Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy'

[jimnyc]

What a huge surprise! Ron Paul makes headlines because of a few stances outlined in national debates, then people look at him more closely. Once they do so, most don't like the rest of him. Like I said all along, a kook.


Ron Paul is not having the best holiday season. First the media discovered racist, anti-Semitic newsletters that went out under Paul’s name in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s. Then the New York Times did a story about the support Paul draws from white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Now there’s former Paul staffer Eric Dondero purporting to describe the ins and outs of Paul’s positions on everything from Israel (it shouldn’t exist) to Hitler (we shouldn’t have fought him) to 9/11 (U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks) to Afghanistan (we shouldn’t have invaded). He calls Paul’s foreign policy “sheer lunacy.”

Or, as the conservative Weekly Standard summarized in hits headline: “Ex-Aide Says Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & Isolationist Who Thinks U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler.”

........

Still, any way you cut it, the picture Dondero paints isn’t pretty. Among his contentions:

--Paul is anti-Israel. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. 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.”

-- “He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals” and refused to use a bathroom in a gay supporter’s home.

-- “Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.” He planned to vote against the invasion despite threats of staff resignations and a constituent uproar, Dondero says; he changed his mind at the last minute.

“If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal,” he concludes.

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html

[ConHog]

What a huge surprise! Ron Paul makes headlines because of a few stances outlined in national debates, then people look at him more closely. Once they do so, most don't like the rest of him. Like I said all along, a kook.



http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html

I'm actually not certain if calling ron paul a kook is an insult to ron paul or an insult to kooks. Or both.... :laugh2:

[pegwinn]

Let's see..... These are some of his positions I like. Of course I paraphrased them because I be one serious prose writin mofo.

No going to war unless Congress actually declares one, or if we are attacked. Then the only thing to do is await the Samuel L Jackson moment and repeat "What part of waste....."

Back the currency with something of value besides thin air. RP wants gold. Me, I don't care if it's gold, a barrel of oil, or tupperware.

We don't owe anything to anyone. So, since there is no explicit wording in the Constitution to authorize charity and call it foreign aid, cut it out. If we are going to insist on spending money not authorized by the constitution lets at least do it at home.

Israel is a big boy now. Those who think we are somehow obligated to bleed red and green to the kingdom of David need to put on their big boy boxers and grow up.

As long as Alcohol and Tobacco are legal any law deeming a substance illegal is hypocritical.

And my personal favorite......

I don't care if you walk down the middle of the street butt naked, smoking a joint, carrying an unsheathed Samurai Sword, hand-in-hand with your wookie lookalike same-sex partner as long as you don't try to impose any of that on anyone else.

[Noir]

I don't know much about Ron Paul. But the answer he gave in a video posted here yesterday was nothing like --Paul is anti-Israel. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. 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.” Rather it was that he was a non-interventionist who thinks Isresl can (in its own words) and should take care of itself.

[jimnyc]

I don't know much about Ron Paul. But the answer he gave in a video posted here yesterday was nothing like --Paul is anti-Israel. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. 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.” Rather it was that he was a non-interventionist who thinks Isresl can (in its own words) and should take care of itself.

It's called "damage control" when one is running for the presidency. He told his own aide that worked for him for 12 years that he wished Israel didn't exist at all. The quote you posted above is from the exact same paragraph, only the "wish" part was the first sentence, and curiously missing.

[Kathianne]

I'm on board with this:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/12/30/is-ron-paul-a-racist/?singlepage=true


Is Ron Paul a Racist? (http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/12/30/is-ron-paul-a-racist/)

December 30, 2011 - 9:33 am - by Roger L Simon

(http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/bio/)


If Ron Paul is not a racist, he is certainly terrible at picking employees and colleagues. Paul’s excuse for the bigoted, homophobic comments in the much-discussed “Ron Paul Newsletter” of some years ago is that he didn’t write them himself. Someone else did.


But who chose those others to work with him on the “Ron Paul Newsletter”? Who vetted the writers and editors of the very articles with those horrific statements? Well, one must assume, Ron Paul.


That inability to select even marginally acceptable (non-racist) employees and colleagues should, on the face of it, disqualify Paul as a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine such a myopic individual, such a poor judge of character, choosing justices for the Supreme Court, not to mention myriad other important positions?


But that’s giving Paul the best of it. Occam’s Razor tells us Paul knew perfectly well the kind of tripe his minions were writing (if he didn’t write it himself), just as Barack Obama — despite his protestations — knew perfectly well the kind of bilge that Jeremiah Wright was spewing. In fact, they went along with it for much the same reason — political expediency — although Paul arguably believed the despicable remarks in his newsletters more than Obama ever believed Wright’s excrescences. After all, Paul’s writings (including solicitation letters) went out under his own name.


Still, the Paulites are saying, that was years ago. Give it a rest.


That’s hard because the problem runs far deeper and has contemporary ramifications. Paul’s racial bias is more complex and intense than what has already been alleged of his attitudes towards blacks and Jews. He thinks even less of Muslims. He treats the Islamic world as if they do not have views of their own, their own ideology. In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.


In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us...

[pegwinn]

From Kathianne's source


In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.


In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us...

No one on this forum is stupid enough to believe that the domino effect isn't real. This passage is insidious because it tries to imply that even if the western world had not done anything untoward at all, nothing would have changed.

And no one on this forum is stupid enough to believe that the USA and her allies didn't play God in those regions of the world where we thought we could get away with it.

It is possible that 911 would have occurred without the influence of decades (centuries?) of interferance. Possible yes. Plausible? I'm willing to go for a maybe. I'm not going to apologize for the past in the ME anymore than I will for the past as we moved westward. But, I am not stupid enough or blind enough to not at least admit that we likely had a hand in how things turned out.

[ConHog]

From Kathianne's source



No one on this forum is stupid enough to believe that the domino effect isn't real. This passage is insidious because it tries to imply that even if the western world had not done anything untoward at all, nothing would have changed.

And no one on this forum is stupid enough to believe that the USA and her allies didn't play God in those regions of the world where we thought we could get away with it.

It is possible that 911 would have occurred without the influence of decades (centuries?) of interferance. Possible yes. Plausible? I'm willing to go for a maybe. I'm not going to apologize for the past in the ME anymore than I will for the past as we moved westward. But, I am not stupid enough or blind enough to not at least admit that we likely had a hand in how things turned out.

The only problem I have with that is that the Muslims have been murdering scumbags for hundreds of years before the US even existed as a nation. Go read the history of that nation and realize that in large part the Arabs were civilized, educated,friendly people before Islam was introduced to the region. Then things went decidedly downhill.

And of course, we could look at history and see that most every country has at some time or another had an outside influence place demands on them without the people of those nations reacting with terrorism.

[pegwinn]

The only problem I have with that is that the Muslims have been murdering scumbags for hundreds of years before the US even existed as a nation. Go read the history of that nation and realize that in large part the Arabs were civilized, educated,friendly people before Islam was introduced to the region. Then things went decidedly downhill.

And of course, we could look at history and see that most every country has at some time or another had an outside influence place demands on them without the people of those nations reacting with terrorism.

Pretty much. I think every religion except the Buddists have gone on killing sprees. And I agree Islam leads that hit parade for the long haul. England placed some serious demands on her colonies worldwide and denounced the rebellions. I don't know when the word "Terrorists" was coined tho so I won't assert England used it.

I'd say the domino effect applied here IRT us and the Brits tho.