I decided to sit down and write a piece on Ron Paul. Why you ask...after all, I know his cult followers will have some contrived response to anything mentioned in this article. But, I have some questions for the Libertarian who masquerades as a Republican.
His supporters always talk about their guy NOT being an Isolationist, but that he doesn't believe involved with every conflict across the world. Now, I agree with this assessment, but his irresponsible responses to the attacks of 9/11 and his vocal opposition to US foreign policy is not only dangerous, but very naive. So, a few questions for the Neville Chamberlain of this era:
First, Ron Paul is critical of our engagement in Afghanistan. In fact, our intervention in the Middle East prompted a response from Mr. Paul that was used by our enemies on Al Jazeera radio. His supporters undoubtedly will have some phony response to these comments being used by our enemy as propaganda against the United States. Bottom line, we can not have a guy running for President whose words are used against those who seek our destruction. Of course, 9/11 was the fault of the US, so I guess Ron Paul doesn't mind being quoted by terrorists.
More to the point: when talking to some of his most rabid supporters, I said that Paul voted to go to Afghanistan to fight the War on Terror. Being brilliant, these Paulies said that we can not "fight terrorism". Man, they are smart. Terrorism is something used to instill fear in people, but we can still fight those who seek to bring terrorism to our shores. This is a tough concept for them to grasp, I know. Also in the same conversation, the supporter also told me that Paul agreed to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11, but that he really didn't vote for the war in Afghanistan? Wait, what? He wanted to get those who attacked our country, but didn't know that we were going to Afghanistan to do it? Mr. Paul, those that actually attacked our nation died in the attacks, so you won't find them to "bring them to justice". But second, how you vote for "get those responsible for the attacks" and yet, criticize the way we fought them? What would Mr. Paul have wanted us to do? Find them, give them due process and lock them in an American prison so that they get special rights only granted to American citizens? Drop bombs on the countries responsible...oh, wait, no country was responsible, so never mind. But, he would have used Special Operations forces to get the bad guys. Oh really? Is this why Ron Paul whined when we sent our Navy Seals to go and kill Bin Laden (get ready for their conspiracy theories about this too)? Ron Paul has no clue.
The next issue focused on how Ron Paul and Benjamin Netanyahu feel the same about US aid an influence in Israel. Paul, who can't hold a candle to Bibi, claims that Netanyahu says that they can take care of themselves. While yes, Bibi said this, in typical Paul fashion he didn't use the quote in context. PM Netanyahu was responding directly to the misguided policies of the Obama Administration. Ron Paul knows this, but he has to use Netanyahu's words to make it seem like he really ISN'T throwing Israel under the bus. This being said, as President, if Israel attacked Iran, would Paul support the Israelis? If Netanyahu called and asked for American assistance, would Ron Paul heed the call? If Iran overruns Iraq, what would Paul do? Since he tries to convince us that Radical Islam isn't a threat, he would do nothing. He would essentially be Nero while our enemies are defeated and the Middle East becomes increasingly dangerous, not only to Israel, bu to the US. The answer is, quite frankly, that Ron Paul would do nothing.
What would Ron Paul have done to bring down the Soviet Union? Nothing. Lord knows, he wouldn't have put Pershing missiles in Eastern Europe. We know he would have taken a hands off approach while the Red Army gained strength? And, what if he was around for the Second World War? Would Ron "Neville Chamberlain" Paul have gone to war? Or, would he have let Europe and our allies fend for themselves as the Nazis ran roughshod over Europe? Would he have come to the said of Britain or watched from the sidelines since "Germany didn't attack the US". My guess is that Ron Paul would have stood up on the floor of the House screaming about the FED, Liberty, the Constitution and how the US was causing all of the problems in the world.
Bottom line, these are questions that need to be answered. No, we can not and should not be in every engagement (most notably, Libya). However, rather than acting like his friends in Code Pink, by openly criticizing US foreign policy, Ron Paul should actively support our efforts in the fight against our enemies. I know this is a pipe dream as Mr. "if we simply left the Muslims alone we wouldn't have been attacked" has no clue about how to protect our nation. This, among other reasons that I will address in later blogs, is a key reason that I will NEVER support Mr. Paul for President. Now, let the Paulie attack dogs start spinning. This should be fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment