The Lessons of 9/11

LewRockwell.com ^ | 22 April 04 | Rep. Ron Paul

[u-89]

Ron Paul on foreign policy ping. You might "enjoy" the resulting posts.

[Huck]

Could be interesting.

[meenie]

There is too much common sense in Paul's remarks. This is not good in a world that loves a little insanity.

[T'wit]

>> one should never pretend that government bureaucracies can be made efficient. It is the very nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient. ... No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings, brought to light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government. <<

The failures of bureaucracy are legendary. The stupidity of bureaucracy has long since made it into the dictionary. As long as we see with our eyes and believe with our heads that socialism can't do anything right, Ron Paul has the right focus here for fresh thinking about 9/11.

[Liz]

Excellent post. Must read ping.

[billbears]

A “guns and butter” policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates. The current “guns and butter” policy is even more intense, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then. These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically. It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other hot spot, can be pursued for years. But when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion dollars per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our citizens

One can only imagine what this will do to the next generation. The next 'recession' will make the 70s look like a cakewalk.

There are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance. But that doesn’t mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and throughout the world – making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam

Rep. Paul is also right in this instance. This isn't like Vietnam. The influx from all borders of Iraq of an unlimited population of Arabs could make this a situation worse than Vietnam. Only time will tell. But time has already told us that it was an unwise move at the least to attack a nation that did not represent, nor would in near future, a direct threat to this nation of states

This is the type of conservative that needs to run for office. Not the lettered ones, the actual conservatives. That will be the only way to save this nation of states in the long run

[mrsmith]

I don't think the responses will be as interesting as usual because of the very interesting change in this article by Paul: he decided not to lie about the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers to support his view!

Of course that meant that he could not refer at all to our Constitution or to the people who wrote and implemented it.
He accepted that and tried to support his anti-interventionist thesis on it's own.
Flawed though this attempt may be by assumptions and rhetoric, it doesn't inspire the vehement responses that result from someone lying about our Founding Fathers.

This is a very promising change in Paul, I hope it is permanent and that his followers take heed from his example.

[JohnGalt]

Could you give a few examples of these "lies" you are speaking of?

[mrsmith]

His most fantastic anti-interventionist lie was that foreign aid was not constitutional- although we have been paying it continually since the first Washington administration and even our strictest originalist, President James Madison, signed a law to give $50,000 free and clear to Venezuela.

So the change is very striking, and I applaud him for it and heartily recommend it to his followers.

[JohnGalt]

Your proof that foreign aid is Constitutional is your reference of several early Presidents have paid foreign aid?

And this, in your logic, constitutes a 'lie'?

Do I have that correct?

Pray tell, how do you characterize the 'WMD' fictions?

[mrsmith]

You don't think that the writers, ratifiers and implementers of the Constitution are authoritative of it's meaning?

Well, I'm not surprised, none of the living constitution crowd do.

[MHGinTN]

Rep. Paul is too honest and makes too much sense to be a longterm successful politician, in either party.

[Belisaurius]

JohnGalt is still here?

[JohnGalt]

As far as I can tell, your specious logic suggests that an action is Constitutional if the Chief Executive 'says so.' Furthermore, beyond that childlike reasoning, you contend that those who disagree with you are 'liars.'

Which section of the Constitution that allows for 'foreign aid' are you citing so that I may understand your case?

You also skipped the WMD question I posed as to how you characterize those fictions.

[mrsmith]

You don't think that the writers, ratifiers and implementers of the Constitution are authoritative of it's meaning?

Well, I'm not surprised, none of the living constitution crowd do.

What else would I have to say to you?

[JohnGalt]

You came to this thread calling Ron Paul a liar; I was curious how charlatans like yourself reasoned that conclusion.

You have yet to cite a single point from the Constitution to justify your belief that 'foreign aid' is Constitutional in your logic, and furthermore, your conclusion that people who disagree with you are 'liars' is bizarre to say the least.

Son, you are the living Constitution crowd; you believe it means whatever the Chief Exec says it means.

[mrsmith]

You don't think that the writers, ratifiers and implementers of the Constitution are authoritative of it's meaning?

Well, I'm not surprised, none of the living constitution crowd do.

[JohnGalt]

Mrs. Mith, can you please tell us where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers for that matter the Congress or the Executive Branch is given the power to give the tax payers money to foreign states?