Ron Paul is Making Sense

Here's the video. He's pointing out that the people now telling us something awful will happen if we leave Iraq are the very people whose dim understanding of Iraq has us in the current jam:

Ronpaul
Uploaded by krs601

The best part of the clip, though, is when Mitt Romney interrupts with the nonsensical question "has he forgotten 9/11?" I'm not sure anything better sums up the vacuity of conventional present-day conservative thinking about national security than that intervention: the presumption that, somehow, endless invocations of that horrible crime will justify anything at all, no matter how unrelated, how pointless, or how counterproductive it may be.

Comments

I don't know if vacuity is the right word. Some really seem to believe that 9/11 was the opening salvo in what will be a long twilight death match between the Islamic "caliphate" and the american way of life. Others may be using that belief cynically, but that belief is certainly out there among Republican voters.

Posted by doug | August 6, 2007 9:06 AM

So, you're saying it's vacuous on the merits, vacuous to the majority of the electorate, and dog whistle politics to the wannabe genocidaires?

Posted by DivGuy | August 6, 2007 9:12 AM

It is reassuring that at least one Republican candidate isn't stumping for the War Without End. It's a shame he doesn't enjoy wider support; there have got to be more than a handful of conservatives out there that aren't completely nuts on this issue.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 9:15 AM

Why did we bomb Cambodia? Have you forgotten Pearl Harbor?!

Posted by Wagster | August 6, 2007 9:33 AM

He may have so sensible views about foreign policy, but unfortunately that is all he has sensible views about:

"Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues...

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TRwF3PNJObcJ:www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html+%22Newsletter+excerpts+offer+ammunition+to+Paul%E2%80%99s+opponent%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

He is also a proud critic of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Posted by Hatorade | August 6, 2007 9:56 AM

and speaking of the horrible crime of 9/11...why hasn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed been brought to justice for his crime? Which one of those candidates will see that justice is served for the victims and their families?

Posted by Blader | August 6, 2007 9:57 AM

unfortunately that is all he has sensible views about

I like him on the drug war, free trade, and civil liberties too. And the racist newsletter was ghostwritten for him, though since it went out under his name he still bears responsibility for it. He has written against racism since.

Posted by bbartlog | August 6, 2007 10:22 AM

We need more articles in major newspapers like this:

GOP rivals embrace unproven Iraq-9/11 tie

The Rs need to be confronted with articles like this on a daily basis. Sadly, the MSM rarely addresses it.

George S. should have gone after Romney for the "has he forgotten 9/11?" line. (Stolen from Rudy from a previous debate, btw) lame.

At least the Boston Globe exposed the BS for what it is.

Posted by Metacomet | August 6, 2007 10:24 AM

why hasn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed been brought to justice for his crime?

He was captured in March 2003 and is in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Posted by croatoan | August 6, 2007 10:26 AM

He was captured in March 2003 and is in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Yes. That doesn't answer the question.

Posted by Freddie | August 6, 2007 10:39 AM

Yes, but have you all forgotten 9/11?

Posted by El Cid | August 6, 2007 10:40 AM

I'm impressed Paul got applause. Wild applause even.

But if we pull out of Iraq, what do we do with our Double Guantanamo?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | August 6, 2007 10:59 AM

Its not just that it was said, its that Romney said it. He perfectly embodies the modern "I take the most safest and most predicatable position" politician.

Posted by mpowell | August 6, 2007 11:10 AM

And I need to preview my posts...

Posted by mpowell | August 6, 2007 11:11 AM

This was a very, very, impressive moment for me.

I agree that Ron Paul is out of the mainstream in a lot of his domestic policy, but I would hope that this moment is indicative of a turning point:

Paul says what has been known for years - there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, there were no WMD in Iraq, the war was unconstitutional and needs to end...

Romney comes in with "what about 9/11" and RON PAUL IS NOT SILENCED!

I feel that this is a reversal of years when the mere invocation of 9/11 was enough to drown out any sensible discourse about our foreign policy.

Bravo, Dr. Paul.

Posted by impressed | August 6, 2007 12:05 PM

Paul has said enough things on the record that make me go "hmmm" to know that I would never, ever vote for him.

I'd never vote for Al Sharpton either...but there were a number of times in the '04 campaign that I was damn glad he was running, since he was the only one willing to cut through the bullshit and say what needed to be said. I feel the same way now about Paul.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | August 6, 2007 12:13 PM

So I'm basically rooting for a Romney nomination, just so they can squeeze that idiotic "double Guantanamo" sound bite into the ads they run against him in the election. I'm pretty sure the kind of people who find that sort of talk appealing are a minority in this country. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 12:30 PM

"the people now telling us something awful will happen if we leave Iraq are the very people whose dim understanding of Iraq has us in the current jam:"

I am not unsympathetic to the argument, but as written it fails logic 101. If you are wrong about one thing you are therefore wrong about everything? I'm not persuaded. There are good arguments to get out of Iraq, but this isn't one of them.

Posted by Dave | August 6, 2007 2:05 PM

I am not unsympathetic to the argument, but as written it fails logic 101.

He's just questioning their credential. It's not meant to be a strict logic statement.

Posted by benny | August 6, 2007 2:21 PM

He may have so sensible views about foreign policy, but unfortunately that is all he has sensible views about

I wouldn't even call his foreign policy views sensible given that he advocates a return to the gold standard, pulling out of both the UN and NATO, and hunting down terrorists by issuing letters of marque.

Posted by heckblazer | August 6, 2007 2:27 PM

"He has written against racism since."

And before.

Posted by Pork Pie | August 6, 2007 3:47 PM

"I wouldn't even call his foreign policy views sensible given that he advocates a return to the gold standard"

What's wrong with a return to the gold standard --or, more precisely, a return to hard assets-backed currency, as favored by Paul?

Have you seen what's happened to our national debt since Nixon cut our currency off from gold in 1971, the act that spurred Ron Paul to enter politics?

We NEED to get away from fiat currency. Fiat currencies always fail. Our monetary policy is the foundation of all our problems but our friends in the MSM won't talk about it.

Posted by Pork Pie | August 6, 2007 3:53 PM

"I am not unsympathetic to the argument, but as written it fails logic 101. If you are wrong about one thing you are therefore wrong about everything?"

No Dave, but your credibility takes a hit in general and on that topic in particular. So not "If you are wrong about on thing you are therefore wrong about everything," but "...you are therefore more likely to be wrong about things in the future than I used to think, especially on this subject."

Posted by Pork Pie | August 6, 2007 3:56 PM

he advocates a return to the gold standard, pulling out of both the UN and NATO, and hunting down terrorists by issuing letters of marque.

Hmm, so what's wrong with the letters of marque and reprisal? Sure, they sound quaint, but looking over the idea I don't see the fundamental problem with sending mercenaries to hunt down terrorists. I guess such agents could potentially get in a lot of hot water if they ran afoul of foreign governments, but it's not like we aren't pissing people off left right and center with our current methods...

And while I don't support withdrawal from either the UN or NATO, I don't think it would be a disaster either. The collapse of the soviet menace makes NATO rather unnecessary, and the UN seems more like a safety valve for international tensions than an effective force for good...

Posted by bbartlog | August 6, 2007 4:13 PM

Doesn't he also favor abolishing the IRS? Like, just straight abolishing it.

I mean, it's kind of sad that only guys like Paul and Kucinich with nothing to lose can say anything close to reality sometimes, because they're never going to be elected. I'm really glad they're there though.

Posted by Mike | August 6, 2007 5:15 PM

Hmm, so what's wrong with the letters of marque and reprisal? Sure, they sound quaint, but looking over the idea I don't see the fundamental problem with sending mercenaries to hunt down terrorists. I guess such agents could potentially get in a lot of hot water if they ran afoul of foreign governments, but it's not like we aren't pissing people off left right and center with our current methods...

Letters of marque and reprisal have been banned for 150 years by treaty, which the US strongly supported.

See Treaty of Lisbon.

Just another antiquated piece of the Constitution that means nothing anymore, but was left in after it's obsolescence by the difficulty of the Amending Process. Another example: Do you honestly think that you have a right to jury trial for any damages exceeding the amount of 20 dollars?

BTW, no nation would accord mercenaries Geneva protections. The best you could hope for would be Euroweenies insisting on supporting treating captured American mercs violating their sovereignity as "terrorists with rights". Elsewhere, any captured American asses would be all for the invaded country to dispose of as they saw fit with little America could do short of War.

Think the line is long now of such volunteers?

There are few if any American bounty hunters out there looking for the 25 million Osama reward. There ARE American CIA and allied nation agents in Pakistan now, looking - patriotism is a stronger motivator than going in with 1 chance in a thousand you could get rich, 600 chances in 1 thousand you would end up on an Islamist video.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 6, 2007 6:30 PM

See Treaty of Lisbon.

Sure you don't mean Declaration of Paris? As far as I can tell the US hasn't signed and ratified any treaties that would disallow the use.

no nation would accord mercenaries Geneva protections

Hence our extensive use of them in Iraq (Blackwater and so on). I tend to agree that this is really the sticking point; what does the US do if some bounty hunter is caught in NW Pakistan?

patriotism is a stronger motivator

I think money is a good motivator, but the mission is clearly impractical as some sort of solo Rambo enterprise and doing it as part of a larger armed group would probably run you afoul of US law (unless you had a letter of marque and so on).

Posted by bbartlog | August 7, 2007 12:10 AM

Hmm, so what's wrong with the letters of marque and reprisal? Sure, they sound quaint, but looking over the idea I don't see the fundamental problem with sending mercenaries to hunt down terrorists. I guess such agents could potentially get in a lot of hot water if they ran afoul of foreign governments, but it's not like we aren't pissing people off left right and center with our current methods...

It would be a much better idea if Al Qaeda pirates were raiding American ships in international waters instead of blowing up an American city and then hiding inside other sovereign nations. In Afghanistan in particular having other guys fight for us helped start the whole mess there in the first place, IMO at least.

And while I don't support withdrawal from either the UN or NATO, I don't think it would be a disaster either. The collapse of the soviet menace makes NATO rather unnecessary, and the UN seems more like a safety valve for international tensions than an effective force for good...

If nothing else it would cause a big headache for the US in Afghanistan since that's a NATO operation working under a UN mandate. I wouldn't sneeze at a safety valve for international tensions either given the history that lead up to the founding of the UN.

Posted by heckblazer | August 7, 2007 3:22 AM