Brent Bozell calls Ron Paul an anti-American loser in the Iowa debate

[alp227]

Via ConWebWatch I found the article "Brent Bozell on the Republican Debate: Win, Lose, Draw." Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center and Parents Television Council, praised Newt Gingrich as a winner and "why Obama would pee in his pants having to debate this man." He also praised Rick Santorum (don't Google his last name) for showing "most passion." After considering Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain as "draws," Bozell attacked the libertarian Ron Paul: "Loser. Time to go home, Ron. His attacks on the US vis-a-vis Iran were insulting."

On Tim Pawlenty: "Pawlenty threw wild punches everywhere -- and never scored. It's over." On Jon Hunstman: only "Who?"

You can read the full transcript here. This is what Bozell didn't like about Paul:

WALLACE: Congressman Paul — Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. “Sanctions are not diplomacy,” you say. “They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade.” As for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: “One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.”

Is that your policy towards Iran?

PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they’re working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the ’60s, we were — we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there.
The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries — China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon? There’d be — internationally, they’d be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was — you know, in the ’50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What’s so terribly bad about this?

The top comment on the Bozell article: "Ron Paul is an idiot. Yes, he's right about limited, constitutional government, but his libertarianism is anarchy. Iran is not the USSR or China; unlike communists who have at least some strategic rationality, Muslims are reckless, barbaric, insane, irrational, and suicidal. They are so trigger-happy that if they get their hands on a nuke, they must be considered a real threat to use it. There is only one solution: a single plane, a single smart bomb to blow their nuclear facility off the map. Who would lament that?"

[proudlib8134]

1. what a nut

[D-Fens]

2. Ron Paul might not be perfect, but

He's the only one who gave anything close to a reasonable response on Iran

[brooklyn297]

3. good point