Ron Paul’s Destructive Foreign Policy

Pages: 1 2

Rep. Ron Paul believes the United States is a greedy, militaristic empire that brought 9/11 upon itself. He believes that Iran poses no threat to U.S. or Israeli security and that Iran deserves to have a nuclear weapon if it wants one. As for Israel, he does not think it should have ever come into existence as a Jewish state. Nevertheless, Ron Paul, whose crackpot beliefs would be disastrous for the United States and the free world if ever implemented, is a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.

With money, good organization, a demagogic message that has a surface appeal to voters looking for a radical break with the status quo and an enthusiastic cadre of supporters fueling his campaign, Paul has vaulted into the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in the Iowa caucuses, which he could well win on January 3rd. He is virtually tied with Newt Gingrich for second place in New Hampshire after the heavy favorite, Mitt Romney. Overall, Paul is currently running third in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.

Paul’s foreign policy philosophy hearkens back to the pre-World War II “America First” isolationist movement that was shattered with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. In fact, Paul would have been right at home in that movement. According to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide to the congressman, Paul believed that the United States had no business getting involved in fighting Hitler in World War II. “He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business,” Dondero said. “When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand.”

Paul has harbored similar conspiratorial thoughts about 9/11. Dondero said that his former boss

engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions…

Paul was opposed to the war in Afghanistan from the outset, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11, according to Dondero. It was only after feeling intense political heat from his home district that Paul reluctantly reversed his initial opposition to the resolution authorizing military action in Afghanistan and decided at the last minute to vote “yes.”

In Ron Paul’s Blame America world view, the U.S. military, which conquered fascism and has since World War II helped to liberate many millions of people from the cruel grip of totalitarian communism, fanatical jihadism and secular dictatorships, is somehow the world’s greatest source of evil and conflict in the world.

“Just come home,” Paul has repeatedly intoned, echoing George McGovern’s 1972 campaign slogan “Come Home, America.” A President Ron Paul would gut the nation’s defenses and homeland security as he carries out his promises to drastically cut military spending and to repeal what he has called the “police state” Patriot Act.

It’s no surprise that the left-wing, anti-American Code Pink likes Paul’s message. Code Pink activist Liz Hourican told that the “Ron Paul people are closer and closer to our talking points with each election.”

Paul also has other friends on the hard Left such as Tom Hayden, who wrote:

Paul opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He opposes the empire of military bases. He opposes Wall Street thievery, tax subsidies for oil companies, the suppression of WikiLeaks, the drug war and the criminalization of marijuana. Those positions might just save America.

At the same time, Paul’s message is in sync with that of the paleoconservative, Israel-hating isolationist Pat Buchanan. Consider, for example, their common perspective on 9/11. Buchanan said that “Terrorism is the price of empire. They were over here because we were over there.” Paul has attributed the al Qaeda attack to America’s interventionist actions in Muslim lands and to our support for Israel.

In a speech he delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives in January 2003, for example, Paul said:

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

As for Osama bin Laden, whom our Navy Seals dispatched last spring, Ron Paul criticized the one decision that Barack Obama got right. Paul said he would not have authorized the mission, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has “respect for the rule of law.”

Ron Paul remains steadfast in denouncing U.S. foreign policy as one of occupation that justifies what he has referred to as the terrorists’ “blowback” response. During a CNN-Tea Party Republican presidential debate last September, for example, Paul stated that

we’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries… We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?

Anti-American guru Noam Chomsky claimed that what Paul said was “completely uncontroversial.”

It may be “uncontroversial” to Chomsky, as well as to Pat Buchanan who thinks 9/11 was the price we paid for empire-building. But it is way out of the mainstream to most Americans.

As the New York Times put it in a front page article on December 26th about Ron Paul’s campaign, Paul and his closest political allies have “sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.”

Ron Paul does not only attribute al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks to American foreign policy. He also blames America and Israel for frightening Iran into taking defensive actions to protect itself. When asked how he might deter Iran if it ever did pose a threat, Paul said “maybe offering friendship to them.”

While defending the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime’s right to seek nuclear arms, he denies that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is anything to worry about. He says there is no credible evidence that Iran is advancing towards achieving a nuclear bomb capability, despite a disturbing report to the contrary issued last month by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA report found that there was information indicating Iran was conducting activities “specific to nuclear weapons.” The IAEA was particularly concerned about “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Fred Dawes

    When people hate that much I got to ask why? so you don't like paul But why?

    • Martin

      Could it be that Paul wants to end the Fed, that legal vehicle of theft?

    • NC Marc
    • HermitLion

      Hey, look, its the Paul clones! I came to this article just to see you clowns make fools out of yourself (and don't forget to give me a lot of minuses, just to show everyone how you like to vote multiple times, in a childish attempt to 'win').

      • Victory

        Pretty sure you just made a fool of yourself by doing what 95% of Paul naysayers always do; resort to name-calling. No intelligent, fact-based arguments. Just childish name calling. It is pretty telling for anyone with a bit of discernment.

        In regard to this article; I have rarely seen so much loaded language and twisted use of data designed to manipulate the reader through fear and emotion. No attempt at reason or common sense. No attempt to counter Ron Paul's points with points of his own. Instead of counter arguments, the author simply paints Ron Paul's beliefs in negative tones and surrounds them with demonizing buzzwords. And so many people fall for this stuff. Amazing.

        Like Hitler said, "What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

        • HermitLion

          No no no, the jokes, good sir, are squarely on you :)

          But do carry on showing to the world what you people are REALLY like (and don't forget to spray those chem-trails….

          • Victory

            Do you and the other responders to my comment not see what you are doing? You make assumptions about my beliefs that are based on nothing but your own ignorant stereotyping. I point out that you're just name-calling and not offering anything intelligent to the discussion. I have not even made a statement of support for(or against) Ron Paul. Just pointed out how poorly the article is written, and manipulative the language is. Then out of the blue you mention chem-trails? This reveals just how ignorant and simple your mindset is. Your whole thought process operates on a foundation of stereotyping those who do not agree with you, so that you can conveniently disregard them without ever having to question your own emotional beliefs. What's funny is that the way you interpret my comment reveals how you interpret Ron Paul's statements. Your accusations against me AND Ron Paul have no basis in reality.

            Another responder to my comment states that Ron Paul is "my hero". Then implies Ron Paul and I are anti-semites because I quote Hitler. No thought is paid to why I quoted him, just the mindless thought process of a simpleton that looks like, "I see sentences. Don't like sentences. Sentences have names Ron Paul and Hitler in them. I don't like Ron Paul. Hitler is evil. Hitler in same sentences as Ron Paul means Ron Paul loves Hitler. Hitler is anti-semite, so Ron Paul is anti-semite, so comment author is an anti-semite. Anti-semites everywhere!!!"

            Not only that, but you guys quote other Ron Paul haters as proof that Ron Paul wants to abolish Israel. Even if that was true, it's a terrible way to make your point. That's like someone quoting an extremist muslim cleric as proof that the US military wants to eat babies. Please find me a quote from Ron Paul, with a source, and in context, that has him saying he hates Jews, wants to abolish the Jewish state and return Israel to the arabs. And please don't say that these sentiments are implied because he believes receiving US foreign aid(welfare) is not in Israel's best interest. You'll just sound stupid if you do.

        • Joseph Klein

          Funny that you would quote Hitler since your hero didn't think it was worth fighting him.

          • JasonPappas

            Ron Paul is saying something worse than it was not worth it. He's saying it was not honorable. Imagine that!

          • MarkLassiter

            It wasn't worth fighting Hitler. Britain was already safe from invasion by Germany before Pearl Harbor because the Germans were bogged down in Russia so how on Earth were the Germans going to conquer America? The media has pushed a false narrative of WWII and too many Americans who don't understand the events within the timeline have fallen for it.

    • WildJew

      "(Dr. Paul) wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations…..He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."

      (Eric Dondero, Ron Paul’s former senior aide)

    • Ennis

      Its because of his justifications for the 9/11 atrocities and his defense of America's enemies worldwide. Simple as that


      I dont hate Paul.
      I hate his repeal of DADT

    • Santa

      because he's the only one who makes sense. everything else is good old american capitalist propaganda. ra ra G.E., Haliburton, Northrupt/Gumman, and ,of course, Wall Street, who fuel all the money in the coup of our government, and 99% of the media, to brainwash our society, culture, and toxic to our childrens minds. Cradle to grave lies. Kindergarden to collage, and all the poney professors.

      • MAD JEWESS

        "Gays" serving openly in the US Military does not 'make sense' to me. Legalizing drugs to 'get rid of the war on drugs' makes NO sense to me.

        PRAYER and turning back to GOD, not Ron Paul DOES make sense.

    • Alexander Gofen

      I don't like Paul's ignorance and all his political idea's (except 1 or 2). As a skillful demagogue, he speculates on some truthful issues about America, yet distorts them to his advantage.

      A superpower would exist in the world anyway, and let it better be America than anybody else.

      Unfortunately, the recent (in fact all) actions of America were hectic rather than well motivated strategically (on a decades or even century scale).

      The military exercises of the recent years were exactly hectic or worse. Islamic war could be ended in 9/12/2001 by nuking Mecca and Medina (without losing one American soldier).

      As to "Christianity" of Mr. Paul, he could not care less about preservation of the Christian national identity of America. In fact, he does not even acknowledge the America is an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation. In fact he paves the way for islamization of America even more. In fact "a prominent non-interventionist" Ron Dhimmy Paul is all for intervention of islam in America.

      • guest

        You hit the nail on the head regarding Paul's not acknowledging America as being built on Judeo- Christian principal's. As a Jewish supporter of Israel, I could see Israel not having to kow-tow to an Obama to get permission to defend itself . However, this will be offset by the Arabs being emboldened by a US president who doesn't (or pretends he doesn't) care. BUT THE BIGGEST DANGER is to the US: As you say, he paves the way for far greater intervention of Islam in America. Furthermore, I suspect he can be bought , not only by Islamists, but also by China and Russia.

  • Twoplustwoisfive

    You tell me war is peace. For my life I believed you. Your peace has cost millions of lives. Your peace has put all of humanity in peril. I no longer believe you. Now I know, war is war. Peace is peace. Ron Paul is leading the r[3VOL]ution to restore love for humanity. Please join us.

    • JasonPappas

      So it's not Nazism and Communism that has put mankind in peril? America was at fault? C'mom. Communism has killed 150 million civilians … 150 million.

      America together with the British Commonwealth saved the world from totalitarian oppression. We defeated one totalitarian power in WWII and held the other in check until it fell 50 years later. The world owes America big time.

      Today the world faces a new threat from a vicious form of religious totalitarianism.

      There's an important debate over whether we should be the police of the world. We shouldn't and needn't. But there should be no debate of the honorable nature of our actions. We may be too generous (and I think we are) but there's no need to vilify our tradition. Paul misses a great opportunity to help lessen the burden and reduce our role in foreign affairs. By going over to the bash-America-first side he makes a fool of himself and his position.

      • intrcptr2

        The problem these days, Jason, is that the "progressives" are no longer christianized, as they first were in 1900, so there is no longer any idea of noblesse oblige; with great power comes great responsibility IS NOT Spider-Man's mantra, but rather Teddy Roosevelt's.

        It is less a question of "should" we be an international police force, but rather if not us, then who? Our free market institutions, built on and nurtured by our Western mindset, have created wealth on a scale unimagined when Jefferson and Hamilton were arguing over the bank. But history has proven Hamilton right; industrializing enables everyone to have more of what they need and what they want. And if we have managed to get, or make, it first, then it is morally incumbent upon us to share both the wealth we have made (And I mean this in an economic sense, rather than a welfare-based, political sense), AND more importantly the knowledge and tools that have enabled us to do it.

        Someone will rule the world. The question during the Cold War centered on the conflict between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Today it is between, frankly, Muhammad and Jesus (Or if you prefer, St. Paul and Socrates). And you are correct, our Anglo-Saxon "empire" has been the most salutary one in human history.

        Take your pick.

        • dr pepper

          Last century there was another guy who brought that kind of peace. His name was Chamberlain. I wonder if Ron Paul supporters ever heard this name.

          • MarkLassiter

            Gee, the same Chamberlain who declared war on Germany when Hitler went too far? That Chamberlain? The same Chamberlain whose peace deal at Munich gave the British another 11 months to re-arm? That Chamberlain?

          • SpiritOf1683

            Britain only started to take Hitler seriously and started its rearmament progaramme after Hitler's armies marched into Prague in March 1939 – less than six months before the war. Until then, Chamberlain really believed he had achieved 'peace in our time'.

        • JasonPappas

          You are implying that we are or should be the de facto world government. I'd argue with that. However, as we discuss our differences I believe we would both maintain that America is honorable in intent and can take pride in its general behavior. The question isn't honor–which is above reproach–but whether are efforts our prudent. Prudence is one of the four classical virtues together with justice, courage, and temperance.

          Ron Paul insults our honor! He is with the far left in his anti-American attacks.

          • intrcptr2

            Hmm, didn't think I was…

            What I was trying to point out is that the original Progressives were intent in passing the blessings and rewards on to those less fortunate, ie The Social Gospel. This played out in foreign affairs in a number of ways, like Teddy's Nobel Prize winning negotiations which ended the Nippo-Russia war in 1905 (Far cry from Obama's, what?).

            There is no question in my mind; on balance, America has been the most benevolent empire the world has yet seen. I would further argue that such a dynamic stems directly from our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage, one which Ron Paul and Progressives deny and reject.

            The question of exercising our power is moot; we do, in myriad ways. The question is ought we do it randomly and haphazardly, or ought we direct our energies to improving the lives of those who do not have the good fortune to live here (Preferrably without removing our borders)?
            A century ago, this latter position was largely agreed upon as a policy stance. It was not till after WWI that American leaders withdrew from such a pro-active stance. The fruit of that shift was Smoot-Hawley, Nanking, the Sudetenland, and Pearl Harbor.
            I think right now we are at a similar position, arguing out whether we engage the world or withdraw from it. Paul argues we should just stay here and watch. I am rather dubious of such thinking, although I am also not pleased with our late attempts at engagement either (Bosnia, Iran, Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor, Tibet, Taiwan).

            I agree too, we need to find leaders who appreciate virtue/arete.

          • JasonPappas

            Ah, your point was more subtle that I realized. Yes, we have been benevolent and indeed some would say over generous.

            I'm not sure Ron Paul, who is a devout Christian, would agree that we've rejected Christian principles but that would be an interesting and respectful debate. Paul and the Paulbots are too busy vilifying our nation that any civil debate is no longer possible.

            Hmmmm, I wonder, perhaps it is because Ron Paul is a Christian and accepts the imperative to help others that he can't just say "leave them to suffer on their own" but has to say "look at the harm we are causing them." He has to find the only acceptable motivation for our withdrawal from the world, i.e. we are the problem and do great harm. What do you think? Do you think he is having problems squaring isolationism with the Christian imperative to go and do good?

          • Alexander Gofen

            intrcptr2 and JasonPappa,

            I love the reasoning of you both.

            Yes, a superpower would exist in the world anyway, and let it better be America than anybody else.

            Unfortunately, the recent (in fact all) actions of America were hectic rather than well motivated strategically (on the decades or even century scale).

            The military exercises of the recent decades were exactly hectic or worse. Islamic war could be ended on 9/12/2001 by nuking Mecca and Medina (without losing one American soldier).

            As to "Christianity" of Mr. Paul, he could not care less about preservation of the Christian national identity of America. In fact, he does not even acknowledge that America is an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation. In fact he paves the way for islamization of America even more.

      • guest

        Herman Cain said that America needs to sit down and figure out who its friends and enemies are. If Paul ever does this, the country will go into cardiac arrest upon finding his results.

  • thomas

    Oh yeah..because a foreign policy of peace and commerce is somehow destructive. This old recycled war mongering and distortions are really getting old. Ron Paul stands for freedom and peace….both of which the Lord would approve.

    All this garbage coming from Harvard lawyer..why am I not surprised..I dont know what they teach you guys over there, but it always seems that the most evil propagandists come from Harvard. Ron Paul is going to win Iowa and possibly the Presidency, even if he doesnt, he has changed the discussion forever and a whole new generation of peace and freedom loving activists are now on their way to government to make positive changes. Either way Ron Paul will win, even if he loses the Presidency. Suck on that one for a while and go back to your UN masters and admit total failure :P


      'new generation of peace'

      Ezekiel 13:10 "Because, even because they have seduced My People, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:"

      • FriendofGaryCooper

        Right on Mad Jewess! Why not Ron Paul? Because his phrase "minding our own business" is code for delivering the world to a world-wide Islamic Caliphate. THAT is the price for "minding our own business."

  • Ben H

    Your views are out of the mainstream. We want freedom and peace. We want Ron Paul.

    • MarkLassiter

      Horowitz who runs this site wants to serve his real homeland of Israel, in contrast Ron Paul's only homeland is the USA.

      • MAD JEWESS

        Horowitz had never even been to Israel, read his books.
        Read "the Race card", the Radical Son"

        IF you want people to listen to you, you can begin by listening to other people.

        • MarkLassiter

          Horowitz is a Jew serving the tribal Zionist interests of his people, he has racial motives for opposing Ron Paul's foreign policy.

          • MAD JEWESS

            You are a dolt.
            Got that?
            "Tribal Zionists? Eh?
            Tell us about GWB, the "Tribal Zionist" who kicked over 8k Israelis out of their homes:

            Go march with your other pink swatsticka boyz.

    • intrcptr2

      If JK's views are out of the mainstream, then why did Paul's own constituents force him to support the war in Afghanistan? Why was he the only Congressman to vote against a resolution condemning a foreign leader from swearing destruction to a soverign member of the UN? Why is he the only major politician saying these things?

      You lie. You want peace and freedom, for yourself. That is radically, dangerously different from wanting those things for everyone. It is also cowardly. The US military has spent decades freeing people across the globe.
      Yes, there have been instances when our leaders have played Realpolitik. But go on Wikipedia and read up on how many totalitarian regimes there are today compared to 40 years ago. And pay close attention to the role the US played in those changes.

      Ron Paul is a throwback to a by-gone age. And his thoughts on Israel and palestine are reprehensible trash.


      I want GOD.

  • dfdaf

    you sir are an idiot, for every nation that the US government has liberated it has had its own interests. If the US wants to liberate a country and people, they should "liberate" the african nations that take kids as slaves and teach them to kill people at the age of 8.

    • intrcptr2

      Funny, I recall Pres Bush talking quite a bit about Dafur, but I don't recall Clinton or Obama or Carter talking or saying anything about such things; although I am aware that Obama has recently sent those ubiquitous military advisors to Kenya, interesting that, hmm?

      So which is a better motive for such things, national interest or personal interest?

  • Spock

    You, Mr. Joseph Klein, are a charlatan.

    • WildJew

      How so?

      • MAD JEWESS

        Of course, he wont answer….

  • Nakba1948

    Translate of above article: "Ron Paul isn't for endless Zionist wars and the dream of regional Israeli hegemony, so we're going to hurl every name in the book at him." The US–and indeed the world–would be a better place if Ron Paul became president. Your propaganda attempts are a day late and a dollar short. People are getting tired of you Israel-firsters and fast.

    • WildJew

      We're seeing the bitter / divisive fruit of electing a racist. You want another racist in the White House?

    • Joseph Klein

      Your name says it all. You are a Palestinian-firster whom, like Ron Paul, still doesn't believe that there should be any Jewish state of Israel at all.

      • trickyblain

        I'm not really a Paul supporter, but at the same time I despise lies. When did he say that there should not be a state of Israel? Questioning unconditional financial and military support — to the tune of billions per year — of a foreign nation is quite thing than saying that the nation has no right to exist.

      • MAD JEWESS

        Yes, he is a pali-firster and a God laster.

    • intrcptr2

      Zionist wars. That's funny.

      So Arabs are Zionists, too?

      The things I learn on this website…


      'People are getting tired of you Israel-firsters and fast.'

      God says:
      "Israel is my FIRSTborn son"

      There is no such thing as an America that 'puts Israel first.'
      Americans are worried about food, a roof.

      The Bible tells this Christian nation the ramifications of CURSING Israel, and if you do not know what can happen after the 67 borders Obama speech and then the Joplin, MO tornado, you are just a dummy that hates God.
      Which most Paulans are=God haters.

    • UCSPanther

      Translation: Ron Paul will deliver us from the Jews and throw US support behind the Iranians.

  • Logchop

    That’s some extreme hatred put into words. Absolute distortion of Ron Paul’s ideas. If this author had any real understanding of Paul’s positions this essay would read much differently. Can’t take Ron Paul down by debating issues? Ok, brand him as a wacko and hope nobody looks into him

    • Ben

      "Can't take Ron Paul down by debating issues?"

      That's what he did throughout the entire article. Did you read it.

    • dean

      i am very sad that this is how people talk to each other in this way i am a christian you should be praying that we will have a godly man as president cant you all see where our country is going if we just keep pushing god out of the way just watch what happens to usthere is a way that seems right to man but its end is death spiritual deaththis country is already spiritually bankrupt.

  • FreedomIsAbsolute

    I used to be a Republican, that is untill I found out that I was an outcast if I support Ron Paul. So I left the Republican barracks for a brighter future. I am now an Independant and will be voting for Paul and only Paul. What is funny is the republican party stands to lose a heft amount of support for coming elections for their treatment of Paul. They are appealing to only those who are upsessed with war and fear, while pushing the independant thinking republicans aside. So be it, but it is at your own peril. BTW Paul voted to go into Afghanistan you tard. Also, why is it so dangerous for the congress to declare war? I mean we havn't won a war since we declared it. Oh well, as long as shills occupy a computer or a video camera Americans will be hearing the same 'ol BS. But a lot are aware that you're full of it. We don't need you any more. Get a real job!

    • Ben

      "BTW Paul voted to go into Afghanistan you tard."

      Apparently, Paul supporters never resort to name calling. Like "tard" for example.

      You know, I have been on numerous Paul-worshiping websites and I have made the exact same point: that Paul voted not only for the war in Afghanistan, but to got to war anywhere the president chooses against anyone the president deems to have planned the attacks or anyone who sheltered the perps. Those are broad powers, a "blank check" of executive authority granted to all future presidents.

      I have been called a liar for this, and no matter how many times I show his followers the actual voting record, I am told that Ron Paul didn't really vote for that. Their excuses are ridiculous. A few of them included, 'Well, he really only voted to go after Bin Laden, nothing more." Nope, he voted for the bill as it existed, not as he would have liked to have rewritten it at a later date. (And then when someone actually did go after bin Laden, he opposed that too.) Other excuses include, "Well he proposed a bill of mark and reprisal a few months later!" Which apparently erased his vote for broad executive powers.

      Now you tell me that "Paul voted to go into Afghanistan." Yes, but according to his former aide, he was initially planning on voting no. He changed his mind at the last minute, and only because of the political price he would have had to have paid. If he had voted no, that would have been the end of his career.

      Uh…so? Isn't he the most principled man in government? Isn't he courageous? He voted for a bill that was so terrible (according to Paul followers) only to save his own hide?

      By the way, the author of this article mentioned specifically that Rp voted for the war in Afghanistan. So I don't know what record you're correcting. Your "gotcha" comeback has failed.

      Paul followers = brainwashed cult.

      • intrcptr2

        RP proposed a bill of mark and reprisal?

        And yet he maintains that our attempt to capture Osama was illegal…
        amazing stuff going on in 'is 'ead.

  • Thomas Jefferson

    Go home and wait for Ron Paul to win. Loser.

    • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

      Willard Mitt Romney campaign is full of Top Neocons
      Iowa, keep track of every vote count like a Hawk-eye.

      Don't let them turn a landslide into a photo finish.
      Remember the Ames Straw Poll fix.

  • Shayaan Matin

    Articles like this make me laugh. Fact of the matter is the evidence for conspiracy theories has been taken from a fired ex employee who clearly benefits from lapping up to the determined media outlets. The simple truth is this. An article like this simply depicts, without a doubt, that the United States is above other countries. That it is above the law, superior and unanswerable to anyone. Then it wonders why, like the completely rational quote about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda said, that people wish to retaliate. I lived in Pakistan for a long time, and I know the people out in the west, and why they're mad, and why Iran is mad… Simply put, to assume that any group is 'mental' or 'bad' is as shallow and naive as you put out Dr. Paul to be and I'm sorry that you don't seem to think much of him, but there's alot that's been said, and a lot, when analyzed from a 3rd party, that makes sense.

    • Ben

      "Fact of the matter is the evidence for conspiracy theories has been taken from a fired ex employee who clearly benefits from lapping up to the determined media outlets."

      In what way?

    • intrcptr2

      Conspiracy theories?

      RP is the only one proposing those, otherwise he would own up to all the clap-trap as his.
      Your spending time there does not "prove" that your observations are accurate. I have little doubt that those people are mad. You may notice that many of your compatriots here are also mad. The question to ask is not the presence of animosity but the reasons for it. Ron Paul is pretty clearly NOT paying attention to anything but his mirror.

      As an example, abortionists are angry at pro-lifers. But one side kills utterly defenseless humans and the other tries defending them. Who has the moral and logical right to be angry? Now go apply my little syllogism to Muslims.

      I'll be waiting…


      'Iran is mad' because the BOLSHEVIKS in Obamas administration are trying to 'protect the world' with their "Responsibility to protect" bs.
      Since you dont know what it is, go look it up

  • TJefferson

    Simple. You advocate for endless illegal foreign war. Paul believes in the rule of law and declaration of war when it's really needed, not like now where it is used as a play toy for the president.

    • Ben

      "You advocate for endless illegal foreign war.:"

      Nowhere in the article did the author advocate any such thing. Please don't make ridiculous unsupportable claims.

      "Paul believes in the rule of law and declaration of war when it's really needed, not like now where it is used as a play toy for the president."

      Both the war in iraq and the war in Afghanistan were approved by the Congress, as opposed to the one in Libya. This was not simply a case of the president going to war without the congress. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, your boy Paul actually voted YAY to the resolution. So I guess he DOESN'T believe in the rule of law and declaration of war. Is that so?

      Also, RP voted to give a blank check to the president. The September 14, 2001 resolution authorized the president to take the country to war anywhere, for an indefinite period of time, and against anyone he deems to have carried out the attacks or harbored the perps. And RP voted yes.

      Still think he cares about the rule of law?


      'You advocate for endless illegal foreign war.'
      I dont.

    • FriendofGaryCooper

      OK, Thomas Jefferson didn't want the United States to have a navy; he was opposed to any expansion in the U.S. military. But guess what? Jefferson was FORCED to have a Navy, by yes….the jihadist Barbary pirates, who made war on America for THIRTY YEARS(1785 to 1815) This was way before 1953; the Barbary pirates were carrying out JIHAD against the United States, by preying on our merchants ships. So Jefferson quit minding his own business, and declared war on these Muslim thugs. WHAT does your man,, RON PAUL, have to say about THAT?

  • Sean

    “Rep. Ron Paul believes the United States is a greedy, militaristic empire that brought 9/11 upon itself. He believes that Iran poses no threat to U.S. or Israeli security and that Iran deserves to have a nuclear weapon if it wants one. As for Israel, he does not think it should have ever come into existence as a Jewish state”

    I stopped reading after that because this guys is obviously a Ron Paul basher—someone that doesn’t like him because he’s being told to not like him not simply because he has actual disagreements.

    If you really believe that Ron Paul had NO sympathy for those that perished in the attacks, then you need your head examined. My God, is this the best you guys can do?

    • Ben

      All of his assertions about Paul are correct. He believes all of those things.

      You exhibit clear symptoms of closemindedness. "I stopped reading after that…"

      Yes, despite the fact that Paul believes all of those things, you couldn't read further.

      "…because this guys is obviously a Ron Paul basher"

      This is common with true believers. Anyone who disagrees with them is obviously incapable of making criticisms because they disagree. What you are essentially saying is that this guy's criticism can't be taken seriously because he's critical of Ron Paul.

      How about this. You aren't to be taken seriously because you're obviously a Paulbot? Sound fair? Okay.

      • David – Australia


        It will take a paradigm shift in thinking to make a positive change to America's economy and international prestige.

        I believe RP is the kinda of freak that the world is waiting for.

        Ron Paul 2012.

        • intrcptr2

          Might I ask what sort of shift you're thinking of?

          Obama has brought one to fruition which has been gestating for decades now. The reason we are in such a morass is because this shift is the one that failed Russia in 1989.

          Of course most Americans don't really care about international prestige in the first place. And yet people continue to flock here to become Americans themselves. Yet RP would have us simply crawl into our shell and ignore the rest of the world.

          Go figure…

    • intrcptr2

      When a person argues that America had it coming, defending the motives of the terrorists, it is pretty clear where his sympathies lie.

      Politics aside, no one deserves to have a jetliner flown through his office. Suggesting that the simple reality of working in WTC2 makes one a legitimate target of war defies reason. It is also traitorous.

      Ben is right, you are a robot, incapable of the independent thought that comes from questioning what his heros say. My disagreements with Paul have to do with remembering the last 30 years of ME history, paying attention to what Islamic leaders have been saying for decades, and believing myself that nuclear proliferation is destabalizing and unwise.
      The US is the only nation to have used them, nearly 60 years ago, during a war with a nation that opened hostilites against all of her neighbors. Iran continues to claim that the "Zionist regime" will be destroyed, while at the same time working feverishly to obtain the best weapons to actually accomplish this particular will of Allah.

      Ignoring or downplaying such violent rhetoric is myopic at best, and suicidal at worst.

    • guest

      This reminds me of how people who were suspect of Obama's ties with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres were put down as Obama – bashers. Judge people in part by who they hang with and what they say to their aids and assistants, etc.

  • Juan Viche
  • Tom

    I love how nearly every comment in any ron paul bashing article is pro paul. It's like having only away fans at a home game!
    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Mary

    This article is just ugly, and so are many of the articles in "Related Posts."

    Ron Paul supporters love liberty, peace, and prosperity, and we don't hate Israel. Far from it! But we don't want our government held hostage to it, either. We believe in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. We love our armed forces, and we are finally awakening to their dilemma of fighting for causes that are not moral, so we are looking for a better way.

    Let's give peace and economic prosperity a chance, and leave the hate-mongering and war-mongering behind us, at least for four years. Join us.

    • Ben

      We love our armed forces, and we are finally awakening to their dilemma of fighting for causes that are not moral…

      Can you please tell me what's immoral about freeing people from the Taliban?

      I consider it immoral to abandon allies who have helped us to people who will extract revenge by rape and beheading against anyone who ever helped the Americans. Do you?

      • intrcptr2

        Yeah, funny how they always forget that what created the Taliban was NOT going to Afghanistan to help fight the Soviets and their stooges, but rather leaving before rebuilding the country.
        Every war we've won, we've stayed behind and helped rebuild, except Vietnam (Which responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the Dem Party) and Afghanistan, Part I. I wonder if we've left Iraq, and soon Afghanistan, too soon…

        Pity the feminazis are so silent in the face of true oppression, as opposed to being legally prevented from doing as they wish.

    • Ennis

      "Ron Paul supporters love liberty, peace, and prosperity, and we don't hate Israel."

      Ever heard of stormfront?

      • intrcptr2


    • intrcptr2

      "Join us"

      Why does this sound like Darth Vader's admontions to Luke?


      'Ron Paul supporters love liberty, peace, and prosperity, and we don't hate Israel.'
      I believe you do.
      But, Ron Pauls idead, making drugs legal and voting to repeal DADT are NOT Christian, by any stretch of the imagination.
      "War mongering"
      Is Obama (Droning in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, troops in Libya, antagonizing Egypt and demanding the ouster of Mubarrak who kept the peace with Israel for over 30 years)
      Yes, Obama is a war monger WORSE than Bush.

      I will hold my nose and vote Paul, but he does not represent Christian ideas with drugs and same sex crap.

  • Ron Paul
    • Mary

      Great video. I love that video. I wish every American would watch that video!

  • fuzzywzhe

    It's ironic that saying a man that wants to get out of the 3 wars we are in, has a destructive foreign policy – because blowing up countries, that's not a destructive foreign policy at all.

    War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc. People don't even realize what they say is Orwellian anymore.

    The United States spent 8 years supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, at a minimum, was giving Hosni Mubarak a billion dollars a year in "aid". What a country, a crazy insane country with a bunch of mush brains posing as journalists.

    • Ben

      "War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc. People don't even realize what they say is Orwellian anymore."

      No one has ever said any such thing. Could you please stop being a robot and actually engage what the author is saying? Just for once, argue with the person making the point and not the man who lives in your head.

      "The United States spent 8 years supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s,"

      This old trope. First of all "support" is an odd word to use here. It was simply a case of my enemy's enemy being my friend.

      But let's say this it was wrong to support Saddam. I guess that means that we should never change from a pro-Saddam to an anti-Saddam stance. Here's the point. We were WRONG to "support" Saddam in the 1980's, and we were RIGHT to oppose him in the 2000's. Toppling him was the RIGHT thing to do.

      Your point of view is kind of like saying that RP should support the war in Afghanistan, and indeed any other foreign adventures the CINC wants to get involved in, because he voted for it on Septemeber 14, 2001. It's hypocritical to change his mind now.

      • Adam

        Right for 8000 american soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis' to die? We gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran, Id say that was supporting him. What about the genocides in africa? We don't march in to help them. When do we draw a line? It's not robotic to be sick of this obviously hypocritical and destructive foreign policy.

        • Ben

          The number of Americans to die in Iraq was 4484, not 8000. Your figure is wrong by almost half. Yes, a lot of Iraqis died. Most of them at the hands of Baathists, al- Qaeda, and Mookie al-Sadr. In other words, the butchers of Iraqi civilians were the OPPOSITION, most of whom came from other countries.

          "We gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran". There's no evidence of that. Even if it were true, that would mean that our nation's policy was wrong THEN, not later. Let's get this straight–supporting Saddam Hussein and arming him were wrong. Toppling Saddam Hussein and disarming him was right.

          Oh, by the way, how could we have given Saddam WMD when he never had WMD? He did in fact have WMD. He never documented the destruction of it after the 1991 ceasefire as he was required to. So where did it go?

          "What about the genocides in africa? We don't march in to help them."

          This is a common argument. "if we can't help everywhere, then we shouldn't help anywhere."

          The main reason I'm opposed to it is because our military has been slashed to the bone and we can't handle another engagement right now.

          "When do we draw a line?"

          I don't know. Where does RP draw the line? He voted to give the president a blank check of executive powers. So ask him.

        • intrcptr2

          No Adam, we didn't. Try actually using your computer for once.
          Like Ben has told more than one of you mindless automatons, accepting that the policies of a previous administration were wrong, and changing course, is one of the primary reasons we have elections in the first place.
          Supporting Iraq against Iran was likely not the wisest policy. But we were not alone in that, and many nations still support regimes, like Syria and Iran, that have sworn eternal enmity to Western nations.

          If you are so upset that Washington has done so little in Africa, write your Congressman. And don't vote for Ron Paul; he has made it crystal clear that he will let those poor savages die.

      • Ennis

        "The United States spent 8 years supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s,"

        Just so you know something, Saddam Hussein’s weapons mostly came from countries that would later go on to oppose the later Iraq war. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 57% came from
        Russia, 13% from France and 12% from China. Out of all the countries that backed Saddam only 1% of that aid came from united States
        The main opponents of the Iraq war supplied over 80 times as
        many weapons as the main advocates of the war.

        • JasonPappas

          Thanks, Ennis, for the facts. Saddam, like Sadat, was originally an ally of the USSR. He rose to power in an Arab culture that favors strongmen. He represents a failed culture.

          We gave the Iraqis a chance for change but given the culture it's a long shot. We can be proud of our efforts. Paul could have given us an honest debate about over extending ourselves but instead he has just joined the far left in anti-American propaganda. How sad.

    • Ennis

      "It's ironic that saying a man that wants to get out of the 3 wars we are in"

      I'm sorry what 3 wars is the United states currently in?

  • D Ekhoff

    I hope I see the day when the Press chooses to not post this kind of opinionated babble, devoid of fact or wisdom. Each reply above runs circles around the author and actually bring in support from readers willing to think rationally. Sheeple becoming people are finding their voice and the world CAN become a better place. Ron Paul is a Brave man.

    • Ben

      "Ron Paul is a Brave man."

      He wasn't brave enough to vote against the war in Afghanistan. Spineless coward.

    • intrcptr2

      "devoid of fact"

      See, this is how quotes work, you write, I copy; simple.

      Same thing with Ron Paul's odious rantings. Facts are stubborn things, even when the speaker dislikes being called out on them.

      Denying responsibility for saying such things is not a mark of bravery or honor.

  • xyz198155

    Ron Paul simply wants to put forward his idea that War is not the solution of every problem in the world.

    Just take the example of how non violently Gandhi drove away the British from India, there is an other way.

    And believe me the US will make more friends in the world by following a non millitaristic foreign polciy than one of an aggresive millitary force.

    People will be more happy to receive flowers rather than bombs!!

    • Ben

      "Ron Paul simply wants to put forward his idea that War is not the solution of every problem in the world."

      No, he simply wants to put forward the idea that the United States is the cause of all evil in the world and that we deserved 9/11.

    • ApolloSpeaks

      Yeah, let's give Chamberlainism another chance, maybe this time it will work.

    • ApolloSpeaks

      Aren't you confusing Americanism with Islam which believes that war is the answer to establishing the universal rule of Islam: the Religion of Peace?

      • xyz198155

        The only hope we have is we change the minds of muslims, that aggression and war are not the ways… The way is not for us too to become like them… the way is for us to lead by examples in the way we live!!

    • SpiritOf1683

      And they'll be less happy to receive a rusty blade through their necks, doofuss. Ron Paul should be heading for the nuthouse, just like his supporters.


      Tell me, since Ron Paul is a 'patriot'…. Why did he not come to bat for LT COL Lakin, but DID come to bat for Manning??

    • intrcptr2

      And I suppose you think Ghandi would have succeeded in Muslim Pakistan, hmm? Do you remember all the bloodshed?

      The British were tired and broke.

      I think you might try peddling your fantasy on Al Jazeera.
      Good luck with that, too.

      • xyz198155

        So does that mean then that we continue to kill each other.


      People will be more happy to receive flowers rather than bombs!!

      Tell that to the 'peaceful' muslims

  • Joe Doe

    Of course not, they attack us because we are free and prosperous. /sarcasm
    Only half-brained person could think that after all what's happened so far.

    • Ben

      Free? yes. Prosperous? No.

      The funny thing is that Ron Paul thinks that his domestic opposition are "liberty-haters". Hey, I love liberty! Radical Muslims don't.

      Here's the default position of the radical Islamic world. Tell me if you think that they hate freedom.

      The penalty for converting to another religion from Islam is death. The penalty for homosexuality is death. A woman who are raped must provide four male witnesses to their rape or they will be considered to be a run-of-the-mill fornicator. The penalty for fornicating is death. The penalty for making a graven image of Mohammed is death. Those non-Muslim inhabitants of Muslim lands must pay a tax and accept second class citizenship or be put to death. Alcohol is prohibited. Pork is prohibited. Gambling is prohibited. Democratic processes are prohibited as well, because people might just vote for something that contradicts the Koran. No need for elected representatives to make law when Allah gave them all the law they need in one book.

      So, now do you think that they hate freedom?

      By the way, while this may be the view of "radical" Muslims, that doesn't mean that it's a small number of people. "Radical" Muslims are probably the majority of Muslims.

      Oh yes, and their long term goal is to bring every nation in the world under the yoke of Islam. After all, it is all Allah's creation and it should all rightfully belong to him. It is their duty to make it so, and they have been pursuing that goal since the 7th century.

  • J Edgar

    I feel sad for this writer's family if he really believes what he says……You're a deeply disturbed man Mr. Klein

  • Evgenia

    RON PAUL 2012!!

  • Talal

    i love how the more the media try to bury RP, the more he succeeds. from Australia, hope you win RP, i for one have had enough of violent foreign policy, and lies from all governments, you will change the landscape whether you win or lose.

    • Ben

      The media have been very supportive of RP so far. They love his foreign policy.


      'from Australia,'
      We are not interested in what AU's want

  • Jay

    How is peace destructive? You, sir, have the destructive foreign policy.

    • SpiritOf1683

      Peace is destructive when faced with the likes of Hitler and the Mohammedan savages who you and Ron Paul admires so much.

      • Paulista

        Both sides are chess-pieces of the banksters! If you can't say this, you're nothing but sheep! Baah! Baah! Baah!

  • Andrew

    3:43 – 4:10
    Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically ASKS us to leave Israel, take our troops home, etc.
    If we are truly allies with Israel, we would honor their wishes.


      America is an Israel hating country, and has been for decades

      THIS is what Bush did to Israel and they called him a "Zionist"

      • intrcptr2

        Brings tears to my eyes.

        Thanks for the link, sister.

        • MAD JEWESS

          Sad, and these IDIOTS think that America is a "Zionist" entity.. Tell me what could possibly be "Zionist" about forcing Jews out of their homes in the thousands.

          Bush did that, and we suffered Katrina 10 days later, and Paul BOTS think God does not exist.
          GOD exists and America is not 'first' with God anymore.
          We curse his little land, when all that God asks for is moral blessing, not money, just blessing.
          We cant even do that.

    • intrcptr2

      Wait, you actually think that is what Bibi is arguing here; that the US needs to remove its troops from Israel?

      Boy are you a f*cking idiot!!

      He is rhetorically contrasting Israel to other nations, like Afghanistan and Iraq (Where the US does in fact have a presence, unlike Israel), which are not fully functioning nation-states.
      He does not ask US troops to leave Israel (Curiously, we do not HAVE any troops there);…
      He is telling Congress that Israel is a political equal of the US, who does not need babying or basic instructions in self-rule.

      What is troubling is that you've gotten 9 thumbs-up from other Paulites. Apparently, the illiterate bug has bitten a good many of you.

  • guevara

    What's crazier to me is all the people who dont care about the election .They would rather watch /talk about Football allday. These are real important issues the way Ron Paul is being attacked should show any disinterested person that RP is a different kind of candidate, one we need .I love the looks I get when I wear my RP2012! shirt.Crazy ive never seen anyone else with another candidates shirt save an old obama.sorry bout the lose thoughts,ive been awake awhile.EitHER WAY RON PAUL 2012!!!!!


      Ron Paul is running for prez. People are allowed free speech and opinion.
      Did you forget this as you are pushing for liberty??

  • MeNaCeDoG

    Mr. Klein,
    here is a lesson on objectivity, it is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. You on the other hand show none of these qualities there for your "opinion" is irrelevant to the sleeping majority that is currently waking up.

  • Scattel2z

    Why does everyone who writes inaccurate information about Ron Paul have to be Jewish? Is there honestly a Jewish media conspiracy going on in America? I don't want to believe it but the facts remain very clear that if you find inaccurate information about Ron Paul then the author is Jewish.

    • Ben

      Can you please tell me which part of this article was inaccurate? Is it inaccurate, or something you just don't like to hear?

    • Joseph Klein

      Jewish conspiracy? Maybe we have found the author of the Ron Paul newsletters.

      • intrcptr2

        Wait; do mean,…the Elders?

        The Elders wrote the Ron Paul newsletter, forseeing that they would be able to propel him to the forefront in this election cycle, for the sole purpose of kneecapping him to destroy once and forever all this antisemitic, conspiracy talk.




      There is such a thing called FREE SPEECH that has zero to do with being a JEW.

      • intrcptr2

        It might be possible that the Jew prefers free speech more than the goyim. It certainly appears that way reading this thread, anyway.

        • MAD JEWESS

          You have a problem being a 'goyim?' I have no problem whatsoever with being a 1/2 goyim.

          Looks to me like you are allowed to say exactly what you want here- I AM REPLYING to you.

          • intrcptr2

            Not at all, which is a good thing since I'm 100% goy. Unless you consider worsiping a Jewish carpenter "Jewish".

            Just an attempt at levity, pointing out that the bulk of comments today seem to be coming from folks who really like Ron Paul, and they almost universally believe (Have been brainwashed) that "The Jews" are the problem, especially when it comes to critiquing his stance concerning Ha'Aretz Israel.

            Other than the fact that reading their drivel gets tiring, I prefer to bring such things into the light so it can be exposed for what it is.

  • PatRedstone

    As an independent and the parent of a serviceman, Ron Paul is the only candidate I will endorse. Ron Paul 2012! The People are Rising!!

  • PatRedstone

    As an independent and the parent of a serviceman Ron Paul is the only candidate I will endorse.


      Great for you.. Tell it to the Marines, who have to watch other Marines kiss (same sex), Paul voted to repeal DADT so that 'gays' could serve openly.

  • SOB

    I can't even read past the opening lie that says Ron Paul believes Iran poses no threat to the US or Israel. He just doesn't want simple minded folk trumping up the threat to start another war. That's what makes him great. He knows there's a threat (the size is debatable) but how do we deal with it is where you disagree. Terrible and misinformed piece, just one more to pile on the coordinated attack. Here's hoping you all fail.

    • Ben

      "I can't even read past the opening lie that says Ron Paul believes Iran poses no threat to the US or Israel."

      I believe you that you didn't read past the first line. Your ignorant worship of this man won't allow you to read opposing opinions.

      A quick google search reveals that Ron Paul has said this over and over again on the campaign trail. "Iran is no threat to us" is one of his recurring themes. Maybe, if you were a good Ron Paul supporter, you would know what your favorite candidate actually believes.

      Ron Paul: "I think what’s going on now is not too dissimilar with Iran. Iran is not a physical threat to us. They do not have capabilities. The stories you might hear about them being on the verge of a nuclear weapon is not true by our CIA and by the United Nations they are not on the verge of it."

      • SOB

        Ben, not all threats are physical? That's not what this article is saying. It says threats. Don't mistake my lack of desire to read another unoriginal hit piece as destain for opposing views. I have already read this article so many times by countless authors that it hardly composes an opposing view. At least not one I haven't already read. No, the ignorance is all yours for playing semantics and wrongful attribution of blind worship. Now that seems closed minded.

        • Ben

          SOB, are you honestly trying to tell me that RP has not said, over and over again, in many different forums, that Iran is NOT a threat to us? How about every Republican debate this election season?

          You do not understand what your candidate believes. And now you are playing silly semantic games, just like RP. He uses weasel words so that he cannot be pegged down to an actual position.

          • SOB

            In context: when all the "bomb Iran" saber rattling is going on in a debate in response to a specific Nuclear threat. (that is the argument) "Iran poses no threat" to the US that warrants military response. That's what he is saying. I read everything (or make an attempt to) about Dr. Paul. I fully understand his position and I agree with it. Your position is no one can possibly agree with it. If they did the would see how crazy I and the rush, hannity, o'riellys of the world see it. It's just not true.

    • Ben

      Also, RP holds two conflicting beliefs about Iran.

      The first is that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Nope, the UN says so. The CIA says so. Iran has no nuclear ambitions.

      The second is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are only a reaction to American foreign policy. They feel threatened by us and our ally Israel. he claims that Israel has nukes, which may be true. It's possible that they have some secret nukes stashed away. It's alos possible that Iran has a secret nuclear program.

      I just want to ask him, Which is it? he can't have it both ways. Either Iran has no nuclear ambitions or it's arming to defend itself from the evil USA and evil Israel. One or the other.

      In either case, you're too ignorant and closeminded to have any real discussion on RP and his policy positions. You don't even know what they are. You actually consider it a "lie" to say that RP thinks Iran is harmless. How many times has he said it?!!!

      • SOB

        Oh, Ben,
        So much anger. I have real discussion with very intelligent fellow military officers who disagree with me about Dr Paul's foreign policy. I'm cool with that. What I am doing is voicing my opinion. The very right I have been fighting for in 15 years of service. And defending yours. You play semantics again. Dr. Paul's message is quite clear. Iran's nuke ambitions are no different than anyone else's. Pakistan, India. What would you have us do. Start another war we have no money for? Then Congress needs to declare it. It's not rocket science.

        • Ben

          I'm a veteran too, SOB. Joined on my eighteenth birthday.

          "What I am doing is voicing my opinion. The very right I have been fighting for in 15 years of service. And defending yours."

          Yup. Got it. You're voicing your opinion, I'm, voicing mine and no one is running to the government to gag the other. And so no one's free speech is threatened. Nice try though. You're implying that because I've found an actual quote from your hero that disputes your unsupported and unsupportable opinion, that I hate free speech. I'm such an evil person, trying to gag a veteran of fifteen years! Sorry. I'm just setting the record straight. So don't be condescending.

          "You play semantics again."

          Please tell me where. Semantics is essential word games. What word games am I playing?

          "Iran's nuke ambitions are no different than anyone else's. Pakistan, India."

          WHAT NUCLEAR AMBITIONS? According to your hero, Iran has none.

          Well, he's wrong of course. And guess what? Pakistan and India don't have nuclear "ambitions". That would imply that they're itching to join the club of nuclear powers. Actually, they're already members. And while I'm not entirely comfortable with Pakistan having nukes, there isn't much I can do about it. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? That because Pakistan has nuclear weapons that means that we have nothing to fear from Iranians having nuclear weapons?

          Of course, there is one main difference. Iran has stated specirfically that they want to wipe Israel off the map. They're essentially broadcasting their offensive intentions.

          • SOB

            Thanks for your service.
            "don't be so condescending"– Never said you were a bad person,blah blah free speech. I was only giving you context in regards to the military background. I have been overseas for 5 straight years this Feb and while I love being overseas and seeing the world, I get to see first hand the impacts of our foreign policy… And…You started with the condescending:). The point is, politicians are so quick to write checks that our bodies have to cash. Dr. Paul IMHO is the only one not taking that lightly.
            I'm not overly concerned with Iran. Israel has plenty of nukes to protect itself. Its about time we get some return on that investment. If you want to buy into the hatred and fear go ahead. History has played many of these scenarios out preemptive strike was the least successful.
            Ben, we can talk about other countries problems all year long but what about ours? If we don't fix our economy there will be no military to defend us. The only one talking about real solutions to the bigger issue is Dr. Paul. So pick your poison, which is the bigger threat? Collapse of the county from within, or an attack from a 2nd/3rd world country?

            The semantics you play is taking direct quotes without context of the entire conversation. It's a sound bite world and you can find quotes to paint any picture you want. I voted for Paul in 2008. I know and understand perfectly what He's about.

            Thanks for discourse, I would have enjoyed serving with you!

  • joe

    I did not know an American president or citizen was supposed to swear alligence with Israel. Is that in the constitution?
    Oh dear me. Israel is so wonderful? Its my friend.
    What hog wash.
    For too long America has become a pawn of Israel. For too long we have supported Israel and its racist murdering and oppressive policies towards the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Who do you think you are. Israel is no different than Nazis in the way it treats the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Dropping white phosphorous on children shame. How disgusting.
    Finally America is waking up to your lies. America owes Israel nothing. It is Israel who owes America everything. This is so sick and twisted. A Palestinian rocket comes in with maybe a 1 pound war, many times none. What is Israels response 30 tons of bombs and shooting of rock throwing children from tanks.

    • Ennis

      Let me ask ya something Joe, How do those poor downtrodden Palestinians treat their homosexuals in comparison to Israel? Do they let them have Gay pride parades, have civil right laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination or harassment and allow consensual same-sex sexual acts?


      I did not know an American president or citizen was supposed to swear alligence with Israel.

      I didnt know this was done, can you provide a link?
      Also, WE are not the friend of ISRAEL, not the vc versa.
      Israel does not come to our country and kick citizens out of their homes in AZ so that the illegals can have them.
      America does that to Israel-WE own them an apology.
      Gaza has a shopping mall, hotels, etc.
      You've been lied to about that, and you believe it because you

  • bball569

    Wow. Just wow.

    This isn't merely smearing… it's downright stupid. It would take too much of my time to actually pick apart each unintelligent and blatantly false remark in this article.

    • Ben

      "It would take too much of my time to actually pick apart each unintelligent and blatantly false remark in this article."

      No one else has either. They've simply resorted to the "you're just trying to keep a good man down" defense.

      I would appreciate a real discussion of the issues with a Ron Paul supporter. I have never had one because they are incapable of it.

  • Alexander Gofen

    The greatest tragedy of America is that in this 3rd year of Obama/Soetoro coup, the best opposition we have is represented by these so called "front runners"! A crook guiding the crooks… Some of them may be right on one issue (yet wrong on everything else).

    Mr. Paul may be right on the gold money. And he was right (and alone among the rest of the crooks) expressing his concern that a new "anti-terrorist" bill (allowing unlimited detention without a due process) now applies already to … American citizens on American soil!

    That said, he is completely ignorant about islam and the war waged by islam against the non-islamic world by every mean.

    Worse: Mr. Paul negates the exclusive
    Judeo-Christian national identity of America! Mr. Paul's "understanding" of the US Constitution is no different than that of the Lefts: as though America is not specifically Christian nation, but also islamic (and whatever in the world) nation. As though the 1st Amendment protects islam in America giving islam a free pass for proselytization.

    In his speeches Ron Dhimmy Paul demonstrated himself as an islamic apologist, who gladly paves the way for islamization of America even more! The so called "non-interventionist" Mr. Paul has nothing against intervention of islam into the US by every mean!

    This alone disqualifies Ron Dhimmy Paul to represent America. His negligence to Israel is a consequence of his misunderstanding of the American national identity.

    • intrcptr2

      As usual, another healthy response. thank you

      I too, agree that the PATRIOT Act has not been positive for America and should be dumped, immediately.
      We should sit down and write from scratch a proper, systematic legal framework for dealing with such threats. The way the Act is written is a treasure trove for abuse.

      But I also agree that Paul is utterly blinkered as regards Islam and America both.
      But then, I think, too, our last two presidents have had a very tenuous grasp of such things.

      • Alexander Gofen

        Thank you for your sober voice in this quire of Paulbots.

        "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
        It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
        John Adams, October 11, 1798

        Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people
        adhering to the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith and living on an isolated continent.
        It is wholly inadequate to the government and people of any other faith.
        It is wholly inadequate under conditions of wide openness to hostile ideologies and people carrying them.
        2011 update.

  • DirkReynolds

    This is what desperation sounds like.

  • Cody

    When did he say Israel shouldn't have become an independent state? If that's from the newsletters that it's invalid because he did not write them and disavows those things. This article is ridiculous, it's hilarious how hard the media's trying here. Try and think of why Anti-Americanism is on the rise all over the world. Ya know when he says America brought it on itself it's not the peoples fault. It's a handful of criminals in control of things. It's the military industrial complex. It's simple logic, hell our own CIA is the one's that said that's why we got attacked. It's like you people wrap total evil in the American flag and all the sudden it's patriotic. No, real freedoms, morality, and peace is something to proud of. And if that's what we ought to be thinking of when we look at that flag. And, of course the men and women who have died in the defense of this country. But, we should not be sending our young people into battle for corporate interest. The mainstream foreign policy is destructive and will lead to our downfall. JUST STUDY HISTORY. You know Sweden is a free country but does it have 900 bases all around the world?!

    • Ben

      "If that's from the newsletters that it's invalid because he did not write them and disavows those things."

      You're more than a little gullible if you believe that Ron Paul didn't write his own newsletters. Every explanation he has offered has fallen apart in tatters.

      By the way, Islmaists are attacking Sweden too:

      • intrcptr2

        Sweden. It's always Sweden. Why is that?

        Why is it no one ever emmigrates there?

        And by the way, it does not matter who penned those newsletters (This somehow sounds like Obama's lie; I wasn't there that Sunday), his name is on the masthead, he is responsible for everything that newsletter published.

        If he wishes to state his true beliefs (You know, by, like, creating a website), not one of us is stopping him.

  • martyblueyes

    delete your mothers ass scumbag

  • martyblueyes

    warmongering garbage. Go to hell.

  • martyblueyes

    This is the worst Anti American garbage I have ever read

  • Jeremy

    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government!" – Ron Paul

  • Rango

    I am not American but certainly are worried about the never ending wars and lies….Dr Paul would bring the world hope…!!


      Tell Paul that the Muslims HANG 'gay's and he voted so the 'gays' could serve openly in the US military

  • Rango
  • Andrew

    How will repatriating thousands and thousands of troops back to America weaken her defenses? How will spending money on defensive, rather than offensive, military action make for a weaker country?

    You sir, are a moron.

    Ron Paul 2012

    • Ben

      Because the Islamic jihadists will consider it a victory. America is a nation of cowards that runs away, even when attacked!

      "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia."

      OBL called the US military "a paper tiger" who runs in defeat after a few blows. Cutting and running emboldened him.

      We are weak and we always run. So let's stop running. Hmmm? Well, that's not the Ron Paul policy. The Ron Paul policy is that we haven't run enough, and only more cowardly retreats will secure the peace. After all, when the Islamists see us rereat from the battlefield they will enjoy our sign of good will and leave us alone.

      Okay. If you believe that, you're not all there.

    • Ben

      "How will spending money on defensive, rather than offensive, military action make for a weaker country?"

      You make it sound as if RP really wants to increase the size and budget of the military, but only at home. Nope. He wants to cut and run and then devour the defense budget. So no, he isn't for "spending money on defensive, rather than offensive, military action."

      By the way, the military is awfully good at repelleling conventional land invasions. They aren't much good at combatting terrorist campaigns. The biggest army in the world couldn't have stopped 9/11.

      Ron Paul likes to pretend he's tough on defense because he wants to "bring the troops home". How does that work? Will the terrorists form battalions and land on the coast in ampibious troop carriers? No.


      Why has not Paul secured the border in TX? He has been in congress…how many times?

  • mitcheg

    Please take attention that this author is a member of the CFR, "Council on Foreign Relations" a 'think tank' with very very dubious goals. Goal counter aligned with the constitution. In fact, just take a look at why the CFR even exists, what it has done since 1921, and then you will understand why, every single Jewish journalist lies about Ron Paul… These guys are bough and paid for. 100% bought.


      every single Jewish journalist lies about Ron Paul.

      I see many non Jews that write not in favor of Ron Paul-so, they lie too.
      You are an idiot.

  • burt reynolds

    the worst article i've ever read. be ashamed of yourself for writing such distasteful nonsense.


      Well, burt, you have your freedom to say that, and Klein has his freedom to write what he thinks

  • Doug

    You lost me at “Nevertheless…”

    What I hope you will one day realize is that you should replace the word with “Therefore, Ron Paul is a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.”

    We are tired of sending our money, our brothers, our best friends, off to die so that we can bully the world. We are sick of being lied to, of being spied on, of every day losing more of the personal freedoms that this country was founded on.

    We’re mature adults. We can handle the truth. We can handle someone who says, “We’re heading in a bad direction. Fixing it is going to suck. It’s going to hurt. We’re all going to have to cut back, make some sacrifices. But dammit, it’s worth it before we reach rock bottom and self destruct.”

    I like America. I want it to last. At the current rate of things, I don’t think it will much longer. And I am convinced that Ron Paul is the ONLY serious politician who’s interested in getting it back on track.

  • Addy

    One of the mos logical voices among the presidential candidates. Until now ,American foreign policy has been indeed destructive. Examples from Afghanistan to Middle East(not mentioning Latin America). Time for US to focus on its own people

  • John

    Who on earth would ever support Ron Paul? Lets take a look at his top contributors, my guess would be: 1)Al Qaeda, 2)north korea, 3)the nazi's

  • john

    Who on earth would ever support Ron Paul?