Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11

[alp227]

Source: CBS

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."

Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."

But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."

"I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/

---

If you google Ron Paul blames America you'll see many right wing blogs criticizing Paul for this opinion.

[tabatha]

1. He was right.

[polichick]

2. Agreed - and the sooner people get that, the better for all of us.

[baldguy]

5. Half right.

Flawed Republican policies led to 9/11.

[SoapBox]

13. Super-duper DITTO!

[cpwm17]

18. No, Democrats helped provoke 9-11 also.

Here's the most obscene 23 seconds of US Government evil you'll ever see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Support for mass murder, all from a Democrat in the Clinton administration. This interview is very well known among Arabs, as it should be. This isn't a partisan issue.

[baldguy]

19. But the Clinton Admin had a counter-terrorism infrastructure in place when they left

Which had already prevented several attempted attacks by al Qaeda - and which was also entirely dismantled by the Bush Regime. (They were too busy planning for the War in Iraq to waste time paying any attention to bin Laden.)

Do you really think 9/11 would have happened if the 2000 coup d'etat had been unsuccessful & Pres Gore had been allowed to take office?

[cpwm17]

21. I'm not sure if the US intelligence services would have done a proper job preventing 9-11 under Gore

Perhaps bureaucratic infighting between the intelligence services allowed 9-11 to happen, especially by the CIA. Would this have been any better under Gore? - who knows.

The provocation for 9-11 had already happened before 2000 (including eight years under Clinton), so a 9-11 type attack could have been inevitable - regardless.

[baldguy]

22. That's the Bush Regime's spin talking.

If any of those bastards caught themselves telling the truth, they'd lie just to keep their hand in.

[Kablooie]

24. What the hell? Criticizing Gore's fantasy presidency a pretty obsessive thing to do.

[No Elephants]

35. So is attributing only good things to Gore's fantasy Presidency.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. So it might have been an attempt, instead of a success?

We MIGHT have caught it? Yeah, maybe.

But the spark that set the whole thing off was lit much earlier.
I mean, we can heap coals upon much more than just Bush Sr too. We can go all the way back to our mideast policy in the 50's. It was fucking atrocious.

[No Elephants]

34. Yes, 911 would have taken place if Gore had been elected.

In fact, there was a video of Bin Laden released before the 2004 election in which he specifically he did not care which Party the new President belonged to. It was a matter of U.S. policies that needed changing. It did not matter if Bush were re-elected or if Kerry were elected.

I know of nothing that would lead anyone to assume that that speech represented a radical change in his thinking from 2000.

It's Americans who mind getting screwed less if their Party does it. The rest of the world in judging us on U.S. policies, not on whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the Oval Office.

Besides, if you will recall, even if Gore had been elected, the House was Republican and the Senate was just about evenly divided.

As far as the intelligence agencies, who the hell knows? And who the hell knows what Gore would have done if he had gotten the same memo Bush did--Al Qaeeda planning attack in the U.S.

According to Bubba, he told Dummya that Al Qaeeda was the number 1 threat facing the U.S. (silly, but that is what he claims he said during the transition). Yet, Al Qaeeda was, only 8 months after he left office, in a position to attack us.

We need to start looking at how government fails us and let go of the idea that all Democrats are automatically superhuman.

[baldguy]

71. When you know of a threat, there's a big difference between looking for it & NOT looking for it.

This isn't saying that all Democrats are Supermen. It's just saying that, in this case, Gore would have done everything he could to protect America from these threats. We know that Bush didn't.

Gore would have done his job, and would have been looking for it. Bush intentionally was not.

9/11 happened not because of the awesome, unstoppable power of al Qaeda. And it did not happen because of the inadequacies of American intelligence & law enforcement services. (As I said above, they had stopped several plots before; there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have continued t be as effective in the future.)

9/11 happened because of pure partisan Republican politics, and a change of the people at the top of the fed govt. Their attitude was "If Clinton did it, then we won't do it."

[No Elephants]

80. You are arguing about imaginary events that are not supported by anything that happened during

the Cliinton administration, of which Gore was a part.

Yes, Clinton supposedly stopped an event at LAX (only plot inside the U.S. he stopped that I recall). And Clinton took no steps after that to make airports or planes or anything else any safer, like, say, requiring doors to the pilot's area be secured.

As I said in my prior post, Clinton said he told Dummya that Al Qaeeda was the biggest threat facing the US, yet no measures were taken to make us safer, not even telling us "If you see something, say something." For that matter, we were not even told that Clinton felt that way.

And, yes, American intelligence and measures when Clinton left office, only 8 months before 9/11, were VERY much part of the problem. Hardly any Arabic translators, for one thing, leaving agencies as much as two years behind in translation, sharing information between agencies outlawed, etc.

Also, please see Please see also Reply 57.


I refuse to debate any further things an imaginary President would have done when the sole basis for your argument is what you imagine Gore would have done.


Also, please see Reply 60.

[some guy]

60. You're changing the topic.

The topic is US foreign policy, which sucks, not whether the US had counter-terrorism infrastructure in place.

[No Elephants]

68. Good point.

Perhaps some prefer to imagine a scenario than to debate facts.

[baldguy]

76. Properly assessing & responding to foreign threats isn't part of "foreign policy" ?

Since when?

[No Elephants]

81. Debatable whether "homeland security" is domestic policy or foreign policy; however,

the subject of the thread is whether U.S. foreign policies vis a vis Israel were connected to the 911 attack, not foreign policy in general

[baldguy]

83. Please indicate where Paul mentioned Israel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328355/face-the-nation-transcript-november-20-2011/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

He was talking about foreign policy in general.

[some guy]

93. Does counter-terrorism infrastructure

come under the purview of the State Department? I think not.

Foreign policy is supposed to be what the State Department and all its ambassadors handle. Preventing wars and maintaining communications.

[baldguy]

98. And if we're trying to get a foreign country to arrest & extradite a terrorist?

Or negotiating for the use of a foreign military base? The Pentagon has no part in that.

[some guy]

99. Those would both

fall under the purview of State.

Internal discussions may include many departments and groups, but once the policy is decided, it falls to State to advance the policy peacefully.

[baldguy]

100. Then when we're discussing any counter-terrorism methods in foreign lands

they're part of our foreign policy by default. And, while Clinton did it right Bush did it outrageously, fantastically & spectacularly WRONG!

[newspeak]

107. richard clarke stated that he informed little boot's administration

that terrorism would be their main priority. Little Boot's administration did not seem interested. The FBI was monitoring some of the alleged terrorists before 9/11, and how about that flight school? Immediately after 9/11, all records were confiscated from the flight school. No need for investigation, they knew right after 9/11 who committed the crime.

Condi goes on tv and states they couldn't imagine the terrorists using planes as weapons--to me, a complete fabrication. I remember right after the event, they interviewed an immigration official, who stated at the time, that those citizens coming from SA were not to be scrutinized too deeply. Little boots flies out some of the house of saud and bin ladens, and no one thinks it's not suspicious.

We had security, especially at the airports, before 9/11. Everything worked quite well until little boot's and his band of merry sociopaths took office. He practically bankrupted the US with his war hard on and creating another bureaucracy called homeland security. I believe Crowley, along with other FBI agents gave a heads up and no one wanted to pay attention.

[Slit Skirt]

23. Republican greed led to 9/11

[No Elephants]

36. LOL!

[AtheistCrusader]

25. IIRC, Clinton put that fucking airbase in Saudi Arabia.

Well, not that Clinton drove the backhoe and poured the concrete himself, but it was done under his watch.

Bush Sr. owns a chunk. Clinton owns a chunk. Shrub owns a chunk.

[Ter]

29. Don't forget Reagan

His pro-Israeli policies started this mess.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Too true,

[No Elephants]

37. Um, not started. Please see Reply 26.

[Ter]

55. You are correct

Reagan did not start it. I wish we could go back to the days when America was an isolationist nation. Maybe around 1912 (foreign policy only though; I wouldn't want to go back to many other things at that time).

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. You need to go further back than that - to before 1898, anyway

and the Spanish-American War.

[some guy]

61. 1803

The US bribes France to not object while it begins its imperial aspirations by claiming the land between the then-US and the Mississippi river, regardless of the fact that people were already living there.

If you go back much before 1803 then you get to pre-US so it becomes a different imperial land grab / expansion.

[No Elephants]

70. The thread is about Israel, though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Thank you for restricting what we are allowed to talk about on DU

Although the thread, not started by you, is not just about Israel, but about 'flawed foreign policy' ( which is far more than just Israel - Paul talked about American bombs, and intervention), thank goodness we've got you here to make sure that a remark of "I wish we could go back to the days when America was an isolationist nation" can be ruled out of bounds, and no-one is allowed to suggest when American isolationism ended.

[No Elephants]

77. How do I restrict what anyone says on DU?

And, not that it matters as far as my allegedly restricting you, but the OP does seem to be about whether U.S. foreign policy vis a vis Israel had a connection to 911, which does indeed seem far removed from your post.

As to another poster's comment about 1912 and isolatism, that was supposedly in reply to a post of mine; and I thought that odd as well.

[ieoeja]

105. Al Qaeda attacked us over Iraq and bases in Saudi Arabia. Not Israel. n/t

[No Elephants]

69. I referred you to a post mentioning the 1950s, not 1912.

Isolationism bumps up against WWII, when Republican were the ones who wanted to stay out of the war.

Funny how things change.

[No Elephants]

39. And Saudi Arabia donated to their Presidential libraries and probably, one way or another,

to their campaigns.

One oily hand washes the other.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Reminds me of a thing my last chemistry teacher used to say

In order to get one thing clean, something else must become dirty.

It is possible to get everything dirty, without getting anything clean.

(I think that saying might be very old..)

[No Elephants]

82. Yep. When one dirty hand washes another, nothing gets clean.

[LanternWaste]

95. The fundamental policy that began this mess was the Sykes–Picot Accord.

The fundamental policy that began this mess was the Sykes–Picot Accord- the biggest chunk of all... giant chunks, the mother of all chunks


(Although it doesn't criticize any living, American politician, so it may not be appropriate...)

[Ter]

28. Democrats are equal to blame

Both supported and continue to support Israel. That's the sworn enemy of the entire Middle East.

[No Elephants]

33. No, U.S. policies.

[jwirr]

9. I dislike him for his social plans but on this I agree. We were playing

fast and loose oil war games long before 9/11. I often wonder if W had not been selected the oil king of the USA if 9/11 would have even happened.

[No Elephants]

38. The replies to Post #5 should answer your question, no matter which side of the coin you favor.

[madrchsod]

3. no one listened to what bin laden was actually saying

[No Elephants]

40. *Raises hand and waves it frantically, while saying "ooo, ooo, ooo"*

Please call on me, teacher. I listened!

Please see Reply 34.

[opihimoimoi]

4. W Bush Nails it when he said ..."watch my drive" ....the man don't care for America...

His non action following a DIRE WARNING AUG 6 2001 re terror attack left many..Stunned.

He gets a warning and he does not pass it on to the Nation....double F

[lefthandedlefty]

6. Just think if Bush had done the right thing

What excuse could he have used to start his wars.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Hubristic assholes make up excuses for their actions

[SoapBox]

8. Here was one failed policy...

Why the HELL were box cutters and knives EVER allowed as carry ones?

Never, EVER could we understand that stupidity. Even MORE stupid was how the FAA/TSA
try to loosen that regulation, to allow knives/blades of a certain length to be carried
back ON to the aircraft...THAT was just a few years ago! Thank goodness that the out cry was SO loud,
that they backed off.

Ron Paul...sucking at the teat of government, since 1976.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. They weren't allowed as carry on.

But box cutters, depending on the handle, can have a lot less metal in them, than is needed to set off the contemporary metal detectors of the time.

Passenger screening wasn't shit back then. If you did it right, you could get on a plane with a fucking cresent wrench.

TSA screening since 9/11 has caught some 900 firearms. Pre-9/11, most of those guns flew.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. I was allowed on international flights in the 1990s with ice axes in carry-on baggage

That was from Nepal, through Pakistan, and they were fine with them. It was general aviation policy for any country (apart from Middle Eastern ones). After 9/11, the notices in French airports on what was no longer allowed included ice axes.

[newspeak]

108. yeah, well, I still question the boxcutter argument

you have a plane of maybe 50 to 70 people and they are all complying because the terrorists are wielding a boxcutter? A gun, a bomb, yeah-but a boxcutter? I know some very feisty women who have kicked butt, not even counting the men. I still don't buy the boxcutters.

[No Elephants]

41. And now we have another generation, Rand Paul, also teat sucking.

However, I don't think those long knives were allowed on carry-ons.

However, I believe that the geniuses in Washington, D.C. who were in charge of airline safety had yet to catch on that all knives were not metal. The terrorists carried on ceramic knives.

OTOH, a souvenir sword from Pirates of the Caribbean in Disney World got caught before 911, so maybe I have misdiagnosed the problem.

[waronxmas]

10. Well duh!

A moron could figure out that failed policies led to 9/11. But seriously though, fuck Ron Paul and his bigoted arse. I don't care what he thinks.

[Skip Intro]

11. I have to respect Paul for sticking to his convictions and being unafraid to air his beliefs

especially in an election year.

Even though I disagree with him on many domestic issues, I have to admire the man's integrity.

[red dog 1]

14. His beliefs include ending Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security.

April 27, 2011

"Speaking to MSNBC host Cenk Uygur, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul said if he were elected President of the United States he would try to transition the country off of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

watch video: http//www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-

[AtheistCrusader]

32. So, put him in as the Secretary of Defense.

Wars over, bases closed, trillions saved, and Medicare/SS safely out of his hands.

I could drink to that.

[No Elephants]

43. The Secretary of Defense decides those things? Who knew?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. True.

We need a president in charge that also gives a shit about ending the wars. One that can stand up to congress and its 'we won't appropriate funds for a withdrawl' ways.

[No Elephants]

62. Maybe, but NOT Ron Paul or any other Libertarian.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Yeah, his domestic policy would take us back to the industrial revolution

in pretty much every social program.

[No Elephants]

45. +1 Sing it, red dog!

[No Elephants]

42. Integrity, my ass. He and his son have no trouble living off government.

[Little Tich]

12. A man who speaks the truth is ineligible for the Republican candidacy by default.

Sorry, Ron, but the GOP voters want a liar for president.

[No Elephants]

46. Ron Paul is NOT a man who speaks the truth, but thanks anyway, LIttle Tich.

You, Ter and Atheist Crusader are too funny on this thread.

[freshstart]

73. Exactly

Ron Paul was sticking his nose in foreign policy in 1977 when he didn't even hold an office but was a member of the "shadow cabinet."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3PtHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1386,3755771&dq=ron+paul+shadow+cabinet&hl=en

And, who is one of Paul's foreign policy advisors? Doug Bandow, this Jack Abramoff-connected guy:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

"A former Abramoff associate says Bandow and at least one other think-tank expert were typically paid $2,000 per column to address specific topics of interest to Abramoff's clients. Bandow's standing as a columnist and think-tank analyst provided a seemingly independent validation of the arguments the Abramoff team were using to try to sway Congressional action.

Bandow confirms that he received $2,000 for some pieces, but says it was "usually less than that amount." He says he wrote all the pieces himself, though with topics and information provided by Abramoff."

Personally, I don't listen to a word Ron Paul says. He knows damn well who Doug Bandow is, he's had a long relationship with him. You can find Bandow writing columns at Ron Paul's Freeman back before the Ambramoff scandal happened. Here he is in 2002 calling Social Security a ponzi scheme:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/uncle-sams-retirement-scam/

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?108392-Ron-Paul-Campaign-Announces-Addition-of-New-Policy-Advisors

[red dog 1]

92. The only Republican candidate speaking the truth is Jon Huntsman.

[provis99]

15. al-Qaeda attacked New Zealand, too.

So I don't buy this whole "It must have been our policy" argument.

[No Elephants]

47. Indonesia? London? But what was the reason for the attacks?

[Prometheus Bound]

58. Al-qaeda did not attack London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/09/july7.uksecurity

The Bali bombings were carried out by Jemaah Islamiyah.

The 2009 bombings were also planned and carried out by locals.

[No Elephants]

65. I would not go that far. But how about answering the question or addressing the actual point?

You will find all the attacks I mentioned in wiki under Al Qaeeda attacks, with the connection between the London group and Al Qaeeda explained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

Technically, Al Qaeeda Iraq isn't Al Qaeeda per se, either. (Actually, Al Qaeeda Iraq is probably more different from Al Qaeeda than is the London group.)

However, the assertion to which I responded was that American policies were not the issue because Al Qaeeda attacked New Zealand. So I asked what was the reason for the attack? And the reason for the London and Indonesia attacks.

Do you have anything to say about whether or not there is a relation between American policies and the attack on New Zealand?

[Prometheus Bound]

66. I already said above I don't know anything about an alqaeda attack on New Zealand.

And they didn't attack London or Indonesia.

[No Elephants]

74. Do you know of any Al Qaeeda attack that was unrelated to U.S. policies?

And again, I disagree. The London attacks were carried on by a group that was inspired by, and related to Al Qaeeda, per the link I provided you. Hence, the comments about Al Qaeeda Iraq in my prior post.

As for Indonesia:

"The organisation suspected of responsibility for the bombing was Jemaah Islamiyah, an Islamist group allegedly led by radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir.<2><13> A week after the blasts Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera put to air an audio-cassette purportedly carrying a recorded voice message from Osama Bin Laden saying that the Bali bombings were in direct retaliation for support of the United States' war on terror and Australia's role in the liberation of East Timor.<14>

[Prometheus Bound]

78. It seems you are assigning every terror attack in the past decade to Alqaeda.

The British government said the Alqaeda claims re the London bombing were nonsense.

As your quote said, the Bali bombing was alleged to have been done by Jemaah Islamiyah.

[No Elephants]

84. Bullshit. First, as you imply, the organization responsible for the Bali bombing

is debatable.

The quote in my prior post says one of many suspects in the Bali bombing claimed to be a member of Islamiyah.

And Bin Laden made a tape explaining the reason for the attack--unrebutted as far Al Qaeeda tape was made explaining the reason for the Bali bombing. Plus, if you follow the link, many are suspected to have been involved in that bombing, including the police.

Unless you have better info about the Bali bombing than the link I gave. you have nothing.

Second, my prior posts said organizations close to and inspired by Al Qaeeda, so close enough. I have now stated that three times.

Third, you still would rather nitpick about how closely the organizations are related than address the actual question.

And now, you are completely misrepresenting me even on the ancillary issues.

If I put people on ignore, I'd start with people who do that kind of thing.

[Prometheus Bound]

94. Put me on ignore then.

Your threat is hardly hurtful. It's like a flashback to the Bush era reading this shit. Who has time for it.

[ieoeja]

106. The murder of Masood. We weren't supporting either side (though we should have been). n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

97. Can you give me any information on the Alqaeda attack on New Zealand?

I can't find anything and it is not on your wiki timeline.

[Prometheus Bound]

54. I must be out of it. When did Al qaeda attack New Zealand?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. does ANYONE seriously believe that if the U.S.did not have its military might positioned all over

the Arab and Islamic world including multiple installations with enormous amounts of military firepower inside Saudi Arabia itself - and if the U.S. was not the power that decided which governments in the Middle East are legitimate and which are not and if the U.S. was not the overwhelming and almost unconditional supporter of the Israeli state no matter what they do - is there ANYONE who can claim with a straight face that Al Qaeda would have still existed as we know it today and would have still carried out the attacks on September 11? ANYONE BELIEVE THAT?? ANYONE AT ALL??

Yes Congressman Paul has some down right nutty reactionary ideas particularly on issues of domestic social obligations. But it is nice to know that he has some barrings on reality when in comes to the wider world. And Yes bin Lade and Al Qaeda are pure evil - but evil like bacteria needs certain conditions go grow.

[No Elephants]

48. Oh, yeah. Ron Paul is a fucking king and Rand is a prince.

Both of them live off government while saying government should be so small that it fits into a woman's uterus.

Aside from that, their foreign and domestic policy is driven by one principle: government should not do or spend anything, abroad or at home, or at least nothing Ron doesn't approve of.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you love the play?

[Prometheus Bound]

20. Interviewer Bob Schiefer looked mighty pissed off.

[Hulk]

30. Be careful what you say Ron.....the reich wing don't want to hear that shit.

It IS a fact. When someone ever suggests that we might be in the least bit responsible for the hatred venting against us all around the world....they are immediately tarred and feathered and branded traitors and hating America.

Such utter nonsense. OF COURSE they hate us because of what we have done to them. Do you think they hate us for our first class health care, or our first class rail service? or our first class infrastructure, etc. etc. NO, they hate us because we are most likely responsible in part if not in full for butchering their relatives and raping their land. Doh!

[woo me with science]

44. Yup. There were some worried comments on the Sunday shows

about how well he may do in Iowa.

The PTB would not like that....Avoiding small planes might not be a bad idea if he actually starts winning.

:tinfoilhat:

[No Elephants]

64. If he starts winning, he's better practice ducking, too.

After him will be: women, Republicans, Democrats, many Israelis, etc.

Smug little fucker will get it from somewhere.

[No Elephants]

51. Only right wing U.S. policies favor Israel?

You must be kidding.

As far as Ron Paul, please see replies 46 and 48.

[loyalsister]

102. I dislike most of what he says

but when he says things I agree with and I know the GOP will hate him for it, I am happy to remember he will never win.

[jakeXT]

49. Just like all the other politicians, no balls

Q. "One last thing. why dont you come out about the truth about 9/11?

Paul: "Because i cant handle the controversy, i have the IMF and federal reserve to deal with..
i have too many things on my plate"..

Continue reading on Examiner.com Ron Paul on 9/11 conspiracies (in chronological order) - Los Angeles LA County Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/ron-paul-on-9-11-conspiracies-chronological-order#ixzz1eKDoqb3C



http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/ron-paul-on-9-11-conspiracies-chronological-order

[No Elephants]

52. Ron Paul's picture is in Bartlett's Quotations, right next to the saying,

"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

That said, Ron Paul is very rarely right as often as twice a day.

Oh, and fuck all Paulites, especially those masquerading as liberals.

[Prometheus Bound]

59. He may be a bonehead on domestic policy, but he makes perfect sense on foreign policy.

And lest I forget, fuck the warmongers.

[No Elephants]

63. First, we need not look at him or any other Libertarian any further

than their domestic policy, so saying how wretched he is on domestic policy "but" is meaningless.

Second, except for his anti-abortion stance, which would cost money to enforce, his one unifying principle is "Don't spend tax money."

So no, his foreign policy does not necessarily make sense either.

And, I repeat, fuck all Libertarians, especially those masquerading as liberals. And most especially those at DU.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. Why do you say his foreign policy approach makes no sense?

[No Elephants]

72. The post to which you are replying answered your new question.

And it's irrelevant because, as my prior post already said, saying Paul is okay aside from his domestic policies is like saying Mrs. Lincoln loved the last play she saw at the Ford Theater, aside from having her husband's brains on her outfit.

[Prometheus Bound]

79. From a financial perspective, his foreign policy approach is the only thing that can save the US.

What does it matter what social programs you have if the country goes bankrupt?

[No Elephants]

86. There are plenty of anti war people who don't have the rest of Paul's shit.

I mentioned no spending of taxpayers dollars, enforcing his anti-abortion policies and his domestic policies. I don't recall saying anything about social programs..

The latter is not a social program in my book and I don't equate spending taxpayer dollars with social programs. For one thing, taxpayers are supporting the family of Ron Paul and have been for a very long tim--and now Rand as well., a

However, I see your reply to me goes to social programs, and only social programs, on the domestic side.

Based on that selectivity alone, I'd question how much of a bonehead you actually do find him about domestic policies.

[woo me with science]

101. The problem is that they are not running for President. nt

[Prometheus Bound]

96. Why do you say his foreign policy approach makes no sense?

[cpwm17]

88. People on DU are clear that they don't agree with Ron Paul on most issues

But he is really the only politician that explicitly explains our foreign policy situation, including why we were attacked on 9-11 (and he does a good job here). Are we supposed to ignore him since he is wrong on domestic issues?

Get real; you are way off base claiming that DU supporters of Ron Paul's foreign policy statements are Libertarians.

Ron Paul may be a nut with his free-market fairies and other annoying non-sense. But I'll give you some other nuts: every politician that supported our unprovoked war on Iraq, every politician that supports Israel, every politician that promotes hostilities against Iran, etc. Now those are nuts worse than Ron Paul. That goes to show how terrible our federal government is that we have to look to Ron Paul for foreign policy sanity.

Fuck all war mongers, especially those masquerading as liberals. And most especially those at DU.

[Prometheus Bound]

103. +1000

[Zorra]

85. Big Fucking Deal.

Dennis Kucinich, and 1/2 to 3/4 of DU, have been saying this for a decade.

Yeah, it's refreshing and actually stunning when a conservative speaks a kernel of truth, but geez, he's still just another conservative nut. Don't be fooled.

Ron Paul:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. ]The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." <146>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion

[No Elephants]

87. Great thread to bookmark if you like to know more about your fellow DUers.

[Prometheus Bound]

104. That's for sure. It's the neocon influence.

Any talk about cutting defense spending seems to put them into full attack-and-spin mode.

[krabigirl]

90. Watching that "journalist's" head explode during the interview was entertaining.

Paul is right.

[defendandprotect]

91. Foreign policy was at fault -- we also had an "Operation Ignore" re the intelligence ... but MIHOP..

Ron Paul is no truth sayer unless he wants to acknowledge all of that -- !!

Since when does NORAD go AWOL without leaving a forwarding address?

Since when do we ignore the intelligence coming in from every nation on the planet --

including visits in August from United Nations Security Council to the Whtie Hosue and

our intelligence services repeating the information Russia had developed and which was

being ignored for months?

Couldn't be more of a "Reichstag Fire in NYC" --

[populist3]

109. Ron Paul would not get his way on SS and medicare, but

he might just get more troops home and close overseas bases as
on these policies he is in line with the majority of the nation