I am not a friend or family member of his. After years of belly-aching about mega-huge government types here in Oregon (I'm a native) -- It was Ron Paul that inspired me to get off of my butt and get involved to bring the party back to it's conservative roots (smaller government and lower taxes).
He is called Dr. No, because when considering any bill before the House - the first question he asks himself is, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to do this?". From a strictly constructionist view of the Constitution, taking into account the arguments of the founding fathers during the States' ratification debates -- the answer to that question is almost always 'No' for most of the pieces of crap written by lobbyists and presented by lawmakers. If you're really for a smaller government, I'd hardly think that Ron Paul's voting record is anything short of fantastic!
I see from your post here, that your main beef with Paul is his foreign policy. Big Government is bad, not just domestically, but internationally too. Why would we ship billions of our taxpayer dollars overseas in the name of aid (whether it's for military, health, agriculture or in the form of cold hard cash)? If you,personally, want to give your money to a charity or other organization to support someone or some group of people overseas (as long as it's not for treasonous purposes) -- then you have every right to do that. Please, don't use the force of government (like via taxation) to make people whom don't agree -- force them to support your pet ideal. Just like abortion. The force of government, viz taxation, should not be used for things that other people don't agree with.
Our current "war on terror" is a farce. As Integr8d so aptly pointed out. You can not have a war on an idea and expect to win "as quickly as possible". (think of the big government folks' indoctrination of our children into their collectivist way of thinking -- their war has taken decades.) You CAN have a war with a country or several named countries, in a moral defense, to preserve your people's own sovereignty.
"Why" and "To what end?" are very provocative questions. They should be asked often and the answers carefully considered. I believe this is one of the biggest problems with the "progressives" (big government types) -- they can't think beyond the ideas or theories, which sound good on their face, but then consequences oft go unconsidered.
The fact is: polls show that the American public simply don't have the commitment to the War on Terror, so the best thing to do is get our troops out of harm's way. Not one more dies. We marched them in, we can march them out. What if we brought our troops out of all the countries that we're in and brought them home to military bases, right here, protecting our borders and our shores. I'm not saying we need to close down our international intelligence apparatus, but other sovereign countries need to provide for their own defense. Policing the world is not our job and I don't support the Big Government that is necessary to support such a foreign octopus. Why can't Japanese and German taxpayers pay for their own defenses? Why must US taxpayers pay for Japan's entire defense?
As for the "blame America" crowd... America does deserve some blame. Not all blame, but we have screwed up. How is it that you can think that our government is so perfect that we've never screwed anything up (on an international basis) -- and yet, you believe that our government has screwed up, sometimes, domestically (like passing "health insurance reform", which is really a corporate welfare porkfest)?
Mrs., you seem to make the same mistake many Paulies make about Paul’s view of the constitution, amendments added as per the process written into constitution by our founders.
Which ones is he trying to repeal? Are you even aware of the difficult process of repealing them and if so, which ones would you repeal?
The founders also wrote in the amendment process, as a legal method of updating our constitution as the majority felt it needed to be, was it not?
Beyond that, if you really have read and agree with much of what I have said, you’d know that I agree with Paul on some matters, mostly fiscal. However, even though I agree with auditing the fed and like seeing him move forward on that, is he gaining support from Democrats as a distraction from more urgent matters currently set to bankrupt the middle class, such as the current healthcare reform and cap & trade?
Those will bankrupt us long before his auditing the fed measure ever comes to a vote.
Although I am aware that he opposes them, I feel the more pressing issue before us is stopping them before going after the fed. I do not think he should stop pressing the issue of auditing the fed, but instead of his main focus being on the fed, he should join in with making more noise about stopping those two disastrous bills.
You are right in that I abhor his foreign policy ideas. I feel he is totally off base in blaming America for terrorism. In this case, he placed blame without even considering that Abdulmutallab had purchased his ticket for Flight 253 before the strike in Yemen by Yemeni forces on December 17.
How is the strike in Yemen to blame when the planning and purchase of the ticket was made before the strike? And don’t forget, it was Yemeni forces that attacked Al Qaeda on December 17, not American forces.
We have been under assault by radical Jihadists who have openly stated they feel Allah has granted them domination of the globe for decades. Why does he not listen to that claim and instead focuses only on when they cite some reason that can be interpreted to we are at fault?
Con't
Al Qaeda and other Jihadists do not target our military, but civilian targets. They are not trying to defeat our military, but instill fear in our hearts as they do to other Muslims that do not subject themselves to their perverted view of Islam.
As Abdulmutallab shows, they are not some poverty stricken group fighting off the yoke of oppression, but radicalized zealots bent on world domination.
Al Qaeda serves no single nation and even Saudi Arabia, who many anti-war leftists claim supplied the bulk of who attacked us on 9/11, has stripped Jihadists like bin Laden of his citizenship back in the 1990’s.
Why declare war on a nation of birth of terrorists when they too have come under attack from those terrorists?
Pulling everybody and everything back inside our borders will not stop terrorist attacks, as we saw at Ft. Hood and on Christmas Day.
Banning Muslims within the country would also be a violation of our constitutions first amendment, would it not?
We are in a new type of war, unlike any we have ever seen. We not only have to fight and stop the terrorists that are ready to kill us, we must also engage those who may be inclined to join them and show them what we have to offer in free choice is better than subjugation to Jihadists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
President Bush did go before Congress following established law before invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. They voted for how it would be and funded it. Paul even voted for Afghanistan.
On September 12, 2001, Paul said in part, “ If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.”
Today, he wants to pull the plug and allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda free reign to retake what gains our Troops have made, totally invalidating their sacrifice, as was done to us in Viet Nam.
Paul likes to invoke the legacy of Ronald Reagan and many supporters claim he is the rightful heir to Reagan’s legacy. Yet, in the July 1975 edition of Reason magazine, Reagan was quoted, “Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you’re going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with, and this is where we made the mistake: to pour half a million men in there, to kill 54,000 young men in a cause that Washington, that the government was unable or unwilling to win.”
Paul advocates the use of letters of marque and reprisal, giving no thought to they were outlawed by other nations over a century ago and that they are tantamount to using mercenaries to fight our wars, which is completely against the Geneva Conventions.
If we fought wars by the polls, we might be speaking Japanese or German today as the polls were well against our entering World War Two until Pearl Harbor. Then again, what media is truthfully covering the heroism and great sacrifices our Troops are making?
As I recall it, Paul opposed the “surge” President Bush instituted and yet, that was a huge success.
Con't
Are you so sure we are “paying for Japan and Germany’s defense?” I served for 3 years in Germany after Viet Nam and they do have a standing Army and Air Force.
Are they attacking us “because we are occupiers” when we have had troops in their countries for over 60 years?
Some reading you may agree with or may not.
Terrorism is not the West’s fault
Blame America First
Libertarians and the War Ron Paul doesn't speak for all of us
The Libertarian Case for Iraq
I’ll leave you with two thoughts, Mrs.
How can you place your trust in someone who aligns themselves with the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin, Bill Ayers and Jane Fonda?
And, do you have any idea what it is like to be serving your country in a war zone and continually hearing you and your mission are the cause of all the trouble and your countrymen are denigrating your efforts and sacrifices?
I do.
finis
Post a Comment