September 06, 2007
Ron Paul: The Only Idiot Who Can "Save" America
It is alarming enough to hear one of Ron Paul's former aides claiming that Paul had to be browbeaten by his own staff into voting in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, but it is even more alarming to hear Paul himself speaking about Afghanistan in last night's debate in New Hampshire: “Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”
(Emphasis mine.)
As painful as it is to listen to this damn fool constantly fetishizing Al-Qaeda's wants and needs whenever he talks about foreign policy, I paid close attention to this particular exchange and couldn't help but notice that he seems to be coming right out and admitting that he does in fact oppose our invasion of Afghanistan despite having voted to authorize it.
Yeah, that's just what we need right now, a Surrenderer in Chief. Will someone please get this moron off the stage?
Wow! I am glad to read that Ron Paul can be forced to do certain things kind of against his will. That is a good sign, to me. I hope that they convince him not to force every American to be entirely independent from the government, you know what I mean?!?
Posted by: Jolly Ronpauler at September 7, 2007 12:55 AMI'm guessing Paul favored his own Letter of Marque and Reprisal plan over a military invasion. But he did vote for the Afghanistan venture as a second-best option in the end.
It's not clear to me from the quote though whether he's specifically regretting this or just running through a list of Middle Eastern countries that we're involved with and he would pull troops out of. Would be interesting to hear a followup on what he thinks should have happened in Afghanistan.
Jolly Ronpauler... sorry, but no, I don't know what you mean.
bbartlog... you mean his plan to treat Al-Qaeda as if they were pirates instead of state-sponsored terrorists? Well, maybe that was his thinking at the time... but to hear him talk now, it sounds like he opposes any show of force at all in the entire region simply because it would displease Bin Laden. And yes, I do agree with you on one thing... even though I did enjoy Wallace's snarky followup question, it would have been nice to hear someone ask Paul specifically about Afghanistan at some point during the debate. Oh well, maybe next time.
I have no doubt that our actions in the middle east have helped to bring together the people who hate us in the region. I think thats Ron Paul's point, that we are giving them reasons to hate us. I'd love to heard your point of view if u had the misfortune to be born in one of those third world nations in the middle east, and the world's military giant was killing your countrymen.
Posted by: TThomp at September 11, 2007 04:49 PMListen to what this former CIA 22 year veteran says about our foreign policy. (He was the special adviser to the chief of the unit that was in charge of getting bin Laden)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqm4XVylLLc&NR=1
Posted by: Tthomp at September 11, 2007 07:45 PMHe voted in favor of going into Afghanistan because the goal was to hunt down Bin Laden. He was wary of it though because of what has come to be true - we didn't get Bin Laden and we're back in the business of nation building. He said he'd rather put a couple of billion on the table for Bin Laden's head and let the corporations go after him. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
Posted by: Lee at December 5, 2007 10:05 PM|
Remember personal info?
|
|
|
