Ron Paul Has Betrayed The GOP! (Former Staff Member on Ron Paul's change after 9/11)

AFK at Townhall ^ | 04/18/2007 | Cary Wesberry

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Interesting read.

[wideawake]

Ron Paul claims that he fired Eric Dondero Rittberg "for cause", but he refuses to elaborate on what that cause was.

From what I can tell, Paul apparently fired him because he refused to drink the Alex-Jones-mixed Truther Flavor-Aid that Paul's been guzzling.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Thanks for the post. Notice my new tag line. I cant stand the idiot PAUListinian belt bombers here on FR.

[ClaireSolt]

Isolationist and noninterventionist views have legitimacy. However, a lot of what we see is just malignant narcism posing as something more noble than it is.

[weegee]

Ron Paul has clearly said (on Michael Medved’s radio show in a 45 minute interview, extended from 30 minute) that he believes Clinton’s prosecution of the 1993 WTC attackers was the proper course, treat it as a criminal act, nothing more.

Those terrorists lived to see their goal accomplished of toppling the towers (unless Ron is a truther who believes WE did it to ourselves). Those terrorists in prison also continued to plot new attacks and had a lawyer smuggle out messages to other cells.

[wideawake]

Isolationist and noninterventionist views have legitimacy.

Wariness of intervention often has legitimacy - isolationism is wholly illegitimate.

However, a lot of what we see is just malignant narcism posing as something more noble than it is.

Well said.

[wideawake]

(unless Ron is a truther who believes WE did it to ourselves)

Paul is studiously ambiguous on that point.

He says that he has "seen no evidence" that the US deliberately plotted 9/11, but that the investigation into 9/11 should be reopened, and that there is a "real danger" that the US will manufacture terrorist attacks in the future.

In other words, Paul says just enough to convince Truthers that he is one of them, but never enough to remove all doubt.

[rlmorel]

I disagree, ClaireSolt...in the post 9/11 world we live in, I do not believe there is a isolationist or non-interventionalist approach that hurts more that it helps.

I think it is legitmate under the first amendment for someone to have those non-interventionalist or isolationist viewpoints and to express them.

I think those viewpoints do not have legitimacy in a modern world, expecially when so much of our energy and businsess needs originate outside this country.

Just my opininon. I could vote for Congressman Ron Paul (Seeings as how I have people like Marty Meehan, Kennedy and Kerry representing me, voting for a dog turd would be an improvement.)

[ulm1]

RON PAUL: “It will be a little bit better now with the democrats now in charge of oversight “

[rlmorel]

In his own words:

From the Candidate's Debate on 5/15/07

When Ron Paul was asked about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack, Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years..."

From the Human Events Interview on 8/2/07

Human Events: You’re saying overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 and putting in the Shah led to the hostage-taking and 9/11?

Ron Paul: Absolutely.

Human Events: In other words, the militant fundamentalist regime took revenge on us for overthrowing the secular left-of-center regime in ’53?

Ron Paul: There is always some militant-violent-jihadist looking to rally that faction, but they have to have incentives. The incentive is when we impose our will on them and we get involved in their internal politics. Besides, it contradicts everything the Founders theorized, and there’s no constitutional authority for us to march around the world undermining different governments.

For this apologist viewpoint alone, Ron Paul should never be President. Never. You who may be his constituents know him better and perhaps he is useful in Congress, but I haven't heard anything about him to make him stand out there.

[rlmorel]

Do you know when, where, and how he made this statement? I just want to reasearch it and make sure he said it in the correct context.

[wideawake]

Thanks for this post - it points up Ron Paul's philosophical siding with the enemy and more importantly it demonstrates his leftist view of history.

Mossadegh was an illegitimate dictator and the Shah of Iran was Iran's constitutional ruler.

We did not "overthrow" Mossadegh - Mossadegh, by violating the Iranian constitution, was a criminal.

We did not "put in" the Shah. The Shah was already there - the constitutional monarch provided for by Iran's UK-style parliamentary constitution.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Here's the context.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping.

[jonrick46]

Ron Paul is a mole for the Communists.

[rlmorel]

Thank you very much.

[r9etb]

I've been asked by others if my former boss is an Anti-Semite. My answer is an emphatic NO. I am half Jewish. I am familiar with Anti-Semites. Ron is not one of them.

Statements like this have always intrigued me. What is it about Judaism that allows one to be "half Jewish?" Does this guy believe and worship as a Jew (halfway), or does he merely count "Jewishness" as an essentially genetic characteristic?

Anyway, I've always thought it was askew, in some way.

[George W. Bush]

Interesting read.

From a total whackjob.

We've posted on his history before. Advocating legal prostitution (especially for our troops overseas), bragging about how often he enjoyed prostitutes in the Navy, calling himself a combat vet because a ship he was on was attacked after he was transferred elsewhere, calling himself fluent in 12-15 languages (can't he even count them) then producing his own how-to-learn-foreign-languages book which is universally panned as the single most awful language book available, his history of pretending he is virtually a founder of the Libertarian Party while he's always bashing Libertarians, his inability to ever get along with Libertarians (or anyone else), how he grandstands his way into virtually any campaign he can and then destroys it, ...

The list is too long. I may go dig out some of it to post here. Last I heard, he was backing Giuliani and saying all the other candidates should drop out.

He is also planning to declare for Ron Paul's seat. We RP supporters couldn't be happier to defeat him if Ron Paul decides to run for Congress again.

[jveritas]

Ron Paul has betrayed America by wanting to surrender to the terrorists.

[wideawake]

From a total whackjob.

He very well may be. After all, he worked with and for Ron Paul for almost two decades.

Advocating legal prostitution

That's a pretty standard libertarian position.

calling himself a combat vet because a ship he was on was attacked after he was transferred elsewhere

I was unaware he claimed to be a combat veteran.

calling himself fluent in 12-15 languages (can't he even count them) then producing his own how-to-learn-foreign-languages book which is universally panned as the single most awful language book available

Claiming to know languages you don't know is whacky - being a poor textbook writer isn't.

his history of pretending he is virtually a founder of the Libertarian Party

I've only heard him claim to be a founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which he apparently is.

while he's always bashing Libertarians

If a libertarian who criticizes other libertarians is whacky, then so are all libertarians. Which is a perfectly defensible thesis.

how he grandstands his way into virtually any campaign he can and then destroys it, ...

I thought he was hired by Ron Paul for Paul's 1996 GOP Congressional campaign - which was successful.

Last I heard, he was backing Giuliani and saying all the other candidates should drop out.

Giuliani is certainly as libertarian on sexual matters as any candidate in the race - which would sync well with Rittberg's acknowledged pro-abortion and pro-prostitution philosophy. Supporting Giuliani for President is certainly somewhat whacky in my opinion - but no whackier than supporting Paul.

He is also planning to declare for Ron Paul's seat.

His article says he is backing Chris Peden.

We RP supporters couldn't be happier to defeat him if Ron Paul decides to run for Congress again.

I don't see how Ron Paul could lose his Congressional seat.

He is better-funded by virtue of his presidential campaign millions than any primary challenger, and his strategy of appeasing militant Islam and voting against pro-life legislation steals the message of any Democratic candidate.