What Ron Paul thinks of America

[JoeChalupa]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ


Ron Paul's supporters are sure of one thing: Their candidate has always been consistent—a point Dr. Paul himself has been making with increasing frequency. It's a thought that comes up with a certain inevitability now in those roundtables on the Republican field. One cable commentator genially instructed us last Friday, "You have to give Paul credit for sticking to his beliefs."

He was speaking, it's hardly necessary to say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.

Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions. True, we've heard the assertions before. But rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.

There is among some supporters now drawn to Dr. Paul a tendency to look away from the candidate's reflexive way of assigning the blame for evil—the evil, in particular, of terrorism—to the United States.

One devout libertarian told me recently that candidate Paul "believes in all the things I do about the menace of government control, and he's a defender of the Cons ution—I just intend to take what I like about him." The speaker, educated and highly accomplished in his field (music), is a committed internationalist whose views on American power are polar opposites of those his candidate espouses. No matter. Having tuned out all else that candidate has said—with, yes, perfect consistency—it was enough for him that Dr. Paul upheld libertarian values.

This admirer is representative of a fair number of people now flocking to the Paul campaign or thinking of doing so. It may come as a surprise to a few of them that in the event of a successful campaign, a President Paul won't be making decisions based just on the parts of his values that his supporters find endearing. He'd be making decisions about the nation's defense, national security, domestic policy and much else. He'd be the official voice of America—and, in one con uous regard, a familiar one.

The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead. Still, it would be hard to find any public figure in America whose views more closely echo those of President Obama on that tour.

Most of Dr. Paul's supporters, of course, don't actually imagine he can become president. Nor do they dwell on the implications of the enlarged influence conferred on him by a few early primary victories (a third-party run is not something he rules out, the ever-consistent Dr. Paul has repeatedly said under questioning).

A grandfatherly sort who dispenses family cookbooks on the campaign trail, candidate Paul is entirely aware of the value of being liked. He has of late even tried softening the tone of some of his comments on the crime of foreign aid and such, but it doesn't last long. There he was at the debate last Thursday waving his arms, charging that the U.S. was declaring "war on 1.2 billion Muslims," that it "viewed all Muslims as the same." Yes, he allowed, "there are a few radicals"—and then he proceeded to hold forth again on the good reasons terrorists had for mounting attacks on us.

His efforts on behalf of Iran's right to the status of misunderstood victim continued apace. On the Hannity show following the debate, Dr. Paul urged the host to understand that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map. It was all a mistranslation, he explained. What about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust? A short silence ensued as the candidate stared into space. He moved quickly on to a more secure subject. "They're just defending themselves," he declared.

Presumably he was referring to Iran's wishes for a bomb. It would have been intriguing to hear his answer had he been asked about another Ahmadinejad comment, made more than once—the one in which the Iranian leader declares the U.S. "a Satanic power that will, with God's will, be annihilated."

There can be no confusions about Dr. Paul's own comments about the U.S. After 9/11, he said to students in Iowa, there was "glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq." It takes a profoundly envenomed mindset—one also deeply at odds with reality—to believe and to say publicly that the administration of this nation brought so low with grief and loss after the attack had reacted with glee. There are, to be sure, a number of like-minded citizens around (see the 9/11 Truthers, whose opinions Dr. Paul has said he doesn't share). But we don't expect to find their views in people running for the nation's highest office.

The Paul comment here is worth more than a passing look. It sums up much we have already heard from him. It's the voice of that ideological school whose central doctrine is the proposition that the U.S. is the main cause of misery and terror in the world. The school, for instance, of Barack Obama's former minister famed for his "God d— America" sermons: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for whom, as for Dr. Paul, the 9/11 terror assault was only a case of victims seeking justice, of "America's chickens coming home to roost."

Some in Iowa are reportedly now taking a look at Dr. Paul, now risen high in the polls there. He has plenty of money for advertising and is using it, and some may throw their support to him, if only as protest votes. He appears to be gaining some supporters in New Hampshire as well. It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is. An interesting status for a candidate of Dr. Paul's persuasion to have achieved, and he'll achieve even more if Iowans choose to give him a victory.


~~Well, RP supporters wanted more RP coverage. There you go.

[cheguevara]

these kind of articles, it is always good to read the comments. Let's take a look at some:

This article is a neocon rant with many false statements. Ron paul voted for military action after 9/11 he would defend this country with all the might of our military. What he would not do is adopt the Clinton/Bush approach of nation building and policing the world. Why do we have bases in rich countries who can easily afford to defend themselves? Neocons came from the left, never forget this. They hijacked the republican party after getting fustrated with the democratic party. They are NOT consevative. Ron Paul is actually bringing the Republiclan part back to its core values of SMALL govenment.

The relevant distinction is between actual and proximate cause. The terrorists are the proximate cause of the loss of innocent lives, i.e., they are morally responsible. But RP is 100% correct when he says that America is an actual cause of the terrorism and trouble in the MidEast we face today, i.e., if not for American actions in the MidEast, we wouldn't have these problems.

Why don't the terrorists target the Swiss or the Swedes if they just want to kill free and prosperous white people? Why are we engaged in endless, uncons utional wars that are bankrupting us? Why does RP have more contributions from service men than all other candidates combined? Why is RP the only one who served in the military (National Guard doesn't count, Perry)?

"best-known of American propagandists for our enemies"
lmao this article is clearly biased. Ron Paul is correct in his convictions, he wants to restore the merit of law. Our military follies around the world are illegal- both at home and internationally.
And to put the "wipe Israel off the map" quote in this article as if to give it some legitamacy TWO YEARS AFTER IT WAS CLEARLY MISTRANSLATED is just pure propaganda. That's what the media is doing, and that's what Rabbinowitz is doing here. It's clear what agendas you serve. Good day, maam.

Ron Paul is correct on our monetary policy. He is a very intelligent and principled man and if you would take time to research and understand the concepts that he eludes to, you willl see that without such corrections, we are in for a wild ride.

[DarrinS]

Dr. Paul is a wack job.

[boutons_deux]

A WSJ Jew attacking Paul for saying America is the aggressor/invader/occupier of Arab/Muslim countries and for America/AIPAC supporting Israel's oppression, ethnic cleansing of Gaza strip and Palistinians in Gaza and Israel? How surprising.

America has murdered many more Arabs and Muslim non-combattants/civilians than OBL-9/11.

[JoeChalupa]

People die in Wars boutons. Happens every time.

[RandomGuy]

This is an unfair charactorization of his remarks.

Mr. Paul is completely correct when he notes the stated beliefs of AQ and their sympathizers around the world.

If one takes the time to actually read and understand their motives, he is right on this particular topic. To be clear: RP doesn't say that what they believe is rational, and neither do I. There is no condoning that I have seen. It is simply noting the existance of those beliefs.

He is also entirely correct when he states that, if we had never put troops anywhere, people that follow that ideology would perceive us differently, at least to some degree.


Most Americans don't understand AQ, its core beliefs, and stated goals, beyond the simplistic "they hate us". That level of understanding is what drives this particular invalid criticism. It is a bit sad that so many don't understand something so important to our security and foreign policy.

Quite frankly, it irritates the out of me to see someone who appears to have merely re-stated our enemies' stated goals/intents/beliefs is suddenly charactorized as a "sympathizer", when all he is doing is simply re-stating facts, albeit somewhat uncomfortable ones for some people.

Any decent analyst with some good topical knowledge could be painted with the same brush.

THAT said, there are plenty of valid criticisms of RP to be made, without making up.

[RandomGuy]

A WSJ Jew attacking Paul for saying America is the aggressor/invader/occupier of Arab/Muslim countries and for America/AIPAC supporting Israel's oppression, ethnic cleansing of Gaza strip and Palistinians in Gaza and Israel? How surprising.

America has murdered many more Arabs and Muslim non-combattants/civilians than OBL-9/11.

AQ has killed more than the US, when one gets down to brass tacks.

This realization is part of what drove the Sunni Awakening, and why AQ's use of violence runs counter to its own aims.

When your primary tactics involve indescriminate bombings, that happens.

To be clear, we aren't entirely without blood on our hands, but some of that is unavoidable, if tragic and counter to our own long term interests.

[boutons_deux]

People die in Wars boutons. Happens every time.

When the war is bogus and botched (Iraq) and botched (Afghantistan), the non-combattants murdered should never have happened, and the invader is doubly guilty.

[cheguevara]

People die in Wars boutons. Happens every time. - Adolf Hitler

[z0sa]

America has murdered many more Arabs and Muslim non-combattants/civilians than OBL-9/11.

?? Last I checked, the American military isn't a bunch of indiscriminate murderers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I don't think you have any facts proving that Americans or their coalition allies have *murdered* anywhere close to the number of civilians al-Qaeda has.

... and before you beat a poor strawman to death, I'm quite familiar with the statistics concerning non combatant deaths in the War on Terror in the Middle East. The vast majority of them weren't murdered indiscriminately by Americans as you suggest, so don't bother posting anything but some cold hard facts backing your up.

[boutons_deux]

I'm not talking about Muslim-on-Muslim killing. They don't "hate us" for THEIR fratricides.

I'm talking about the 10Ks maybe 100Ks, of civilians the US and allies have killed or enabled to be killed, by invading Iraq on false pretenses, and botching Afghanistan by dubya switching military priorities and resources to Iraq-for-oil.

OBL killed 3K at WTC, US wasted 4.5K US military lives in Iraq that head lied was tied to 9/11. That's ing criminal, and insane.

[ALVAREZ6]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/wo...ines&emc=tha22

One by one, the Marines sat down, swore to tell the truth and began to give secret interviews discussing one of the most horrific episodes of America’s time in Iraq: the 2005 massacre by Marines of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.

“I mean, whether it’s a result of our action or other action, you know, discovering 20 bodies, throats slit, 20 bodies, you know, beheaded, 20 bodies here, 20 bodies there,” Col. Thomas Cariker, a commander in Anbar Province at the time, told investigators as he described the chaos of Iraq. At times, he said, deaths were caused by “grenade attacks on a checkpoint and, you know, collateral with civilians.”

The do ents — many marked secret — form part of the military’s internal investigation, and confirm much of what happened at Haditha, a Euphrates River town where Marines killed 24 Iraqis, including a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair, women and children, some just toddlers.

But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand. In their own words, the report do ents the dehumanizing nature of this war, where Marines came to view 20 dead civilians as not “remarkable,” but as routine.

Iraqi civilians were being killed all the time. Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the commander of American forces in Anbar, in his own testimony, described it as “a cost of doing business.”

[boutons_deux]

No, Really, Ron Paul Cannot Win

No, he really can’t. It would be nearly impossible to imagine the Republican Party nominating a candidate who spent years and years publishing a racist newsletter and has deep associations with the fringe far right. (Here he is speaking to the John Birch Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.) It would be even more impossible to imagine the Party nominating a candidate who favors total withdrawal from world affairs and takes a Chomsky-ite line on American power. The notion that the Party might nominate a candidate who does both these things is totally preposterous.

Paul’s supporters seem to believe that the media ignoring him is the only thing keeping him from challenging for the Party nomination. More likely, it’s the only thing that’s allowed his candidacy to progress to this point. If more people actually understood the full scope of Paul’s fringe-right views, a huge portion of his support would peel off.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12...annot-win.html

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/wo...ines&emc=tha22

You know, I got as far as the end of page 2. saw no reason to read 3. I see this as a staged tragedy by the true believers of the holy war. I'm sorry, but running a check point and getting killed... Their ing fault.