Monday, September 03, 2007

Ron Paul and His Lack of Candor

September 3, 2007

Ron Paul, Texas member of the House running for President in 2008, appears to be the current front-runner in the elongated 2008 Presidential Campaigns, if you believe everything out on the internet. For some odd reason, his popularity and polling numbers come back considerably less when asked in regular polls.

Reading some sites set up on him, it is difficult to tell whether he is Jesus reincarnated or the best thing to come to America since sliced bread. Hype like that always makes me suspicious, so I decided to check into this self described “lifelong Libertarian” who is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

Paul is a Doctor, OB/Gyn hailing from the 14th district of Texas, has by is own account, delivered thousands of babies and has been in the House of Representatives, off and on, since 1976.

His main appeal seems to be from those Libertarians and anti-war Democrats that seek abandonment of the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror. He is probably best know at this time for the gaffe between him and New York’s former Mayor, Rudy Guiliani, also seeking the 2008 GOP nomination.

In May 2007, at the South Carolina GOP Debate, Paul said, in regards the 9/11 terrorist attacks, "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."

Shocked at that statement, the moderator asked him he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks.

Paul answered, "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said: I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier."

Confronted by Guiliani about this claim, Paul said that the United States cannot "do what we want around the world" without inciting hatred and a response.

Seeing an exchange as this coming from someone seeking the GOP nomination, at a time we are at war and sounding more like anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich, I decided to discover a bit more about Dr. Paul and his curious ‘anti-war leftist conservatism.’

Goggling Dr. Paul, the first thing to grab my attention was the profile of a poster commenting on a thread up on freerepublic proclaiming “ I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, Ron Paul.

Since my entire time in the United States Army was with U.S. Army Aviation, I am somewhat familiar with Army Flight Surgeons and have never heard of a “Combat Flight Surgeon.” This roused my curiosity even more so I continued searching about.

I ran into so many web sites of his supporters with comments as,

“It’s difficult to find traditionally political ad hominem criticisms of Paul. He served in the Vietnam War as a flight surgeon and has been a well-liked physician around his home district for decades.”

“He is a Vietnam veteran - he is a doctor who served as flight surgeon in the Vietnam war - not like some of these phony veterans that you see prancing around Washington D.C. on the news all the time.”

“The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President…”

“As a result of this experience in the Vietnam War, Dr. Paul is a staunch advocate of getting the troops out of Iraq.”

“Dr. Paul served his country, and its soldiers as a field surgeon, probably seeing the coldest side of the Vietnam War, and still came back to further serve as a congressman…”

“Dr. Paul is running for the GOP nomination which provides a greater degree of exposure. Make no mistake - his ideals are unfaltering. He is a doctor, a historian, a war hero who understands what it takes to stand up in Washington and fight the self serving elites that rule over us.”

“He earned unfathomable wisdom during his work as a flight surgeon in Vietnam.”

”Ron Paul was drafted and served as a flight surgeon in the air force during VietNam.”

“After finishing medical school at Duke, Paul enlisted in the Air Force. He was a flight surgeon and, as he told the New York Times Sunday Magazine recently, the experience changed him.” (more on this comment later)

“The other co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a retired Air Force flight surgeon; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio,…”

“Ron Paul is an Honorably Discharged Vietnam Veteran. Are you?”

“USAF Vietnam vet Ron Paul is the most fiscally conservative, constitutionalist Republican on stage…”

“Unlike Dick Cheney, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Paul served in Vietnam for duty… not booty.”

As a Viet Nam Veteran myself and recalling the hype around two previous candidates for President who served minimal time in country and quite possibly not all that honorably in one case, it concerned me that I found all these claims, among many more, of Dr. Paul’s Viet Nam service and not one mention of it on his personal site. What I find on bio’s of him is that he served honorably in the US Air Force on active duty from 1963-1965 and honorably completed his commitment in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. No mention at all of ever serving in Viet Nam in any capacity.

Desiring a bit of clarification on these claims, I emailed the Paul Campaign inquiring about the claims on June 17, 2007. On July 11, 2007 I received a reply of,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I will forward your message and attempt to get an answer.


Ron Paul 2008 Volunteer

To date, I have not received another word from his campaign to a simple inquiry of did he or did he not serve in Viet Nam, as claimed by so many of his supporters.

Searching around some more, I ran across the Op-ed printed in the New York Times that I showed above. From that article we read,

“I recall doing a lot of physicals on Army warrant officers who wanted to become helicopter pilots and go to Vietnam,” he told me. “They were gung-ho. I’ve often thought about how many of those people never came back.”

Arousing my curiosity even more I kept looking and found an interview with a J. Taylor where he was asked directly in May 2000,

Taylor: Did you spend time in the Vietnam theater?

Congressman Paul: I was an Air Force Flight surgeon on active duty from about 1963. One personal experience I had that really made me start to think about the war was that I was doing many physicals on Army warrant officers who were seeking to become helicopter pilots. I don't know if you remember, but in the early years of the Vietnam war many of our helicopters were shot down. That made me think seriously about my role in the Vietnam fiasco. In one way I was not directly participating, but indirectly I was. As the years have gone by, I have become much more fascinated with foreign policy as a result of that experience and it has played a role in leading me to totally reject our insane foreign policy which causes us to get involved in places like Vietnam.

It would seem to me that here, he was ‘hinting’ at Viet Nam Duty without saying he was there. Yes, he did say, in classic John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) speak, that “in one way” he was not directly participating. But, a casual reader is left with the impression of service in country.

The claim of an Air Force Flight Surgeon examining Army Pilot candidates is very possible, as often candidates were ordered to report to the nearest Military Facility for their Physicals. The claim of “many physicals” I find suspect as the height of the Viet Nam War would have been during his time in the Air National Guard. A few I could agree with, but “many?”

Other sites I came across state outright that he served “during the Viet Nam Era,” which would be truthful. They state he did not serve in Viet Nam, which is believable. There is no dishonor in serving during that era and not having served in Viet Nam. As a doctor, I’m sure Paul served honorably in both his Active capacity and his National Guard capacity. So, why the obfuscation about Viet Nam Service? I don’t know.

What does disturb me is the slick politician way he makes no claim himself, but also does not directly deny nor correct the many claims of his Viet Nam Service knowing he did not serve in country. I find that to be very disingenuous if not dishonest.

If he won’t be clear and up front about something so simple, what else would he, as President, not be so clear and up front about?

Contrast this with the Honorable Service in Viet Nam of fellow GOP candidate, Duncan Hunter, who did in fact serve in Viet Nam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and 75th Ranger Regiment. He doesn’t allude to his Service nor does he brag about it. In the fashion of a true Veteran, he simply says he “didn’t do anything special,” then shifts the focus to his son, Marine 1st Lt. Duncan Hunter, currently serving in the War on Terror.

Unlike Dr. Paul, Mr. Hunter is straightforward and upfront about his Military Service, not allowing others to make false claims about him in order to make him appear what he isn’t. He has the true humility and strength I saw in many Heroes I served with and have met since.

Come clean with the American people, Dr. Paul. Correct these multitudes of supporters making the false claim of your Viet Nam Service.



Anonymous said...

Sir, you are grasping. I read that as saying he did not go to Vietnam, but instead supported the effort. As an Air Force intelligence analyst, I have not yet touched Iraqi soil (will come November though). Still, I have supported the war effort indirectly through various jobs I have held.

His statement was that he spent time reflecting on his role in sending men to their deaths (indirectly) and whether that sat well with him. People have misinterpreted his service, but he is very upfront. He did not go to Vietnam, only served during the wary.

I like Duncan Hunter in that he sticks to his principles, although his principles are not mine. But why the heck are you supporting Fred Thompson? That man speaks in a baritone out of both sides of his mouth.

LewWaters said...

Jimmy, thank you for your service, from a Viet Nam Vet.

I showed that comment to a few other non-political people I know and they all said they felt he alluded to possible Viet Nam Service.

That is not an upfront way in which to answer. An upfront way would have been to outright state, "No, I did not go there, but did perform physicals on pilot candidates that ended up going and that has bothered me since." Or, something to that effect.

In fact, it was a simple straight forward question requiring only a yes or no answer.

Still, there is a multitude of web sites claiming him a war hero, Viet Nam Veteran and such and I can find nothing from him correcting them or asking them not to misrepresent him. That is why I emailed his campaign months ago asking.

On Hunter/Thompson. Hunter is my first choice. Thompson sounds good, but hasn't made a definite stand yet. A review of my blog will show pro-Hunter posts and not one for Thompson. I had the links up originally to give readers a conservative choice of candidates. I left it up to see if he is worth it, if and when he jumped in.

But, make no mistake, Hunter is my choice for 2008.

Keep your head down in Iraq and come home safe. We have your back here at home.

Kyle Heuer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Notfooledagain said...

Well I guess you are the one of the lucky ones. I lost one brother to the war and another to agent orange. Ron Paul is not anti-war. He just believes that war should be declared, fought to WIN, and then bring our troops home alive. He has a great respect for LIfe. As should any president who would send someone else to die.

LewWaters said...

notfooled, my sincere sympathies for the loss of your brothers.

I lost 13 buddies I knew there and a few before I went in the Army myself. There sacrifice was willing as they too were volunteers. The "cut and run" attitude that withdrew us and prevented us from fighting it invalidated their sacrifice, in my opinion.

I can appreciate Paul desiring a declaration of war, but against who? He doesn't understand that we aren't fighting a country this time, but a group of idealist, severely misled idealists spread throughout several countries.

This is a whole new type of war that, like in the past, will be a learn as we go. But, learn we will and prevail we must.

Bush nor Clinton asked for this war, it was thrust on us beginning back in 1979. The depth of it today is due to the inaction of the past and if we withdraw now and set back behind our borders, we will just have an even bloodier fight later on, most likely when my grandchildren are grown.

If Paul really desires to figth to win, as you say, he needs to change his message and together with Democrats and Republcians in COngress, put their heads togetehr with the President, now or when Bush leaves, and get this fight going, not opposing it every step of the way.

That was how WW2 was won and how this one will be won, by us or our grandchildren.

Jihadists have no plans for withdrawal nor do they desire peaceful co-existence. Paul should be able to see that.

Christopher S. Lawton said...


Best Ron Paul video - (Reply: WRONG!...Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!) v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

Ron Paul "Dream On" Video!!!!

Ron Paul "Don't Tread On Me" Video

"In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act" GEORGE ORWELL

"None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Goethe

LewWaters said...

What's thematter, Chris, can't say nything about erronous claims of him serving in Viet Nam?

Did you somehow miss that the subject of this post is about supporters making that very claim and his not correcting them for so long?

You really should pay better attention, son.

Unknown said...

Lew I believe you touched on one of the main reasons we should not be fighting this war. You said:

"I can appreciate Paul desiring a declaration of war, but against who? He doesn't understand that we aren't fighting a country this time, but a group of idealist, severely misled idealists spread throughout several countries"

You are correct, we cannot declare war on anyone. This is the fundamental problem with this conflict. There is not a "defined" enemy and the enemy that was identified as al-qaeda is nothing more than a fundamentalist group that wants westerners off their land and to stop influencing the region. We cannot identify them going door to door. They do not wear uniforms and the longer we are killing innocent civilians, the more likely once civil muslims will take up arms. This has been the case since we have been in Iraq.

The clear notion that we do not have an definable enemy should be a striking reminder that we should be intelligently combating the problem of Islamists.

I respect Ron Paul and I have listened to him several times say that he never had to go to Vietnam. That does not take away the fact that he served his time and now as a Congressman he Still is a dedicated public servant. Not many of us can say that. He is a logical, analytical thinker that delves into issues that 99% of politicians wouldn't dare touch on. For that I commend him and anyone else that will stand up and be the lone voice

LewWaters said...

Michael, the problem with your thought is that 'they' declared war on us long ago. Since the Iranian hostage situation in 1979, we have been attacked no less that 15 times, twice on our own soil.

This isn't a criminal enterprise, it is acts of war that must be responded with by war, if we are to survive.

We do have a defined enemy, although elusive and non-uniformed. The problem in Paul's thinking is he is recalling long ago when we had a country attacking us. It is now a radical sect of a religion.

Paul can be the lone voice, but he isn't correct. We can no longer depend on our oceans to keep our enemies out and if Al Qaeda and other radical Jihadist groups like them or affiliated with them, were to get the bomb, we will be in big trouble.

Make no mistake, these terrorists have come to the belief that Allah has granted them sole dominance of the entire globe.

He can call it anything he likes, isolationism will just end up bringing about a larger and bloodier war and one that we may not win because we waited too long.

As for Paul saying he did not serve in Viet Nam, why can't his campaign answer my simple inquiry? Why hasn't he asked supporters not to make that claim. Surely he isn't ignorant of the fact that so many are making it.

Unknown said...


If you want to start in 1979, then we should allow for the entire history of the region from WWI. There are so many intricate problems with this region in those years. All of them have a piece in this fight. Now we can move to a cause-and-effect approach.

1953 - A freely elected Prime Minister of Iran (Mosaddeq) was overthrown by our government. Wikipedia "operation ajax". This was also declassified later. We reinstalled the Shah of Iran. He was a brutal dictator that we funded as long as he didn't nationalize the oil. We backed him up with weapons and trained the SAVAK (secret police) which brutally tortured dissenters.

1979 The Iranian revolution. This was a direct result of the Shah and his western influence. The taking of the US hostages was also a direct result of this.

After this we supplied Iraq and backed them in the war with Iran. All the while selling weapons to Iran (Iran-contra scandal). I'm not quite sure the Iranians have forgotten this.

Meanwhile a ragtag bunch called the mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets were being trained and funded by the US government. This is traditionally who we call the al-qaeda today.

In all of Bin ladens fatwas he has stated that he wants the US out of the region and out of their oil interests. He spells out in very clear terms his reasoning.

Now there is a distinct difference between al-qaeda, Iran, Iraq, sunnis, shiites, kurds, etc... This is such a volatile, convoluted region that has been warring for centuries.

All I'm saying is that we should really look at the reasons why things are so volatile there. What we have been doing has not stabilized the region. Maybe it's time we took a step back and thought about a different tactic?

Please research the "Petrodollar" and you will understand the strong tie to this region. Without the oil, the middle east would be no more important than Darfur to the united states and you see how quickly we react to that situation.

I read somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's time for a change.

LewWaters said...

Sorry, Michael, no dice. While a troubled region, we were not directly attacked until 1979.

If we wish to engage in coulda, woulda, shoulda, we can bring in Carters lack of support for the Shah and allowing Iran to fall to the Ayatollah Khomeni's rule.

Trouble's in that region staretd long before Bin Laden and no, Israel isn't the problem, they have the oldest claim to the land, not the Palestinians.

Still, we weren't attacked, especially at home, until after we showed them we had no stomach to fight them, just as Paul wishes to do. He needs to understand that we are not facing normal people, not even normal Muslims, but ideologues that desire to make Bahgdad the center of their Caliphate. After that, they have expressed their desire for world domination under their misguided interpretation of the Qu'Ran.

With them, it is submit or die, no middle ground. They have no exit strategy nor any desire for "peaceful co-existence."

Paul needs to wke up to that fact and since he said we need tolisten to them, maybe he should start. Everything I just said has been clearly stated by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and others.

And you are correct, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That is why another "cut and run" strategy is not what is needed, but to finally face up and fight them. No end to Korea, abandoning the Cubans at the bay of Pigs, Abandoning Viet Nam with the resulting slaughter there and in Cambodia and Laos, Abdandoning Lebanon, running from Somalia, encouraging Iraqi's to stand up after the First Gulf War and then turning our backs on them. That is what the failed over and over again strategy of "cut and run," or if you wish, "responsible redeployment" has wrought.

The "New Direction" needed is to finally face these barbarians and annahilate as many as possible, while showing others that there is something better for them.

The "No blood for oil" argument is old and lame. Haven't you checked the price of gas lately? China is the largest consumer of oil now and they aren't even there or supporting it.

Ya'll really need a new argument.

Now, any link to Paul corecting his supporters about their claims?

Unknown said...

This is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy:

In my words, or rather the Essex in the mid '60's,

"'Cause it's easier--easier said than done"

War and Foreign Policy

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Somethings wrong w/ this policy.

Right Truth said...

I have readers who want me to get behind Ron Paul, but ... I just can't. I don't know enough about him, he has said a few strange things when I've heard him speak. There's a big question mark when I look at him.

Right Truth

Unknown said...

What, exactly, is wrong with the policy? It strikes me as exactly what is needed.

We could stop wasting money on our "welfare for dictators" programs, we could stop deploying our troops all over the world, which makes it that much easier to attack them, we could stop wasting our blood any treasure trying to force other nations to live according to our values. Note that this last is exactly what the Islamists are accused of doing, though in their case, it is eventually and potentially where in our case it is forcefully and now.

Our security as a nation would be enhanced, both by allowing us to redeploy troops to protect America, since it is Americans who pay the taxes to fund the troops. It would also be enhanced by depriving bin Ladin of his most effective recruiting tool: the fact that Muslims, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are under siege by the United States and must defend themselves against us.

Note that I do not claim that nobody would hate a non-interventionist America. Anything large and successful will be somebody's target. But if you remove enough of the "rank and file" support from the jihad, the leaders will have to strap bombs to themselves in order to make their point ... at which point the problem becomes, quite literally, self-liquidating.

As for Iraq, there is nothing we can do in order to prevent civil war in Iraq. Just like Yugoslavia, the sectarian and ethnic tensions there can be repressed, by a brutal dictatorship, but once that brutal dictatorship is removed, they will break out again. The only solution is to let them either kill each other to the last man, or, more likely, kill each other until they lose their enthusiasm for the exercise and find another solution themselves. What we must not do is give them a unifying enemy, allowing them to temporarily set their differences aside and concentrate on attacking us.

LewWaters said...

What's wrong with Paul's Foreign Policy?

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.
April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.
February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
In response, on April 15 the United States retaliated in an operation dubbed ‘El Dorado Canyon.’ Approximately 100 aircraft were launched in direct support of the raid. It was an attack against military targets involving land-based bombers from Great Britain together with carrier-based air strikes from ships in the Gulf of Sidra.
December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
June 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
November 1984 - A bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Colombia kills a passer-by. The attack was preceded by death threats against U.S. officials by drug traffickers.
October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.
Nov. 4, 1979 - Iran Hostage Crisis, After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release Jan. 20, 1981.

Paul needs to wake up and realize it isn't 1939 any longer.

How many more will it take?

ourplan said...

My dad served in WWII as Chief Pharmacist Mate on a ship in the South Pacific, volunteering when he was nearly 40 years old. He never set foot on Japan, Iwo Jima, the Philipines or any other piece of land. I think he would be offended by someone who wanted to nitpick and say that therefore he did not serve IN the war. In exactly the same sense Ron Paul served IN the Vietnam war. It is just as insignificant and irrelevant that he did not set foot on Vietnamese soil, as it is that my father did not set foot on any of the islands where ground action took place in the war he helped to fight.

Get the hell over it Mr. Walters, and get on board with the one and only candidate in this crucial election who will restore the nation you and I knew, for our own children and grandchildren to inherit.

Unknown said...

"I can appreciate Paul desiring a declaration of war, but against who? He doesn't understand that we aren't fighting a country this time, but a group of idealist, severely misled idealists spread throughout several countries."

Ron Paul is already 1000 steps ahead of you, research Marque and Reprisal.

Webmaster said...

I think it was that Paul served DURING the Viet Nam war, not actually IN the conflict itself. But I don't see why this matters? Did he not perform honorably in his capacacity as a doctor? Why are you hanging your whole piece on what someone on the internet said that did not make it clear about what he did DURING the war?

Dr Paul never tries to make people think things other than the truth. And is someone not a Viet Nam veteran if they served during the Viet Nam war? What is the difference?

LewWaters said...

ourplan, blar & webmaster, I sure hope you 3 aren’t Paul’s top supporters. If so, it is little wonder he polls so dismally in real polls.

Lame analogy, ourplan. Your Dad was in the combat theater and WW2 was a world wide war, Viet Nam was localized.

I suggest you “get the hell over yourself.”

Oh yes, learn a little comprehension. The name is W-A-T-E-R-S, not W-A-L-T-E-R-S.

I am on board with the best candidate, not one desiring a return to 1939 isolationalism.

Sorry, blar, but Paul is stuck in the 1930’s with his “foreign policy.” He needs to wake up and see that whoever the next President is will still be facing the same terrorist threat that has been attacking us since 1979.

How many more innocent Americans will die before you people wake up? This is a real threat and even more barbaric than any we faced in the past.

Webmaster, you really need a refresher in comprehension. I clearly state that he served honorably and there is no dishonor in not setting foot in country during the conflict.

The dishonor comes in allowing claims by others of “war hero” and such to stand without correcting them or asking supporters to not make such claim.

As for the difference between Viet Nam Era and Viet Nam Veteran, “if you didn’t go, you wouldn’t know.”

Why is it so difficult for him to issue a statement or such asking supporters to not misrepresent his service? Why was it so difficult for them to answer me yes or no if he served there and if so, where?

Simple questions that may matter to those of us who did serve, have been dumped on for it for so long and being told a candidate served where he didn’t.

Obviously it doesn’t matter to you all, but to many others, it does.

That’s life.

ourplan said...

Lew, my apologies for not spelling your name correctly. No offense intended.

When a war is going on, every place where someone is making personal sacrifices is a "combat theater." Whether time is taken away from you by getting killed or wounded by enemy or friendly fire, or as the result of your decision to divert years of your life to supporting the war effort on the home front, rather than accomplishing other goals you had planned for your life - in all cases you have to some degree become a casualty.

Right now the beleaguered American middle class citizenry is in a much more serious war than the so-called "war" on terrorism. It is a war for the survival of our nation against the attacks on its sovereignty and national character currently being mounted by the NWO globalist power elite. And Ron Paul has literally put his life on the line by being the only candidate for the Presidency with the courage to stand up and spit in the faces of these evil and ruthless international forces.

You and your ilk can go ahead and keep your myopic vision focused on the stupid never ending war to exterminate every last terrorist from the face of the earth. But you will end up with a bankrupt nation with Communist China serving the foreclosure papers. And that nation won't even be the United States, but rather the North American Union.

LewWaters said...

No need to apologize, op, I didn’t think you did for any offensive reason, just that you didn’t really read the post and assumed what I said, as well as my name.

Your description of war is sophomoric at best. By your reasoning, since after Viet Nam, I was in Germany when the Yom Kippur War of 1973 occurred, and we stood down from Field Maneuvers in case we were to be shipped over to help Israel, that would make me a Veteran of the Yom Kippur War too.

No Dice! Not even close.

In Paul’s case, no one has denigrated his service in the Air National Guard, which is when the bulk of the Viet Nam War was happening while he was still in uniform part-time and seeking his goals the rest of the time. In case you haven’t a clue, Air National Guard serves one weekend a month and two weeks every summer, unless activated, which he wasn’t.

Spare me the drama. If we don’t defeat terrorism there won’t be a middle class, beleaguered or otherwise, only a caliphate.

“You and your ilk” should follow Paul’s own words from the S.C. debate, as well should he, and listen to the enemy. They have been very plain and clear that they desire the destruction of Israel and the U.S. and will not stop as long as we give them weakness to see. They have very plainly stated themselves that Iraq is the central front in the war.

You also need to wake up to the fact that Paul isn’t the Messiah resurrected. At best he is a pretty good doctor, I’m sure. At worst, he is a mediocre congressman without a clue of world conditions and who thinks he can roll back the clock to 1939.

Allowing false claims of war service during a time of war is dishonest. His lack of knowledge and late publishing of “official positions” on various matters as well as years of supporting Illegal Immigrants, voting against many measures to counter the influx of Illegal Immigrants, but introducing a bill barring “birthright citizenship” sows me this congresscritter will be better left along the seawall in Galveston.

But, look on the bright side. He has received the support of one prominent person.

ourplan said...

Terrorism will never be defeated any more than murder will be "defeated." As long as Islam exists there will always be terrorists. Therefore any "war" against this tactic will, by definition go on without ever ending - or until the idiot government trying to accomplish this impossible task goes bankrupt, a point we are already very close to.

The only rational goal is to act so as to minimize the damage terrorists will do to you. That involves two things:

1. Recognizing what you are doing to incite the hatred that drives terrorists, so as to reduce the production of them.

2. Make it so they cannot get into your country.

Ron Paul is the candidate who comes the closest to being correct in his understanding of what needs to be done relative to both of these points.

So you spare us all the drama of how America will become a Caliphate unless we exterminate every single terrorist in the world by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from Red China to be able to continue fighting these quixotic police actions.

LewWaters said...

Jeeez, you Paulites just don't get it, do you?

No one has said terrorism will be completely eliminated by this war. A Realistic goal is to minimize and marginalize the movement while showing others there is no real sense to listen to those who misinterpret their Qu’Ran as they do.

America is not to blame for Terrorism, no matter what Paul or any other liberal wuss has to say. Amazing that he would call himself a conservative and join in with the hate America first crowd. Paul’s first problem is he is unable to see a threat for what it is and sophomorically wants to blame America for what is clearly a worldwide problem as old as religion itself.

Your number 2 is as naïve as is Paul’s call for letters of Marque and Reprisal. Hellooooo!!!! They are already here!!! We can no longer hide behind our oceans. What do you propose a continual Police state where no one is allowed in, ever and no one allowed out, ever? As I said before, he thinks we can return to 1939 isolationalism, which brought us the bloodbath of World War Two. No thanks!

Paul is as archaic and he is naïve. His naivete will end up killing an awful lot of people if you think we can hide behind our oceans and everyone else will just leave us alone.

Try listening to those that have attacked us, as he said we should, but listen to all they say, not just the 6 O’Clock news talking points.
No drama at all. Just reality based upon what Bin laden, Zawahiri and others have been saying for some time now. Bin Laden didn’t say, "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse,” after the withdrawal from Somalia because he felt we were too strong.

Paul should stick to delivering babies. The world had Neville Chamberlain once, we don’t need one in America too.

Unknown said...

More on Ron Paul if anyone sees this recently archived masterpiece. What do Nolan Ryan and babies & Sadie Hawkins have in common?



LewWaters said...

If he election were held on the internet, Paul and his team of hackers would win easily, the hell with the people of the coutnry.

Too bad that in actual polling, the hackers and spammers can't manipulate them, so he doesn't fair as well.

Reading his bio, I would think he and Robert 'sheets' Byrd (D W Va)would be bossom buddies ;-)

ourplan said...

Ron Paul's approach is the only peaceable and Christian one that will "minimize and marginalize" Islamic terrorism. Admit it. Your Neocon, saber-waving approach has done nothing but produce more terrorists. The only way your approach will ever work is if you pull out all the stops and cut off the head of the snake by nuking Mecca from off the face of the earth, and sending the whole Middle East literally back to the Middle Ages.

Neither Ron Paul nor any of his supporters are saying that "America is to blame for Terrorism." But that's because we don't equate America with whatever corrupt American government happens to be in power at the time, like you do. It is the American government that is to blame for terrorism, and the CIA task force on bin Laden agrees!

Ron Paul accurately sees what the real threat is that faces this country - our own totally out of control government, careening headlong toward New World Order fascism. He does not "hate America," he hates the Bush administration's policies which are destroying everything this country, and the Republican Party, once stood for.

Yes, Islamic terrorism is already here. But we don't have to put up with it. Islam needs to be correctly identified as a political movement inimical to Western Civilization. CAIR needs to be kicked out of the country, every Mosque torn down, and every Moslem given a free trip back to their own homelands.

We don't need "a State where no one is allowed in or out, ever." Just one where no Moslems are ever allowed in. THEY rightly seek to protect THEIR culture, by preventing us from invading their homelands and building our Christian churches. They've got their own huge portion of the world already. We don't have to tolerate them coming here to pollute our culture and cause unnecessary trouble.

What brought us the bloodbath of WWII was precisley NOT remaining "isolationist" (I would prefer to say non-entangled). Instead we got into the war on the wrong side and supported the biggest evil of all, Marxist Russia, which led to way more people getting slaughtered by Communist Jews than ever died in Nazi concentration camps.

And BTW you're wrong about Ron Paul wanting to return to 1939. He want's to take us back to pre 1913! And if he does not succeed, you sir, are going to wake up someday without a United States of America.

Flag Gazer said...

I've been watching this evolve and your reponses are a post or two in themselves!

Well said.

I lived in Hawaii and volunteered at Tripler during Vietnam - does that make me a vet?

Unknown said...


You keep clambering about 1979. Every terrorist action can be linked to our involvement before 1979. I was watching footage of the 1979 Iranian revolution where they were burning American flags. Why did they pick OUR flag? Why not China, Canada, Soviet Union, Iraq flags? Why were they so against us? It's because of our bad foreign policies. We were meddling in their affairs. This coming from Iranian people I know that lived through the revolution, not to mention what the Iranians were saying very loudly at that time.

ohh and by the way, if you really want to know what Bin Laden said in his fatwas, why don't you read it for yourself?

ortho said...

Oh come on Michael, your argument is oozing with imperial hubris. America is the instigator of all things throughout the world. America's flag would not have been burnt in 1979 if America had not instigated a fight. Islamic extremists would not strike American targets, if America had not offended them.

To you, America as the dominant world power, is the instigator of everything. Worst of all, according to your argument, America is responsible for all the violent acts of Islamic extremists. Again, it's America to blame. It might be a noble act of contrition to admit one's shortcomings, but, in this instance, it's much more preferable and useful, to admit that America's enemies actually have the power to act on their own accord. Their actions do not require American instigation.

Lew, I agree with your post. When will Ron Paul level with the American people? When will he set the record straight? But, then again, it probably matters little, he has no chance of being elected President of these here United States.

I have also noticed that Ron Paul has a rabid pack of cyber-shrills that do his bidding throughout cyberspace. Wherever a critical Paul post emerges, cyber-shrills arrive. Writing about Paul is a great way to increase the number of visitors to a blog.

By the way, I came upon your blog after reading your comments at "Right Truth".

Unknown said...


I'm not saying that all the problems in the world are caused by the US. All I'm stating is a simple cause and effect from historical accounts. I'm just stating the facts that need to be recognized in order to really understand what is happening. Once again, if you want to know the reasons al-qaeda is attacking us, you need to listen to what they are saying. Read the links that were posted (make sure you finish it all).

Beyond that, there are much deeper issues with middle east than most people know about. Until you understand this, you will continue arguing a fractional point that is part of a much larger issue. Look deeper my friend

LewWaters said...

Ortho, hello and welcome to my blog. You are correct on the Paulites. Even Fox News notices their over the top shilling for Paul wherever his name appears. Their ‘overkill’ is just too apparent and doesn’t agree with regular polling that they cannot hack.

ourplan, I chuckle whenever I read someone advocating something with “the Christian” manner. Let’s just leave it at your Christianity isn’t my Christianity. But, mull on this for a bit, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

You, like Michael, cry that you aren’t part of the blame America first crowd, yet you launch into how our stance is creating the terrorists. You say our approach can never work, yet Democrat Bain Baird and now Katie Couric, fluff anchorbabe, have announced the reinforcement is working. Even Hillary Clinton has reluctantly admitted there is progress there.

It is incredibly naïve to think we can pull back within our borders today and we will be left alone. Equally nonsensical is to think the government could just hire someone like Duane ‘the Dog’ Chapman to just waltz in and grab Bin Laden. It shows a complete disconnect with what and who were threatened by.

Paul’s version of the Republican party brought us the bloodiest conflict of last century.

You say we just need a state where no Moslems are ever allowed in. Just what do you do with those already here or those that convert later? Our constitution grants freedom of religion, yet you and Paul have decided to ban one religion, to start. When do we get around to banning Pentecostal and Baptists because the Ku Klux Klan has members of those religions? Perhaps you would also ban Jews because they had the audacity to desire a land of their own?

I’m curious, what would you do with the Muslims currently serving within the various branches of our Military and fighting terror? What of the Muslims that have gave their life in this war for our freedom, posthumously strip them of citizenship and dig up their bodies and ship them to Iraq?

I shudder to think what I would wake up to if Paul ever got his way. It surely wouldn’t be the USA that we have had for so long. One big problem for you Paulites is that we should look to our history to keep from repeating it, not live in it.

Flag Gazer, for the way you set up and maintain your blog and for all the volunteer work you have done for the Troops, if I had my way, you would be awarded Honorary Veteran status. Nearly everyone is a Veteran of something, but few can be or are specific Veterans of certain actions. I would have gladly joined the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but even though a Viet Nam Veteran, I do not qualify for membership because I didn’t serve in Swift Boats or the Navy.

While still in the Army I was asked a time or two why I didn’t wear a CIB on my uniform, since I had served in Viet Nam. There too, I am not qualified for that badge because I wasn’t Infantry, but Aviation, even though I performed as did the Infantry on Guard Duty and endured attacks as well.

You would be surprised at how much good you and others did for our morale, though. For your volunteer work and your blog honoring so many, thank you!

Michael, thanks for the links to Bin Laden’s fatwa’s, but I already have them. I linked to an article about them to make it easier for you to comprehend.

If you are truly interested in the ‘why’ of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, read what William J. Daugherty, one of the hostages held for 444 days, saw and says went on.

In spite of “deeper issues with middle east,” how can we, or anyone else, sit back and watch as a Taliban style government oppresses, beheads and demeans those under it? And when they decide that Allah grants them sole stewardship of the globe, what then? Hire “the Dog” again?

It is completely asinine to think that if we just pull back within our borders and ignore the world, they will simply leave us alone.

Paul is way out in left field on this. His whining tonight on the Fox News Debate is at best, embarrassing for him. No wonder the anti-war left loves him.

Flag Gazer said...


(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I keep forgetting to Google the "Declaration of War" form letter Congress is supposed to use when they authorize the use of military force...

Demidog said...

Lew, you are way off base.

While a troubled region, we were not directly attacked until 1979.

What is the point of this statement? You completely ignore the fact that the hostage crisis in 1979 was in fact a direct response to U.S. foreign policy in Iran. One might even conclude that it was a justified "attack". It wasn't really an attack anyway. The Iranian students captured the U.S. embassy and then made demands that the U.S. government open a dialog and deport the Shah so he could be tried for his crimes.

Many so-called "conservatives" claimed that the crisis was prolonged because Carter "appeased" the "terrorists."

In point of fact, it wasn't an act of terrorism. It was a response to illegal covert military operations conducted within their borders by a foreign nation.

Furthermore, Carter met exactly none of their demands. He didn't negotiate with them and Reagan's stance was absolutely wrong because it refused to acknowledge the genesis of the act.

Perhaps you could argue that the students' methods were illegal, but you would have to ignore the act of war perpetuated against Iran in 1953 by the U.S. and the promotion of totalitarian devices and techniques by the installed leader.

If you can look at U.S. actions and claim that they were justified or moral, then you have no business commenting on the subject.

LewWaters said...

Rick, history did not start in 1979. If you will recall, The Arabs attacked the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, Germany in 1972.

Contrary to what Paul preaches, Terrorism is not the West’s fault

Rick, if you think the Iranian Hostage crisis was a legitimate and justified action, you are as abig a loon as Paul. Embassies are soverign to the nation occupying them. Even after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Ambassador was allowed to safely leave.

On top of that, if all terrorism is America's fault, how do you all explain terrorist attacks against other nations, some that oppose America's policies?

And, you think "I have no business commenting on the subject?"

Demidog said...

You have erected another strawman.

Paul does not preach that terrorism began in 1979 or is the "fault" of the west. In point of fact terrorism has been around for as long as their have been organized governments which have oppressed people or there have been people who perceive themselves to be oppressed.

In fact, if you were to take a look at the reading list that Dr. Paul suggested Giuliani investigate, you will find that most of these books were in-depth looks at terrorism including one that specifically examined the subject of suicide terrorism.

These are books that Dr. Paul has read and some were written by our own intelligence officials.

They're not light reading but they might just provide some insight into what is occurring and how we might solve the problem.

Not to sound presumptious, but I know you're a better man than what you're presenting here.

I know you have your own sincere beliefs. But so does Dr. Paul and so do his supporters.

Forgive me for making this too personal. I truly don't believe that we're on different sides. We're in disagreement perhaps, but there is no reason for Paul supporters or Dr. Paul to be your enemies. That isn't the intent.

Perhaps you truly believe that Dr. Paul holds the views that you've claimed, but I can assure you that any serious reading of his speeches from the House floor would disabuse you of that belief.

Dr. Paul is no kook. He's speaking truth to power and it is resonating far more than is being let on by our press.

In the end, it will not matter. Dr. Paul's support has a long way to go before its reached its peak.

Here's a challenge: you find me any other GOP candidate who actually draws significant support outside of the alleged "scientific" polls.

Anonymous said...

"Congressman Paul served for five years as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Currently, he serves as a member of the International Relations Committee in Congress. On May 19, 2005, Congressman Ron Paul introduced legislation designed to postpone military base closures here in the United States, HR 2511. Similar legislation was introduced by U.S. Senator John Thune (R - South Dakota). One of the conditions of the legislation was that military cuts could not occur until after U.S. troops in Iraq were back in the United States. Upon introducing the bill, Congressman Paul said, 'We should not be talking about shutting down military bases here in Texas and across the U.S. while we are building bases and fighting wars overseas. We should not be shutting down domestic bases that provide critical support for our troops who are fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.' Only about 5 percent of congressmen today are veterans, he said. 'The U.S. government tends to ignore veterans,' he said. 'They’re anxious to get us in the military, but they forget about us when we come back.'"

My wife served in Desert Storm, running a dining facility in a field support hospital for wounded soldiers, and was packed and ready to deploy, while filing Congressional complaints that got the USAF chief of staff General Mike Dugan fired while leading Gulf War #1, then got her a bribe, er, job offer at the Pentagon from SecDef draftdodger Dick Cheney. I was in USAF when our RAF base bombed Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon, while US special forces rescued president Qadaffi. All wars are now world wars, with US B52s bombing Iraq then returning to USA nonstop. The Iraq War has been nonstop for 18 years, killed 100,000 US soldiers, disabled 700,000 US soldiers, genocided 2.6-million innocent Iraqis, requiring triallions of dollars borrowed from Communist China, with trillions of dollars looted from Pentagon CAFR pension funds. And of course 9/11 was an inside job by neocon traitors in the White House, per Pentagon's declassified Operation Northwoods. My USAF job included sabotage of US military bases, sabotage of USAF aircraft, and sabotage of US nukes, using conventional shape charges in controlled demolitions, a common job for 1,000s of US soldiers every day.