Ron Paul criticized

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#1
Why Ron Paul is disqualified
Joseph Farah

________________________________________
Posted: June 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
For a long time, I have considered Ron Paul to be among a small handful of principled members of the U.S. Congress.
I respect the fact that he reveres the Constitution and takes it seriously.
He and I were virtually alone on the national stage in calling on Congress to debate a declaration of war before invading Iraq. Had we done so back then, it would be a little more difficult for people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to dismiss so cavalierly their previous votes to authorize combat.
If I were in Congress, my voting record would be closest to the voting record of Ron Paul – no question about it.
But I want to be clear about why I oppose Ron Paul's bid to become president.
The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, a subject I have studied intensely for 30 years.
(Column continues below)
Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
"They attack us because we've been over there," he said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction. It is a wholly untenable position he shares with people like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher.
He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.
America has made many foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime. We have indeed intervened militarily too often. I have preached non-interventionism many times. However, America is under siege from Islamo-fascist enemies. We've been attacked – the worst ever in our history. This is no time to back down or even to appear to be weak.
It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.
Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul's position on amnesty for illegal aliens.
In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.
This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country.
Hardened criminals come to the U.S. illegally.
Terrorists come to the U.S. illegally.
Drunk drivers come to the U.S. illegally.
Millions of low-skilled workers come to the U.S. illegally and transform our culture.
Yes, I would like to dismantle the welfare state, too. But it would still be no substitute for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
The defense of the country is a paramount issue in a presidential election. It is the most important responsibility of the executive branch of government. Yet, Paul's positions on the key defense and security issues of the day are closer to those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry than Ronald Reagan.
That's why, for me, he's disqualified – even if he had the support necessary to win, which he doesn't and never will.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#2
OK, Paul has reasoning for why we're hated, this guy criticizes it as being wrong by responding with his opinion that we shouldn't "surrender" rather than stating evidence to why he's right and Ron Paul is wrong. Lame article. At least use something to back up your statements rather than "I've been studying this for 30 years." :rolleyes:
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#3
OK, Paul has reasoning for why we're hated, this guy criticizes it as being wrong by responding with his opinion that we shouldn't "surrender" rather than stating evidence to why he's right and Ron Paul is wrong. Lame article. At least use something to back up your statements rather than "I've been studying this for 30 years." :rolleyes:
You should take that to the author. While you're at it why don't you provide some evidence as to why he's right and the author is wrong. Lame response.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#4
You should take that to the author. While you're at it why don't you provide some evidence as to why he's right and the author is wrong. Lame response.
Why should I take that to the author or provide evidence? You're the one trying to make the argument by posting the article. There isn't any argument, though. It's simply an opinion piece with nothing countering the man's claims he's criticizing.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#6
Is this a joke?

Paul hasn't blamed anyone for anything. He's merely citing over 50 years of CIA documentation. He's citing the 9/11 Commission Report. If you're mad at him for highlighting those facts then I don't know what to tell you.

This piece, wherever it came from is from someone who is in complete denial of the truth, and who can't fathom the fact that their government, whom they were always taught held their interests in the highest regard has duped them.

Paul's stance is not unfounded, it is fully supported by mountains of evidence. I know it might not be pleasant to hear, but trying to denounce him as making it up is very sad.

When has Paul said to "run up the white flag"? He voted against the war (1 of only 6 men to do so, and now EVERY candidate in the race is against it), but further elaborated that if we are going to war, congress needs to declare it. He's said on numerous occasions that he is 100% for finding and punishing those responsible for 9/11. Why hasn't that happened? Why isn't Osama's head on a platter? He's still running free. And furthermore, Iraq which was headed by Hussein which was a SWORN ENEMY of the Taliban / Al Qaeda is now 1000x the breeding ground for terrorism as it was before we intervened. We now fund, subsidize, and justify TERRORISM IN IRAN! How do we have a war on terrorism, yet supply money and munitions to terrorists?

I really shouldn't have even replied to this blatant slander of a hit piece, but this is repulsive and I pity anyone that would be fooled by it.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#7
Is this a joke?

Paul hasn't blamed anyone for anything. He's merely citing over 50 years of CIA documentation. He's citing the 9/11 Commission Report. If you're mad at him for highlighting those facts then I don't know what to tell you.

This piece, wherever it came from is from someone who is in complete denial of the truth, and who can't fathom the fact that their government, whom they were always taught held their interests in the highest regard has duped them.

Paul's stance is not unfounded, it is fully supported by mountains of evidence. I know it might not be pleasant to hear, but trying to denounce him as making it up is very sad.

When has Paul said to "run up the white flag"? He voted against the war (1 of only 6 men to do so, and now EVERY candidate in the race is against it), but further elaborated that if we are going to war, congress needs to declare it. He's said on numerous occasions that he is 100% for finding and punishing those responsible for 9/11. Why hasn't that happened? Why isn't Osama's head on a platter? He's still running free. And furthermore, Iraq which was headed by Hussein which was a SWORN ENEMY of the Taliban / Al Qaeda is now 1000x the breeding ground for terrorism as it was before we intervened. We now fund, subsidize, and justify TERRORISM IN IRAN! How do we have a war on terrorism, yet supply money and munitions to terrorists?

I really shouldn't have even replied to this blatant slander of a hit piece, but this is repulsive and I pity anyone that would be fooled by it.
If you took my post to mean that I necessarily agree with the author, then you've been duped. I posted the piece to encourage discussion. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about Ron Paul. I've said earlier in posts that its too early for me to jump on someone's band wagon because there will be lots of information that will become available in the coming months and the candidtates will begin to sort themselves out without my assistance. I won't address your opinions in your post as they are yours and you are welcome to them. Just be careful making statements like "all the candidates are now against the war" "ron Paul didn't blame anyone for anything" and "Al Qaida not having a relationship with Iraq prior to our involvement". There is sufficient evidence to support they did and I have posted it before.
I'm not passing judgement on Ron Paul. But if he's serious about being the President, he has to stand and address these attacks.