Ex-Aide Says Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & Isolationist Who Thinks U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 26, 2011 | JOHN MCCORMACK

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A former Ron Paul staffer named Eric Dondero, who worked closely with the Texas congressman and presidential candidate over the course of 15 years, has issued a statement in which he both defends his old boss from charges of racism and anti-Semitism and reveals damning new details about about the "sheer lunacy of [Paul's] foreign policy views".

First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business."

Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist:

[DugwayDuke]

Oh, I read your reply and found it to be less than a compelling defense of Ron Paul.

Sure, some of the rhetoric of the content of those letters has been exagerated. Still, there is enough there to doom any chances of Ron Paul winning a general election. These newsletters would serve as a treasure trove of campaign commercials vilifying him as a racist. Particularly, when taken in the context of Ron Paul’s continued refusal to denounce the support of various racist, neo-nazi, and white supremacist groups.

Second, I disagree that Ron Paul’s claims that his foreign policy would be a net gain for Israel. If those policies had been in effect during the ‘73 war, Israel would have been totally destroyed.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Wow. And all this time I just thought he was just a Jew hating isolationist.

[Tex-Con-Man]

[Owl558]

“We didn’t initiate a declaration of war on either of those countries - they did.”

You are absolutely correct and I support your statement, but we need to remember that the US was deeply involved in supporting the allies well before the declarations of war through lend lease and reverse lend lease. As the “arsenal of democracy”, a phrase coined before Pearl Harbor, the United States was supplying up to 1/4 of Britian’s war material. In the east, US support for China and a crushing oil embargo were reasons for Japan’s spoiling attack at Pearl Harbor.

As a point of fact, please accept my humble correction of your statement that “...only the initial sneak attack was fought on U.S. soil.” Americans often forget that the Philipines was US territory at that time, just like Alaska and Hawaii. The Battling Bastards of Bataan were defending US territory.

[John D]

Ah ... now we are down to taking the word of a disgruntled fired employee. Cool

Why not. The paulbots want us to believe cut and run and obama are getting the most military donations. Are we now down to taking the word of over zealous paulbots who will put whoever their messiah tells them to put down as their employer?

[DugwayDuke]

While you are correct in that we should advance conservative issues over those of the new deal, that is not the same as saying we should support Ron Paul. He is a deeply flawed candidate who would only lead the conservative cause to destruction.

[algernonpj]

Yuri was correct / sigh

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Rick Perry seems to have decided to adopt Romney’s tactics I see.

Have you considered hiring Karl Rove?...

[Tex-Con-Man]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

[dfwgator]

But knowing how many Jews there were in the US, do you think Hitler would have just let the US alone? He was obsessed with wiping out every Jew on the planet, and certainly that meant eventually taking on the US. It was just a matter of “when.”

[John D]

Well, we would all be speaking German if Paul’s group thinkers had won.

That or Japanese. I am sure the surrender monkey would have blamed America for Pearl Harbor, just like he did after 9/11. He would have tried to appease the Japanese as much as he could, and then when that did not work he would have just surrendered.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

There is a middle foreign policy ground between Paul and the “mainstream”. I wish some viable candidate would stake out that ground. It’s wide open.

[woofie]

There is a middle foreign policy ground between Paul and the “mainstream”. I wish some viable candidate would stake out that ground. It’s wide open.

Hey lots of people are half nuts

[algernonpj]

.... Whether Ron Paul, with the extreme and sometimes disturbing foreign policy impressions he sometimes gives, is a proponent of "isolationism within reason" is a debatable topic. But to automatically denigrate all isolationist sentiment is to embrace the world view of FDR and reject the attitude of conservatives from George Washington to Robert Taft.

This bears repeating.

Like him or not Paul, brings to the campaign serious questions that warrant discussion, questions about big government, how US taxpayer money is spent, foreign policy, the role of the Fed ...

Considering the shape the US is in, how can anyone support not questioning the status quo?

[DugwayDuke]

There are miles and miles and miles of ground between Ron Paul’s foreign policy views and foreign policy views that are viable.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Fair enough, if I concluded anything incorrect my apologies.

So far today I’ve seen numerous examples of Perry supporters pretty much repeating ad-hominum insults against Paul. Which ironically, makes me want to defend him.

Prior to this, most such examples I’ve seen on this board, have seemed to have been the work of “concern trolls” for Mitt Romney (it has often appeared), using the politics of personal destruction to eliminate Mitt’s perceived competitors from the race, one by one.

From your handle, I presumed you might be a part of that group of Perry supporters which seem to have adopted that tactic at this late date (in desperation?)

You indicate that is incorrect, and for that conclusion if I was wrong, sorry.

All that said, even climbing down from my conclusion you might be after Paul - on behalf of Perry.

May I stick with my recommendation you might hook up with Karl Rove?

He’s pretty good that that “ad-hominum insult” sort of thing. :D

[John D]

Like him or not Paul, brings to the campaign serious questions that warrant discussion, questions about big government, how US taxpayer money is spent,

I know. He wants to make sure he collects all the earmarks he says he against. He thinks he is the only congressman who should get them. Big gov't good is in his district, but only his district.

[HereInTheHeartland]

This is like arguing with some people why having a hole in your head is really not a good thing.
The pro “hole in your head” crowd will argue vehemently about how you just don't understand the issue.

You just don't have any more words after a time.

[milagro]

I understand the attractiveness of the isolationist "Weltanschauung"; I often feel I'd rather just focus on my own fairly sane and comfortable little world and what's going on within it, instead of having to deal with the "real world" and how it seems to be bent on going to hell in a handbasket!

And I'm sure that's how people felt after the "war to end all wars"--and why so many in France and England, and to a lesser extent the US, were so attracted to those who refused to listen to Churchill's warnings about the "evil threat" he saw Germany growing into, under the leadership of Adolph Hitler.

But what becomes so clear in reading Churchill's writings on what happened during the 1930's is that this "go away world and leave us alone" attitude led these "war-weary" nations to develop foreign policies that did more to CAUSE WWII--and all the horrors we now associate with it--than to PREVENT it.

All those who talked so eloquently about "achieving peace in our time" and were eager to disarm themselves to show their sincerity while "negotiating" with Hitler--all these efforts of "appeasment" only succeeded in allowing Germany's "military might" more time to become stronger and stronger! And what a price those nations--ours included--paid to stop it later, rather than sooner.

History has proven time and time again that there is NO PEACE in appeasement. Just look at how well Obama's attempts to "negotiate" with Iran have turned out. And--if Iran goes nuclear--we face a threat that is scarier--at least to me--than the threat Germany posed in 1939.

So--while the isolationist stance is attractive, it all too often leads to a foreign policy built on an expectation that "the troubles" that arise beyond our shores, or our borders, must not disturb our own "peace and posterity".

And that is an attractive worldview, but an extremely dangerous one--IMHO!

[woofie]

Questions are ok ....Pauls answers are not too hot