Ron Paul supporters are living in an absolute fantasy world. On top of their insane proposal that we rip our troops out of Iraq and leave it to Al-Qaeda; and believing that just ignoring the terrorists will miraculously make it go away, they use Ronald Reagan’s good name to promote this fella who blames us for 9/11.
The one quote out there that they keep using is the following:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” — Ronald Reagan
Let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy and the ways in which he handled it.
Would Ron Paul or his supporters have approved of this judging by their standards put forth today? Of course not.
After the peace-keeping force was established, Muslims showed us just how peaceful they were and blew up the Marine barracks a year later killing hundreds of other American troops. Reagan (after the Democrats in Congress harped and demanded so) withdrew our troops out of Lebanon.
Would Ron Paul or his supporters approve of this judging by the standards put forth by them today? Of course they would! We backed away and decided to not “intervene” anymore.
Three years later after we left, Muslims must have still been sore at Americans when they decided to hijack an Italian cruise-ship in 1985 where they decided to shoot a 69 year old passenger (American) and throw him overboard with his wheelchair. It looks like choosing to “pull out and not intervene” didn’t work out so well.
Reagan responded by having the animals captured and handed them to Italy, who then made sure they returned safely to Iraq (the place where terrorists never lived but for the constant “intervening” of the United States).
After indirectly turning those terrorists over to safe harbor in Iraq (something that Reagan had no “direct” hand in), Muslim extremists struck again by bombing a West Berlin dance club in 1986 killing more Americans.
I wonder by looking at this crucial time period what Ron Paul and his supporters (better known as “dreamers” and “9/11 conspiracy crazies”) thinks the appropriate time table would be to sit and wait for Muslim fanatics to STOP attempting to hurt us and our interests.
I guarantee when Ronald Reagan said what he said about Ron Paul above, he had no idea that one day he would propagandize an insane position to rally support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in order to get nominated for President.
It is clear that Muslims don’t want peace ever with the United States. Paul and his supporters at this point are just as dangerous to our security as liberals are.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Why not let Reagan speak for himself?
“In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.”
“In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”
- Ronald Reagan
Great response Philly Dave.
Also, Ron Paul is not against troop action against terrorists, that’s a myth. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, remember. He wants to use the military against terrorists. It’s ridiculous to say that he’s soft on terrorism. He’d end terrorism far faster than any other Republican president would.
I would just direct the readers to Reagan’s website where the above is stated but thrown into a whole different context once it is all put into perspective: http://www.ronaldreagan.com/leb.html
I would like to point out also that this only confirms what I wrote….Reagan said these things AFTER he learned that Muslims responded to his peace-keeping efforts by blowing Americans up. This entire speech was a cave-in to the caterwauling of Democrats in Congress.
It also adds point to the later part of my post that demonstates further attacks on our interests AFTER we left Lebanon at the wishes of the Democrats. It didn’t stop them in 1985 on the Achilles Lauro and it certainly didn’t stop them in West Berlin in 1986.
Turning our heads to it did not work. Reagan made mistakes during his administration. Such as taking this position (that proved ineffective in later years) as well as his amnesty for illegals that led to the disaster we face today.
He bent conservative views in efforts to keep American united. We now know these policies do not work.
I’d also like to add that his stipulations for future administrations have been carried out in the opinions of many Republicans included myself during the Bush administration. My only regret is that we haven’t fought the war harder.
Philly Dave,
That was a most excellent and thoughtful comment. Thank you! Great job!
I’m waiting for the the OP responds to those two comments. The correct response, of course, is “Whoops, my mistake.”
“Great response Philly Dave.
Also, Ron Paul is not against troop action against terrorists, that’s a myth. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, remember. He wants to use the military against terrorists. It’s ridiculous to say that he’s soft on terrorism. He’d end terrorism far faster than any other Republican president would.”
Ummm, Ron Paul is a Republican. Moreover; what do you call Zarqawi? A Bush creation? This is a terrorist! His followers in Iraq are terrorists…
Unless of course you are taking the position that Bush’s war miraculously gave birth to terrorists.
This is unacceptable. We can no longer tolerate phonies like Ron Paul or his supporters and their utter excuse-making for terrorism. Ron Paul did not take that position when he blamed 9/11 on American intervention.
“I’m waiting for the the OP responds to those two comments. The correct response, of course, is “Whoops, my mistake.”
Read up, I responded.
Truth is, 70% of Americans are against the war, and are against going to war and having American soldiers continue to die for something that isn’t a threat to us, and never was. OBL is not in Iraq, there is no reason for us to be there. You might be able to fool some people, but most Americans still want him to pay for 9/11 and after all these years, it’s clear that is no longer the focus.
70% of the 1031 polled by Newsweek also know that it’s possible to get the wrong answer. They are not military experts nor do half of them know what it took us to preserve our freedom and Democracy.
There are countless links from Saddam to Al-Qadea, Iraq and terrorists, Saddam’s funding and harboring or terrorists, his purposed bluff to the UN regarding WMD after the most horrific attack ever on our soil.
We freed rape rooms, torture chambers, and the practices of feeding live human beings through wood-chippers.
We had millions upon millions of brave Iraqis showing up to vote.
We deposed a monsterous dicator who gassed 300,000+ of his own people.
Saddam was shooting at jets in the no-fly jones and had been at war with our country twice before.
To say he wasn’t a threat to us is preposterous. The real truth is, Saddam was a threat to all of humanity — not just us.
And yes, the Iraq war DID give birth to new terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic, you aren’t born a tactic. People have family members killed, and they get upset. Just as we got upset on 9/11. It’s natural human emotion. Someone kills your family member, you are going to fight them, even if it’s accidental.
Thats why we need to regain our focus and intent. Get out of Iraq, dismantle the terrorist network and come home. Our intent is not to piss people off, it’s to bring those people responsible to justice.
If he was such a threat, then why have we lost more American lives since he has been put into power, and why have things gotten worse in the country since he left power?
I recently seen a poll of Iraqi’s that said like 80% of them wanted us to leave, and over 50% of them thought it was ok to shoot Americans. Why should we stay?
badmedia, you said:
“And yes, the Iraq war DID give birth to new terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic, you aren’t born a tactic. ”
You aren’t born a criminal either. But is crime just a tactic? There are a lot of Democrats that think so. Do we tolerate it?
War does not GIVE BIRTH. Terrorists are extremists who have MINDS of extremists. These aren’t virgin births here. Have you seen the camps where kids are taught these things from childhood? Was Zarqawi just a peaceful chap before Iraq? You have to come up with something better than that.
You also said:
“If he was such a threat, then why have we lost more American lives since he has been put into power, and why have things gotten worse in the country since he left power?”
They were so much better when we was feeding his people through wood-chippers huh? Those sweet Iraqis who dared dissented from his policies. Thank God you live in America, huh.
It’s called “fear.” See, this is what happens in a war when the enemies shoot back. If we fought it like we did in WW2, we could end it a lot sooner. Would you support that?
Steve, why are you not in Iraq yourself?
Steve,
You seem like a smart guy. Would you consider reading Either Imperial Hubris, Through our Enemies Eyes (both by the Chief of the CIA’s binLaden unit Michael Scheuer) or Dying to win by Robert Pape?
Papes book studies every suicide attack from 1980 to 2003. It was such a vital work that the Government funded him to do subsequent study.
Scheuer’s first work I mentioned is used in CIA training.
Both Scheuer and Pape support Paul’s statements.
Perhaps if you remain unconvinced you could write a review here on the blog.
What do you say?
As for the quote from Reagans Memoirs, there is nothing out of context. It was a mistake. Reagan realized it and changed course.
Ron Paul led the Texas Delegation for Reagan, he was one of his earliest supporters. I cast my first presidential vote for Reagan when I was 18. Now I will cast my Vote for Ron Paul.
“…who blames us for 9/11.”
No, who blames bad U.S. government policy for 9/11.
I and others have pointed out this obvious distinction several times here in comments recently. That you continue to blur it speaks to the strength of your argument.
Our Constitution provides two ways of responding to an attack from outside our borders.
If the attack comes from a foreign government, Congress can declare war on the offending country. If, as in the case of 9/11, the attack comes from a non-government entity (in the 1700s it was pirates) the Congress can respond by issuing “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” against the person or persons who attacked us.
In October 2001, and again recently, Ron Paul introduced legislation to authorize such Letters against Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants.
The war in Iraq is illegal and immoral. Iraq, as a nation, did not attack us. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, and any response must be directed at apprehending the criminals who make up this group. Making war on a whole country to catch a few criminals makes no sense.
Ron Paul’s approach to the problem makes far more sense and has the advantage of not tearing our Constitution to shreds as Bush has done.
As for the motivation of the terrorists, it has been proven that while Muslims may resent the US for their freedom and prosperity, that is not what motivates people to fly airplanes into buildings or strap bombs to their chests. Suicide terrorism is motivated entirely by political concerns.
Muslims have long memories. They remember that the UN, with strong US support, partitioned India into 2 states, creating Pakistan in the process. The partition displaced millions of Muslims and at least 1 million died during the migration.
Muslims also remember the CIA engineered coup in Iran in 1953. They remember the support the US gave the Shah in building and maintaining his secret police force that terrorized the Iranian people for 25 years.
The Muslims still remember the betrayal of the Arabs who fought for the Allies during WWI. (That was mostly the fault of the British, hence the attacks in London.)
They remember that the UN, with strong support from the US, partitioned Palestine to create Israel, again displacing Muslims from their homes.
The Muslims remember the sanctions imposed on Iraq for 10 years. They remember their economy crippled and people starving.
The Muslims are aware that the US Congress passed a resolution in 1998 (BEFORE 9/11) that made it the POLICY of the US Government to bring about “regime change” in Iraq.
If some superpower had done all these things to us, don’t you think we’d be ticked off and do all we could to fight back?
Just because we are the last superpower does not mean we have been wise in the way we apply that power. We have made many, many mistakes over the last 100 years. The mistakes that we have made in the Muslim world are remembered by the people there and they hate us for them.
Ron Paul is correct. The Founders had the right idea. We should be engaged in the world. We should talk with everybody, trade with everybody but impose our will on nobody.
Only then will we regain the respect of the world.
In the aftermath of 9/11 we had the whole world on our side as never before. Bush’s complete mismanagement of the situation has caused the whole world to turn against us.
It’s time for a real change. Ron Paul – Hope for America – be a part of it.
This is totally satire. Right?
TJ asked: “Steve, why are you not in Iraq yourself?”
Because I’m not in the military. I didn’t sign up for the military back in the days when Muslims weren’t flying planes into skyscapers. Does this change the idea of having a military? No. Does this change the idea of war? No. Moreover; if you live by the 3rd grade argument of “join something to support something”, then join your local fire and police department in fighting fires and crime, otherwise you don’t really support them!
PhillyDave, Imperial Hubris did explain tensions from bin Laden. Those tensions also included our support for Israel. It also included other elements that the US could not be blamed for. But since you give him so much regard, take a look at what he said to Bill O’Reilly. Why I do believe he agrees with my “fight harder” policy:
O’REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That’s the first step.
O’REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
Bret asked:
“This is totally satire. Right?”
Did you have a real question?
And finally,Michael said:
“The mistakes that we have made in the Muslim world are remembered by the people there and they hate us for them.
Ron Paul is correct. The Founders had the right idea. We should be engaged in the world. We should talk with everybody, trade with everybody but impose our will on nobody”
Michael, the “mistakes” date back to the early part of the century where our troops and the British army were forced to moderate the violence set off by France, the TRUE interveners.
We’re not imposing our will on anyone. We just want them to stop terrorizing and killing. That is not an imposition of will! Moreover; you cannot have it both ways and neither can Ron Paul, you want to talk to them and trade with them. Well, isn’t that a form of intervention?
Finally, I mentioned earlier that we saw eight years of Clinton’s do-nothing policy. Michael, we were still trading and talking to them, yet, they were still attacking us. Clinton did nothing in response to the various attacks on our interests in his eight-year tenure.
And PhillyDave cites Michael Scheuer’s timeline of events of why Bin Laden wanted to attack. A lot of those were older ties we had and the Israel relationship goes way back. So Bin Laden waits until 2001 to attack?
Which leads me to my ultimate question, one that nobody can answer it seems:
If we pull out and do nothing anymore, HOW LONG DO WE WAIT for terrorists to stop attacking? How many years should it go on based on their anger at us for past intervention? How long are they justified at being angry? And how long can they attack while using anger at American intervention as an excuse to terrorize and attack?
They aren’t angry that we attacked them after 9/11. They want to impose their will and theocratic government on us and upon the world. Those of you that don’t get that, need to get a life. Steve, as always you’re great!
Ron Paul is tanking in all the latest national polls: Newsweek, ABC, Washington Post, ect… 1 to 2% down there with Tommy Thompson, Huckabee, and Tancredo. This, after 6 months of campaigning by Paul.
Meanwhile Giuliani is surging, up to 37% in one poll, way out ahead of the pack.
The NY Daily News headlined this morning: “This is now a Rudy versus Hillary Race.”
Join the winning team! Join Libertarians for Giuliani at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Eric,
I have no problem with Rudy nor do I have a problem with Fred Thompson. I know that realistically, Ron Paul does not have a shot at the presidency.
My weakness is that I honestly cannot say which candidate has my full-blown support. I like Giuliani because I know he will defend us properly. I don’t care what his “personal” opinion on abortion is because I am convinced that he would still appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. He supported the nomination of Roberts and of Alito. Because someone is pro-choice personally does not mean they advocate it being legislated from the bench. The people should decide.
Thompson’s voting record looks pretty good except for his split vote to impeach Clinton. All in all, he seems like a righteous guy and I know he’s Philip’s fave
.
Also to Philip’s dismay I have to agree with Coulter and Limbaugh who strongly supported Duncan Hunter. He was the honest-best guy for the job. But unfortunately, there are middle-folks and moderates that would tend to vote for Hillary just because of the name recognition so in that aspect I feel I have to be somewhat realistic. Maybe Hunter can use the next four years to make a stronger name for himself.
So, I’m a wuss here and I’m sorry. But I don’t have one single candidate that I am supporting. I will check out the site though.
Jennifer, you are the kindest person as always. I love how you just come right out and speak your mind and you are so right — they do want to impose their will on us. It has been their desire for decades. These Paul supporters are really hurting our efforts.
Sadly, Steve, there are plenty of women who will vote for Hillary simply because she’s a woman. Depressing.
Rudy or Fred could counter that with choosing Condi as vice-president.
That was something I have always supported by the way and I hope that someway, we manage to keep her in our government. Condi spells the word “woman” in my opinion.
Check out this clip of today’s debate:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958
Apparently Ron Paul supporters are online in droves today, dis. As they has their cell-phones out text-messaging Fox News months ago.
He’s an embarrassment to his own party and his country. Come back and visit me after the Iowa Caucus.
Steve,
You deleted your August 5th post and my comment to it. You made no retraction of your post or mention of my comment, you simply deleted it (although it can still be found on Google Cached, and I have a screen shot of it).
It’s your blog, but I’m no longer going to comment here. I won’t participate in a discussion where that kind of thing goes on.
Buckwheat, if you simply go to the main page and scroll up to the post that is RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE, you might find it — where it has always been.
Good lord. Do you always jump so deep without taking the time to look?
Jennifer,
It is depressing!
What is very interesting that is if you were to say that you would vote for Romney because he is a man, you are a pig.
Saying that you would vote for Hillary because she is a woman, is:
First, degrading to women because you are saying that they aren’t qualified (though, I believe Hillary isn’t qualified – lack of experience).
Second, it is misogynist, because accepting or not accepting something based on gender is wrong.
But, again, if you are a Dem, you can get away with stuff like misogyny.
Steve,
You just put it back up after I posted my comment. It had been gone since late last night.
I’ve had enough of this bad faith debating, Steve, sorry.
Good luck with the blog.
Buckwheat,
No, you just made yourself look like a fool and in lieu of admitting it and apologizing for insinuating that I would play games like that, you decide to insinuate that I am a liar. I posted the orignal post last night in response to comments generated off of this one, I went to sleep (bloggers do sleep, just so you know), I woke up and responded to your comment this morning in the daylight A.M. and another commenter; Jennifer posted in response to me in the same timeframe.
Moreover; you implied that you were “finished” the last time you commented (the original time you wrongfully accused me of doing that) and yet you managed to come back.
You’re welcome to post here or not, it doesn’t matter to me either way. But calling me a liar is not tolerated. Have some respect.
BTW Buckwheat,
You supporters of Ron Paul are so spot on with strategy. If I was to delete anything after your intial comment that accused me of it, wouldn’t it have simply been your comment on this thread that said so?
Those candidates who believe that the US is responsible for 9/11 will never be President, because the American people don’t believe that.
They look like fools, like Ron Paul, who said during the debate that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.
Funny, because Al Qaeda in Iraq is there now, and Al Qaeda was all over the middle east.
I respect those people who are actively involved in politics. I just have to say that you are nut if you think Ron Paul is the guy, frankly, because I think he is a nut!