Skip to comments.Ron Paul Under Fire for Praising Accused Traitor
Posted on 12/26/2011 2:06:21 PM PST by TBBT
Fox News is the latest news organization to pick up on the revelation, first reported by AIM, that Ron Paul had praised WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning as a hero and patriot. Directly referring to WikiLeaks and Army soldier Bradley Manning being held in detention, Paul said, Should he be locked up in prison or should we see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriotwho reveals whats going on in government. The comment drew strong applause from Paul supporters.
Video of the event, officially posted by Ron Pauls Campaign for Liberty organization, also shows the Republican presidential candidate, now rising or perhaps leading in the polls in Iowa, attacking the CIA and its treatment of terrorists.
Paul let his mask of semi-respectability fall when he praised Bradley Manning, accused traitor, wrote Washington Post Right Turn blogger Jennifer Rubin.
A conservative view of Manning, who had been an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, was expressed in strong language by columnist Deroy Murdock. He said Manning should be court-martialed for espionage and treason. He added, If convicted, he should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad He said the same goes for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, if he is extradited to stand trial here.
Manning, a homosexual Army soldier with gender identity problems, has just undergone a preliminary hearing which could lead to a court-martial, where evidence was produced showing his collaboration with Assange and WikiLeaks. The charges against Manning include aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, the prosecution team has announced that it is not seeking the death penalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Can you imagine the difference in coverage if these things had been said by a leading "legitimate" candidate?...
You are very busy today.
Is the pay scale by post? Reply?
Perhaps by the number of times Ron Paul is called “crazy”?
Ron Paul is a useful idiot for the Left, in more ways than one. At the moment, nobody on either side seriously expects him to win the nomination, but as long as the MSM can talk about racism and treason in the same breath as “GOP contender Ron Paul,” the narrative of “those extremist Republicans” can continue unabated.
You’re for Romney, I presume?
I’ve had the exact same thoughts today. Great minds and all that!
Seems to this poster someone very recently concluded that it was an emergency to knock Paul out as quickly as possible.
Is he poised to win in Iowa perhaps?
Something is clearly going on with all this mudslinging. The talking points are even all the same.
Gingrich actually. Youre for Romney, I presume?You first claim to be taking an interest in my posting habits. Then you ask this?
Sorry to disappoint you. The world does not revolve around you.
I have no idea who you support. If you wish to share it with readers go ahead.
Tell us why he or she is a good leader.
All I’ve seen is a bunch of carping - not just you, it’s pretty much all anyone does anymore. It seems to be all that’s done in this primary.
Nobody is simply supporting who they believe is best, being honest about it, and trying to explain why that person is best.
Guess I’m old fashioned that way.
Now campaigning means destroying the other guy.
You have established one thing.
Ron Paul doesn’t have many supporters at FR.
And yet another reason to NOT vote Paul. The man becomes more deranged by the minute.
Ironically you might be wrong, Paul might have more people paying attention to him after all the mud that’s been flying around.
Where there’s mud, there’s Karl Rove.
The word you’re supposed to be using today is “kook”.
Please try to keep current. :D
Paul needs to get out of the Republican Party and join the green party.
Paid anti-Paul agents notwithstanding, do you agree or disagree with Paul’s statement about Bradley Manning?
Dunno, what was Paul’s statement, and what was the context?
If you don’t mind? And what was the situation about Manning, I haven’t been following it closely. Is he that guy who leaked secret documents to be released publicly? (I really haven’t been following that story closely, could be way off base)
...I stopped arguing on these posts weeks ago. I only drop by to see the daily SOS and have a laugh. Good post.
Much obliged, thanks.
Oh, more people are paying attention, alright. But not in a good way.
Ron Paul would poll higher at DU than FR, if random proper polling was done of the members of both sites.
What? Didn't you even bother to read the excerpt (let alone the whole article)?
Unbelievable. You've practically hijacked this thread, and now you want me to summarize the article and the background story for you, because you haven't the slightest clue what this is all about?
Get off the phone, ya big dope!
I agree with the premise but.... I’m going with chop that little bastuhd up into tiny pieces or throw him solitary for the rest of his life and play nothing but early 90’s heavy metal music like Twisted Sister 24 hours a day. Not loudly, mind you, but at a low level and it just never ends.
I’ve seen James Carville and others on the left do the politics of personal destruction enough I recognize a deliberate coordinated smear job a mile away.
And the exact purpose.
It’s not about Manning. This is about Saul Alinsky. Perhaps even Mitt Romney.
I do notice he seems to be the only one, these sorts of mud-fests miraculously never seem to touch.
Maybe it’s the amazing protective powers of magic underwear?
Couldn’t be, that he’s in cahoots or anything.
Ron Paul's views on foreign relations are outright leftist. It's one thing to criticize the military welfare we lavish on our allies, and quite another to criticize us for defending our interests against those of our enemies. What Ron Paul does consistently is say that our enemies are the good guys and we are the bad guys. That has traditionally been the leftist perspective. In some respects, Ron Paul resembles Lyndon LaRouche. I don't understand why the guy doesn't just join the Democratic Party.
You didn't answer the question. Do you, or do you not agree with Ron Paul's statement about Bradley Manning?
It's not a "coordinated smear job" if it's true.
When did we start reading the posted article?
Is this something new? Just a minute...
You're going from Ron Paul thread to Ron Paul thread demanding to know what candidates his detractors support, and you can't be bothered to find out why most freepers call him a kook?
There is a very good reason so many of us want him to go away. Do the research and find out why the guy doesn't belong on the stage with Republicans.
He's never gonna get the party nomination...he'll never become president...so the sooner he quits hijacking the legitimate conservative agenda, the better.
If you read the article posted in this thread (follow the link), you will find a link to the Ron Paul video. You can get it directly from the horses mouth.
OK I read what was in, the text posted anyway.
I saw Paul answering a question with a question. I did not see praise. It was a meaningful question which presented skepticism.
Bordering on waffling. What I did not read was praise. He was asking whether Manning should be praised.
Certainly that could offend, but I didn’t actually interpret the quoted (question, mostly) to be a statement of praise.
I don’t think that’s actually what that quote says.
Ron Paul has got this idea that the government (including the military) ought to have no secrets. Meaning that Manning was a hero for daring to divulge these secrets at the risk of losing his personal freedom. That Paul is the only major candidate in either major party that holds this view gives some idea of how deeply strange this particular position is. How is a denial of the need to preserve defense and diplomatic secrets compatible with running for the title of commander-in-chief?
Gotta admit though, Paul could certainly have been a bit more critical of leaking secrets.
That’s the problem, when our side starts re-gifting our best technology, blurs that line a bit.
As kids we understood discipline should be consistent.
Yeah that’s a problem.
Has he backed away from any of that?
Not sticking up for Paul, but it seems that some of the other candidates have recently spoken in favor of greater traitors(Obama, and Pelosi).
You should check my posting record, it may be even more fun than yours. I quit counting at 26 posts just today defending Ron Paul. However, you do seem to be scattered about a little. Just in the last 24 hours we see these posts from you, including one where you say Paul is in la-la land without using his name:
Id vote for Gingrich in a second.
Trump is a force. We are doing exactly the wrong thing, by rejecting his voice.
I supported GWB. He did a good job. Hes a nice guy, and a patriot. He did not plan 9-11, and yes anyone who believes Bush, our government or the Jooz did, is simply straying way into la-la land.
If Palin had entered this race, none of this would be happening right now.
I still strongly believe she should in fact run.
Im still more for Gingrich right now.
Go Newt. My first choice at this point is Santorum, though Gingrich is a whole lot more likely to win.
Whew! You do get around FRiend!
I’m with Gingrich myself. So we agree sometimes. Except for when you are for Santorum. :)
FYI, Paul does not favor tariffs on Chinese goods, and thinks the US is a bigger currency manipulator than China is, despite the fact that US runs a $500b deficit with the rest of the world, $300b of which is with China:
But the Congressman isnt entirely deaf to concerns that China is manipulating its currency. Yes, China does manipulate its currency, and thats a bad thing, Benton said. But we should stop manipulating our own currency and fix our own regulatory problems so we can compete. He added, Then well have a lot more moral high ground to criticize them and do it from a position of friendship rather than going to international trade bodies.
Santorum I’m throwing in with just to rabble-rouse about trade policy.
If he actually wins a primary, I’ll have to pick a lane. Right now my practical candidate is Gingrich.
Long ago I was quite inspired by Gingrich. I watched as he was deliberately taken down by what can only be called a Saul Alinsky modeled attack by democrats. I also watched the GOP throw him over the side, when they should have rallied to his defense.
I have yet, to see the GOP realize the stupidity and error, of doing that. They still haven’t stopped being that way.
As a result, I have a gut reflex now to automatically stick up for any Republican who is being ganged up on with what appears to be those tactics which brought down Gingrich.
Maybe misguided, but there it is.
Romney needs Paul to be successful. Romney’s numbers stay the same pretty much no matter what so he needs as many of the ‘not Romney’s’ to split the vote as much as possible. Romney will do better if Paul does better. It also makes people overlook Romney’s flaws when compared to Paul. If Conservatives wake up to how bad Paul is and the vote is less split up, Romney is more likely to go down.
I am troubled by post #34.
I’ll stop causing trouble for a while, while I try to figure out what that’s about. Besides, gotta eat.
Good going at it with y’all anyway. Slow day otherwise.
Merry Christmas FR.
If Romney and Paul were the only 2 left standing, Paul would perform a saint canonizing type miracle...he would make Romney seem almost Reaganesque.
I agree that the ideology in #34 is troubling. At first some may think ‘of course, the government should be completely open’ but then in the consideration of national security some secrets are vital- and Manning directly attacked those vital secrets. What he revealed outed clandestine agents and put a lot of lives at risk. This is more than just exposing corruption, this is about putting service men and women’s lives on the line- people who are fighting for us may have died due to Manning’s leaks.
This is very disturbing.
This comes from the line that some of Paul’s mentors (like Rothbard) crossed where it really is anarchy- the belief there is no need at all for the nation-state. I don’t think Paul goes this far but he certainly makes military and national security issues a gray area in regards to this.
Considering he is applying for the job of Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, this should be a complete deal killer.
Then you don't have courage in your (supposedly conservative) convictions, just as Paul didn't have the courage to phrase his despicable utterance as a declarative statement.
To every person with the simple courage to call a spade a spade, it's clear that Paul praised that worthless traitor.
On another thread I see on the rotation right now, the topic includes how much hard intelligence was softly landed onto an Iran runway recently.
That’s an intelligence disaster. Manning, I don’t know myself what he divulged. I think Paul was being his usual let it all hand out self.
Paul is a veteran I just learned...
I'm afraid military service says nothing about ideology. George McGovern was a B-24 bomber pilot who flew missions over Germany, missions that inflicted an almost 50% death rate out of all the aircrews that served. Benedict Arnold was an important general without whose vital victories over British forces, these United States might not exist.
BTW, George Bush Senior was the youngest bomber pilot in WWII and barely escaped being eaten by the Japanese after being shot down near Chichi Jima.
Give me a break. Even if you failed to follow the Manning/Wikileaks story when it first broke, you should clearly be able to see from the amount of sparks flying over this, that Paul has committed an egregious transgression of trust in the eyes of most conservatives.