No Wonder All the Malcontents Love Ron Paul

It’s no wonder all the malcontents love Ron Paul. On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, he propounded the naïve idea that the attacks of September 11 were, at least partially, America’s fault.

“They attacked us here because we were over there,” he said, referring to the U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia.

The idea, like all blaming-of-the-victim, is naïve because it presupposes that evil does not exist. It seeks to explain all negativity as arising from misunderstanding, which is just as simple-minded as believing all negative behavior is the result of premeditated cruelty.

The guy is really something. In the noble tradition of losers who spend their time trying to tear down people more successful than themselves, Paul has called George H.W. Bush a “bum” and Ronald Reagan a “loser” (although he later claimed the latter was not [his] word, whatever that means). But Paul’s political backseat driving reached a crescendo of absurdity Sunday when he condemned Abraham Lincoln for fighting the civil war.

The best that could be said of his positions is they are true to libertarian principle, and it would appear his crazy ideas are not adopted out of malice. But he still winds up sounding like he’s been locked in the bathroom reading Atlas Shrugged for a few hours too long.

This entry was written by and posted on December 25, 2007 at 9:19 pm and filed under Blog.

3 responses to No Wonder All the Malcontents Love Ron Paul
  • 1.

    Spencer

    December 26, 2007 at 12:36 am


    It is sad that you call yourself a "journalist," as you reflect poorly on your profession.

    As for blaming America for 9/11, that is a misstatement of Ron Paul's position. Ron Paul says that we need to understand the motivations of the murderous attackers because it is the only way to understand how to prevent future attacks and make America safer. Further, when Ron Paul notes the reasons America was attacked, he never criticizes the American people, he always criticizes our "leaders" who make decisions regarding foreign policy that endanger Americans.

    He criticized Lincoln because Lincoln did what no other civilized nation on earth had to do in order to free slaves. As he noted, the British merely outlawed the trade and paid slaveowners to manumit their slaves; the Brazilians did the same. Only the United States and Haiti required violence to free slaves; the United States paid a terrible price -- over 600,000 dead -- and the result was Jim Crow laws and more than 100 years of unequal treatment of the freed slaves. Yeah, Ron Paul sounds crazy alright. Heaven forbid he criticize Abe Lincoln and his warmongering, income-taxing ways.

    George H.W. Bush was a terrible president who took us to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, left the job half done by not getting rid of Saddam, ditched our allies, the Kurds, leaving them to be tortured and killed by Saddam, and broke his "no new taxes" pledge. Calling him a bum isn't an insult, it is an accurate label.

    By calling Reagan a "failure," Ron Paul explained that it was because Reagan failed to shrink the size of the federal government, despite campaigning on a platform of cutting federal taxes and spending. While Reagan ran as a fiscal conservative, he governed in a way that led to the explosion of the national debt and failed to pursue the goals for which he was elected.

    Ron Paul sure is "crazy" when you compare him to Lincoln, Bush, Sr., and Reagan.

  • 2.

    TJ

    December 26, 2007 at 12:34 am


    "And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard."

    - Osama Bin Laden, September 2007



    Michael Scheuer, the former HEAD ANALYST at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Republican Presidential debate held Tuesday May 15, when Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in the 9/11 attacks.

    “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Paul said. He was then denounced by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who said it was “absurd” and that he’d “never” heard such a thing before demanding a retraction.

    In an interview with Antiwar.com’s Antiwar Radio on May 18, Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

    Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement.

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul


    “Well, you know, the only people taking ‘marching orders’ from Osama bin Laden, as far as I can tell, are every presidential candidate (Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush) except Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul has it very square about what the motivation of our enemy is, and it’s certainly exactly what he said it is, intervention. …

    “Really, it is the American political establishment that is marching to al Qaeda’s beat, not Mr. Paul.”

    Michael Scheuer, former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/10/michael-scheuer-3/


    Michael Scheuer on Fox News:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZNfuIvtLos

  • 3.

    Freedom2Learn

    December 26, 2007 at 12:26 am


    You said this: It’s no wonder all the malcontents love Ron Paul. On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, he propounded the naïve idea that the attacks of September 11 were, at least partially, America’s fault.


    First, if you are going to try to get the Ron Paul boost to your blogg, at least write something that is not so obviously fake. Why do you "People" keep writing things as if you know what you are talking about?

    For example, Give me a break! This stupid broad stroked, Ron Paul bashing stuff is poor writing. Listen up all you want to be Ron Paul-bashing Bloggers" The problem is the POLICY not America. Let me say that again. It is not America's fault. Its the politicians who carry out the POLICY. Not the American people's Fault. Which is what you say when you write:"America’s fault" ...It is the FAULT of the Policy, American foreign policy. Big difference. Any questions. Now you see why the rest of your writing is just a waste. Garbage in garbage out.

1 trackback/pingback

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


+ 9 = 10