Thursday, May 17, 2007


My E-mail is Full of Ron Paul

I'm being inundated with Ron Paul due to his performance at the GOP debate in South Carolina, which, as I posted yesterday in my debate review, is exactly what his campaign needed.

Some of the better commentary I have received:

- Ron Paul Said It - A column by Lew Rockwell that accurately calls Giuliani a liar. (By the way, if Giuliani is a liar, then so is Ted Olson, our former Solicitor General, who parroted his master's inaccurate portrayal of Paul's remarks. Olson's fall from grace is reminiscent of Jim Brady's.)
- Ron Paul Violated the Rules - An explanation of why the GOP establishment will try to push Ron Paul to the fringe by Thomas Woods.
- Giuliani's Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat - A column by Jacob Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation that backs up Paul's claims regarding Iraq.
- Rethinking Ron Paul's Answer - From The Liberty Papers blog.
- Michigan GOP Leader Wants Paul Barred from Future Debates - Yep, now there's the GOP establishment that I loathe. Go ahead and silence Paul, GOP leadership, and say hello to Democratic control of the nation.
- In Defense of Ron Paul - Mark Radulich says in this blog post that the problem isn't with Ron Paul, it's with a dumbed down American electorate that doesn't like to think about difficult issues.

Quite an interesting list - and all of this was what arrived from 5:30 A.M. to 6:30 A.M. this morning from several different sources, including readers.

Labels: , ,

I'm kind of new to this blog, so I hope I'm not being overbearing by commenting every day. I get a kick out of it.

I'm afraid I must be part of the "dumbed down American electorate that doesn't like to think about difficult issues" because this Ron Paul rally is nonsensical to me. And why are you picking on Ted Olson? Olson's wife was killed on flight 77 when Al Qaeda destroyed the west side of the Pentagon killing hundreds of Americans in Virginia about 400 miles from here in Knoxville. I can understand why Olson takes offense at the notion that his wife's murder was justified or that it could have been prevented if the US had just capitulated to Al Qaeda's demands. I mean, for goodness sake, this is insane.

Just to maintain balance, I think Jonah Goldberg at NRO has a response to Paul that maintains a more accurate historical perspective regarding traditional conservative foreign policy.
I obviously need to start watching the debates. Or maybe I'll just stick to blogs...

Either way, the clip I saw left me flabbergasted.

I thought Paul handled himself well and Giuliani looked a bit grandiose.

Then again, we all know that I'm a bit biased toward Paul.
Daniel -

RE: Ted Olson - I used to be a big fan of Ted's. Heck, I've been a guest at his dinner table. However, Ted has sort of lost it since Barbara died and he married wife #4 (Lady Booth).

It's very sad, because a bought Giuliani puppet now stands where a national strength once stood.

As for Goldberg's column, I found it baseless the first time I read it. I just read it again, and I keep finding more holes in Jonah's arguments. I usually like Goldberg's writings, but this one is long on assumptions and lacking on facts. Essentially, Goldberg pulls the same trick that Giuliani did - put words in Ron Paul's mouth and then start beating the crap out of the strawman he has created.

I hate people that do that. Lawyers tend to do that.


Kat -

Maybe I'm a bit biased, too, but I saw the exchange as you did.


Well, you probably know Olson better than I do, but I'm certain that you don't need to be a "bought Giuliani puppet" to recognize that the US cannot be held accountable for Al Qaeda's actions.

I just reread a transcript of Ron Paul's comments, and I can't see how it could mean anything other than ... well, as Paul said to Hannity, our "policies over many years caused and elicited hatred toward us so somebody was willing to commit suicide." He is saying the US "caused" the circumstances of 9/11, "elicited" them, that US policy was the catalyst, and he goes on to specifically name particular US policies that he asserts are significant contributory factors of 9/11. So, I'm not putting words in his mouth. Please, don't take words out of his mouth.

It's one thing to say that the US shouldn't have intervened when Saddam invaded Kuwait or that post-Gulf War policies (sanctions, no-fly-zones, etc.) should have been different, or that we shouldn't have maintained bases in Saudi Arabia. It is one thing to say that some people hate the US because of these actions. But it is something else altogether to say that these actions elicit suicidal tendencies. At some point, a person has to have individual responsibility. US policy cannot account for his actions.

Now, if the 9/11 hijackers had only committed suicide this wouldn't have caused such a fuss. The problem is they killed nearly 3,000 Americans when they committed suicide, in addition to blowing up the west side of the Pentagon and demolishing the largest buildings on the eastern seaboard. These are acts of war. Would it really be a reasonable US response to say "Sorry, we caused such hatred that somebody was willing to commit suicide"? Even if Paul recognized 9/11 as an act of war, would it be a reasonable response to say "Sorry, we made you go to war with us"? What makes Paul think they would accept our appology? I may not change your mind, but I hope you'll at least grant that rational people considering Paul's views about 9/11 in good faith may find them unsatisfactory.

Plus, basing US policy on whether or not other people hate us is a catch 22. Paul is in agreement with a lot of mid-easterners (particularly the Al Qaeda ilk) in saying that US interventionism makes us disliked. However, there are as many or more people who despise the US for not intervening and allowing despicable regimes to go unchecked: like Rwanda, Darfur, Baathist Iraq prior to '03, and the list goes on. So, the US is hated whether it's interventionist or not.

Regardless, this whole line of discussion is moot because ultimately Al Qaeda is not after revenge for US policies. They have a stated political goal. They're looking to get something out of their effort. They want to reestablish a global Caliphate; i.e. like all totalitarians, they want power. Diminishing US influence in the mid-east (and ultimately destroying the "great satan") is a means toward an end for them, not an end unto itself. The war on terror is about keeping them from gaining power or the ability to impose their will on us the way they did on 9/11.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?