Replies

[HE quoting DMN column] In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. “We've been over there,” and he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace." That seems mighty harsh, but underlying that is some real concern I think Americans have as to your view as to what the war is, whether it needs to be fought, and how you would fight it as president. If you would just please… take the floor…

RP: I think these types of comments don’t need be directly addressed because the tone… he discredits himself because he doesn’t want, you know, real discourse. But, my policy is very conservative, very traditional, it’s very American, it’s very constitutional—it’s very Republican. I think it’s the Republicans that have really gone astray, politically, and as far as their talk, in the past. I mean if you look to the old right – If you like neo-conservatism great, this is a great policy.

He he. I like listening to Mark Davis on the radio here. He's pretty good. I also like how RP says he won't answer the charge directly because he didn't like the "tone." Oh, and he managed once again to work the phrase "neo con" into his answer. Ron Paul, he'll protect America by avoiding improperly toned issues...

Here's another gem:

[HE]And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?

RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…

HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?

RP: Well, I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine. [Indiscernible talking in background]You can’t isolate WWII and post-WWII without looking at the overall change of policy after WWI.

So, putting the Pershing missles in Europe to put pressure on the USSR, helping anti-communist forces around the world, etc. would NOT have happened under a RP presidency.

[RP]so the Taliban has now come back again because we’re occupiers.

Yeah, because the Talliban would have left if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan with troops on the ground. What dimension does this guy live in?

HE: But sir, we have mutual defense treaties with Britain, with France, with Japan. Are you saying that you would abrogate those treaties because you don’t believe they would – But I know for a fact -- I mean, I’ve read recently the treaty we have with Japan. If they are attacked, for example, by China, we have to go to war. Are you saying that’s not a valid obligation?

RP: I think that’s unconstitutional because you cannot declare war by a treaty.

Now he's selling out the British, French, and Japanese.

HE: But you’re saying pre-emptive strike to protect America even is out of bounds? Or am I misunderstanding you?

RP: Because it’s something that doesn’t achieve anything, To have a preemptive strike against Iraq when they could not possibly have attacked us? What country would dare attack the United States? Where… Who’s going to invade us? Who’s going to send bombers over here? Who’s going to send missiles at us?

Am I reading this correctly? Did RP just say he would not support a pre-emptive strike on any country?

HE: Would you project power anywhere in the world? The United States -- in terms of navy …

RP: On our borders.

HE: And that’s it?

RP: Because nobody would touch us. No, I think our influence, our real power is to be… through influence and by setting good examples, set a modern standard for liberty, great prosperity, trade with people, talk with people and be willing to be strong so nobody messes with us.

I had to stop reading here. This guy is a flat out idiot living in la-la land when it comes to foreign policy. "Setting good examples"? Yeah, that'll really convince Islamic terrorists to not slaughter Americans.

I know you're happy CenTexConfederate that HE interviewed RP. But, something tells me that the more RP talks, the more voters look at him and say WTH.

I’m already saying it...

its like the 1930s all over again...

The more people that see him, the more they will like him. Everything he says is valid. Just look at the cold war. In 1989 our CIA was still telling us the Soviet economy was only a little behind ours. It soon collapsed. Iran in 1953 etc etc. The USA should lead by example. It is a pretty bad sign when the British and German people see us as a bigger threat to world peace than radical Islam.

RP: On our borders.

HE: And that’s it?

RP: Because nobody would touch us.

Tell that to the three thousand dead from 9/11.

And that explains why nutroots support him, but in the ‘real world’ he’s at two percent.

Mark Davis showed up on WBAP several years ago. He is an arrogant ass.

Those statements certainly put to rest the fraudulent notion that Paul’s foreign policy would in any way resemble Ronald Reagans.

The more he talks the more he resonates with the unlikeliest of people. Many US Roman Catholics for example do not accept the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes because they see it as a violation of the principles of just war theory. I am sure he alienates his “neo-con opposition” to no end, but there’s a whole lot of buzz around what he’s saying and the sea change he’s calling for in foreign policy. Full ahead on his ideas, and I think we’re headed for an iceberg, but there are plenty who are so disaffected that any new idea will be a most welcome one.