Paul Senior Adviser: 'He's Not Against War'
Many supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may be surprised to learn that the Texas Republican is not as anti-war as they think.
Paul senior adviser Doug Wead on Wednesday dismissed the idea that the candidate was to the left of President Barack Obama when it comes to war.
"I totally disagree with that idea that he is to the left or the right," Wead told Fox News host Megyn Kelly. "He's pro-Constitution. He's in favor of taking the idea of war -- he's not against war."
"He was the only public figure in 1981 to stand up and defend Israel's right to defend herself and take out those Iraqi nuclear facilities," he added. "He's not against war. He's in favor of going to the U.S. Congress -- as the Constitution says -- and debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it and then getting out."
"He's against these endless wars that happen at a whim because somebody believes that someone is a threat to the United States."
Yeah, that's entertainment...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
*President* Ron Paul Presidency could easily end up "commander-in-chief" in several more wars ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Of course this evil miniscule bigot cocksuck@r isn't against war.
He's been at War with minorities, Homosexuals, Jews, etc. for decades.
To my wingnut base: I, too, am eager to kill distant brown people for profit.
...he's against sanity.
Lower the retirement age.
I find it amazing that his supporters might actually think Paul is a "peacenik".
The basis of ALL of Ron Paul's positions is COST. He only opposes COSTLY war, but he's no dove. He proved that in one of the recent GOP debates where they asked about Iran's nukes. While he did question the accuracy of reports claiming Iran might be developing a nuclear weapon, when pressed, he did say we could "bomb them, then just come home" w/o a long occupation (like we can just bomb another country w/o consequences.)
If Paul could do military action for free (eg: His support for Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq), he'd do it. He's no dove, and it's irritating his followers think he is.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
you just pop over, drop some bombs, and come home ... heck, georgie maintained that delusion well past his "mission accomplished" stunt ... but then the bush administration also thought that the iraq war was going to pay for itself
I guess America needs to be turned into Somalia before ignorant Americans learn their lesson.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
He does seem anti-war, there are lots of anti-war conservatives at antiwar.org, so I think this guy goes on Faux propaganda so he can try to earn some votes for the radical texan.
See what I wrote above. Paul is no dove. He just doesn't want to spend the money.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
But his agenda for America is too radical, like a true texan he hates America.
"Pardon"? He asked quizzically writing from his desk in Houston.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
apparently.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
All the Saber Rattling against Iran is only adding more profits to Oil Companies; the NeoCons Friends!
I Thought we had had enough of that Bull Shit when Bush was President.
There is No Proof Iran is Building a Nuclear Bomb or even wants too. But if NeoCons continue their Political and Propaganda Attacks against Iran; Iran may decide they need a Deterrent. After All; it has worked for North Korea.
Donaldd
the acquisition of nukes would be the only thing to stand in the way of us bombing them into the dark ages ... because we only pick on countries with limited military capabilities, like iraq ... never countries that can bite back, like our decades-long great nemesis and global bad actor the soviet union
so here are several
http://www.american-architecture.info/USA/USA...
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-yDZp-MzkSzc/TqYu3nTrlZE...
http://harleyslist.blogspot.com/2011_05_29_ar...
search the web and see what abe lincoln said about african-americans, one can only conclude that he was basically a racist himself, seriously, check it out; yet old abe ended slavery, he led the country in putting down the rebels...............
$4 trillion in the last 10 years to establish islamic republics, this is what we have done, this is the truth, it's on the web..............
our country has been overthrowing governments, fomenting coups, fighting undeclared wars, the whole nine yards, for a hundred years.
there is one candidate that i have heard utter the phrase "military industrial complex" in this political season, that person is ron paul. instead of attacking paul supposed "progressives" should be demanding an explanation from their elected representatives as to how they intend to tame this beast.
the hypocrisy and outright denial on this subject is simply sickening. the power of life and death wielded by government is the single most important issue facing the polity, always has been.
needs to get more light shone on it: "Military Industrial and Congressional Complex".
Oops...Eisenhower's, that is.
"progressives" should be demanding an explanation from their elected representatives as to how they intend to tame this beast."
The problem is that the "beast" OWNS the 'elected representatives'. Some of them may have actually been 'elected' (tho' fraud, software tampering and now wholesale disenfranchisement seems to be rampant), but they most certainly do not represent the will of their constituents.
The corrupted politicians are not the ones who will tame the beast - that must be undertaken by the American citizenry. OWS is a start, and more people seem to be 'waking up' from their long American propaganda Dream (especially those who've lost their jobs, homes, retirement accts., etc.).
Ron Paul will never be 'selected' by the Powers that Be - he's merely being allowed to stay in the picture as he's a useful diversion.
There is no one currently in the political mainstream, or even floating around in a tributary, who seems to have the vision, voice and courage to stand up and lead us from the wilderness. Perhaps, a righteous man or woman will emerge in the next few years as we slide further down the rabbit hole.
I sure hope so.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
from their elected representatives as to how they intend to tame this beast" of the military industrial complex and american military aggression
yes indeed ... but instead they badger and insult anyone who dares to criticize their commander in chief
i could never vote for ron paul -- i think he's a nut -- but i will never again vote for a candidate who is not absolutely clear on the need to end this country's obscene, greedy war on the world and who does not stand absolutely firm on the principles of human rights ... in other words, i will never again vote for a candidate who is not a true progressive, no matter how many progressive slogans he has printed up on t-shirts and campaign signs
to read that Paul supported Israel's strike on Osirak, but I find that this post's headline to be pushing more Paul-bashing. I live in Canada and I suppose someone could quote me as being not "against war" if my country was attacked. The headline is taken slightly out of context. Like him or hate him, I think Paul has been pretty clear on the whole Preemptive War thing.
but he's been saying the same thing now for 30 years. Good luck with that.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
You do have to give this adviser some credit for trying to spin one of the most anti-war candidates in recent history to make him more appealing to a war-hungry Republican base. We have another former staffer Eric Dondero who said Paul didn't even support the war in Afghanistan. You just can't have it both ways. Maybe at the end of the day you need to look a candidate's voting record instead of a 'he-said', 'she-said' between staffers.
. . . it's becoming increasingly clear that Ron Paul is scaring the heck out of the Establishment.
Or perhaps more accurately: the thought of a public voice speaking out against the Endless War on Stuff They Can Make Us Afraid Of really worries the Establishment.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
but i have been warning for months that he is a threat, not just to his fellow republican candidates, but to barack obama ... among the young, engaged people with whom i work, he has hardcore support, and now that he is gaining some traction with older, republican voters, i can easily see an effective, win-at-any-cost contingent of republicans rallying around him, knowing that he doesn't have a prayer of getting congress to end the warmongering ... they get someone with an (r) in the white house but the mic keeps on churning
the crazy old coot. He scares the neocons. Anyone who can shake up the war-mongers is OK in my book.
I'd love to see him turned down for the nomination after consistently winning in the polls.
Release the Kraken! (Libertarians)
First they ignore us..then they ridicule us..now they are feeding us chicken crap- sign my petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/fda-stop-feed...
www.ickenittlepost.com
given that most neo-cons belong to Ayn Rand's book of the month club.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Ron Paul's words, I still firmly believe that he is, according to what I have heard him say in all the debates this past few months, the most anti-war of all the candidates. Including "I am the Bush's third term WAR president" Obama (who will NEVER get another vote from me).
And neither will Biden or Shillery or any other corporately controlled "Democrat".
I am in California and if the MSM gets it's way I won't have the opportunity to cast a vote for Ron Paul. If I only have the choice to vote for another corporate lackey then I will stay home. First time to not vote since 1967 (before I could register).
Ron Paul has repeatedly said that in the case of Iran we need to "get some of our 17,000 diplomats to work!"
I believe he is a "let's use diplomacy before bringing in the killer drones" kind of guy.
At this point in our history, when we have a Democratic president who has taken the level of "the unitary executive's right to murder anyone on Earth without charges or trial" to a whole new height, my conscience demands that I support a bold move away from this type of un-Constitutional arrogance and criminality.
Sorry folks. You can continue to berate Ron Paul all you like and you can continue to try to convince everyone that "Obama is our best HOPE". I'm not drinking the Kool Aid this round. Got suckered really good last time (time/money/votes). Not again.
I'd rather get suckered by someone who at least swore he would uphold his oath to the Constitution.
Obama can NEVER put his hand on the Bible again and swear to "preserve, protect and defend" a document he has already stomped his foot on.
Sorry.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
everything documented about ronpaul that puts him in a less than glorious light, always has an elaborate tale to excuse it.
There's your spin. The threads are now full of new Zombie Army of Paulbots misdirecting, excusing, dissembling, spinning like crazy...I thought you were smart enough to see through a cult of personality, which ron paul has been for decades.
me-oww!
. . . willing to even speak against things like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the corruption of Big Finance, and the right not to be imprisoned or killed without just cause. And he's not the only one with elaborate tales as excuses. The Democrats have made it into an art form.
IMHO Paul's increased popularity rests less on his cult of personality than on the total abdication of the Democratic Party from these issues. It's not like most people actually want a crazy guy; he's just become the only game in town.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
you hit the nail right on the head, if the potus was doing his job, if congress wasn't totally sold out, ron paul would not have a leg to stand on.
it is totally gutless to hammer paul for speaking out on issues that the man in the oval office should have dealt with in his first two weeks in office.
I certainly don't hammer him for that, nor do I see many non-bots do that.
It's the Gestalt of ron paul that's getting hammered, based on his decades-long record. It's the documented incidents of racism, homophobia, his wacky states' rights' bullshit, his gold standard craziness...it's THAT shit.
Plus, he's old as fuck. Got very little skin left in the "I got mine, now fuck you!" sweepstakes. He'd be 77 when sworn, and 82 at the end of the term. Remember what happened last time a crazy old deluded fuck took the office?
me-oww!
not only did you force me to google "gestalt" but now i also have to come to terms with the phrase: "the gestault of ron paul that's getting hammered."
my head hurts
Corruption favors the wealthy.
libertarians do not want to understand the workings of government, nor do they want the responsibilities of living with other people. i know their philosophy, i agree with the civil liberties aspect of it. you are right about the skin in the game.
i don't know what this country is going to do, but i do know that neither major party is helping. our debt is real, the trade deficit is real, we had best get a handle on it and start making law that benefits everyone, not just the 1%, this will require some tough trade deals with other countries, policies that benefit the country as a whole and not just the interests of multinationals.
No, they don't want gubmint at all, they want to be able to do whatever they please with impunity so long as someone else foots the bill for public safety and infrastructure. Their "libertarianism" is a thinly disguised form of anarchy, selfishness, and chaos.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
It proves conclusively that people on the left can be just as stupid, short-sighted, rigid, and ideological as people on the right. It also proves, once again, that the left is outrageously bad at getting its shit together, and is constantly ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Then they'll spend the next few years until the next election cycle wondering why the wingnuts kicked their asses, vowing to do things differently, only to repeat the same stupid moves, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Of course, by pointing out such uncomfortable truths, I'm automatically an "Obamabot," so whatever. At least I haven't thrown away every last semblance of common sense.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
Endless War for profit; imprisoning and killing people without charge or trial; immunity for torture, illegal spying and massive international financial fraud; millions in foreclosure, more unemployed, even more under-employed; record numbers of deportations; the militarization of police forces and attacks upon civil liberties.
Some folks are willing to accept or excuse these uncomfortable truths in the interests of being a team player. Others simply need FOX News to serve up a bogeyman and will fearfully support any policies for a false feeling of security.. And let's face it, when one is willing to find excuses for denial of habeas corpus and for war crimes, can there possibly be anything that person won't "compromise" on?
Others see these truths and look for ways to change them.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
probably not, and we don't know the half of it.
like how much they fucking hate the left, for example.
Or haven't y'all noticed yet most, if not all, of their "compromises" lean to the right?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
ron paul isn't the droid you're looking for.
me-oww!
:)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I can lend you a paint gun...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
none of the House members or Senators can take an oath to the Constitution again either.
I am glad there are currently efforts, in all the states that allow it, to RECALL all the Congressional members who sold out their oaths and the U.S. Constitution with their votes to support the ILLEGAL detention without charges or trial of American citizens right here in the "HOMELAND".
Pfffft!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
This is the imbecile you support:
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ro...
Good luck to you, you will sure need it.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
Here's the one you support:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/...
Given the choice, it's not hard to say who I would pick when it comes time to vote.
-- how can you be for someone who is against women's rights?
You know the ronpaul Zombie Army of Paulbots Auto-Spin™ tape says to that, Kate?
"He's not against women's rights! He's FOR states' rights, leftard! And he's NOT RACIST!!!!!!!"
me-oww!
to be against their rights.
You know that spin is coming once their cognitive dissonance centrifuge reaches full operational speed...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
ron paul is a GOP politician, a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, a texan and the father of rand paul... anyone who thought ron paul was "anti war" has failed to do their homework.
that said, ron paul's statements on war/military action are much better than the record of the current guy sitting in the oval office.
than Michelle Bachmann. And that's about all you can say for the man.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I actually respected him for isn't true. Well, that would seem to figure.
I don't know what you guys are bitching about. Its a completely logical position ron paul has taken.
it really doesn't say bad about ron paul. it says bad about the republican BASE which assumes you must be "anti-war" if you wish to actually debate it first before declaring war. you know, follow the law and go to the people and their reps. no, that position isn't anti-war but its a logical approach to how to deal with war.
"committing it" as i take it, means making it a real national concern. the iraq war wasn't committed by the people. media wasn't focused on it. people didn't wake up thinking what can i do to end this war sooner. taxes weren't made to pay for it. there was no sense that america was at war. only those soldiers and their families were at war, the rest of the people were not committed, they were doing their own things in their day to day life.
war should be a huge deal if it happens.
Paul's position is isolationism, not non-violence.
I would not support anyone who would not defend the nation when confronted with an existential threat.
Maybe left v right is the wrong way to frame dove v hawk, but clearly Paul is in a better position w/r/t the American Empire than the emperor currently residing in the White House. That one position is sucking in more than a few liberals into Paul's otherwise reactionary campaign for office.
"We won't get fooled again." That was a nice thought, but there are plenty of young people being fooled by the racist and homophobic Ron Paul.
"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill
while my daughter was married to her first husband, all I can say is....
If Ron Paul is half as self-satisfied, selfish, and immature as the folks I spent time with, God help us all.
The government isn't supposed to help anyone, that's for private citizens to do. However, it's certainly not for them, as private citizens, to do. It's for all the rest of us, because they shouldn't be forced to do anything, like obey speed limits, pay taxes, anything. That's for the suckers.
None of this social responsibility crap, either. Another sucker deal. Life is really just about them and their rights....never a word about any responsibilities. Yech.
its adherents own worst instincts ... ie, they believe that leaders cannot be community-minded and governments cannot help make this country better for all, because they themselves are not community-minded or helpful
I read it many years ago, when I was very young, and thought that if the world were actually as she portrayed it in the book, I might as well just drown myself. It's very convenient, I think, to think of selfishness as a political statement, when all it really is is narcissism all tied up in a neat little package.
They belong on their own island isolated from the rest of the world , selfish and self centered freaks , not fit for society . If they actually got their fantasy world they'd soon realize that they were fools ... at best . Most who claim to be libertarian have no idea what they are saying , no idea what they are asking for .
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
It's one of the most immature philosophies ever.
It would be the same as elevating Van Gogh's paintings to treaties on metaphysics, when they are just pictorial representations from schizophrenia's point of view.
The libertarian ethos is based on the literary musings (and bad ones at that) of a sociopath. Ayn Rand was simply relying the kind of world that those who can not compute empathy see. From that perspective, I feel actually sad for them.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Nice story. And I have libertarian friends who are among the most generous people I've ever met. They would point out that private charity comes to the aid of many that the government leaves behind. And there is a whole spectrum to libertarianism, including those who believe in women's rights and public healthcare like Gary Johnson. It's totally disingenuous to paint an entire movement as selfish just because you happen to have met a couple of immature individuals. Maybe it says more about the people you surround yourself with than an entire political spectrum.
But it is probably one of the reasons that one of the Libertarians is my EX son in law. And the group had about 6 in it. All loved to hear their own voices as they illectualized about why they owed no one anything. I'll stick with my assessment. Nothing that Ron Paul has said over the years or his son, for that matter, would lead me to believe that the people that I met were an anomaly.
What a wierd looking guy, kind of reminds me of Grampa from the Munsters.
Incredible journalist and Constitutional lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, lays out exactly why the RON PAUL question is such a critical one for people who consider themselves progressives.
Ron Paul holds a mirror to progressives who Voted Obama into office and intend to vote for him again...and reveals the MASSIVE contradiction/betrayal you have to make to your ideals in doing so.
Greenwald does not deny the many worst of 2 evils analyses you have to make given unlikely overlap in positions, but it forces you to decide exactly what's more important - and GREENWALD honestly and succinctly lays out the major issues at hand (WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE SO IN THE MANY MANY ANTI-RON PAUL RANTS ON The C&L Comment boards AND by the C&L blog posters themselves.)
I CHALLENGE YOU TO ADDRESS GLENN GREENWALDS ARGUEMENTS!! How do you come to piece with these moral decisions you're forced to face when you pile on the criticism on the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS TRULY AGAINST WAR OF AGRESSION, INDISCRIMINATE excess in breach of executive branch power and DESTRUCTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.
By the way, President Obama signed into law the NDAA with a long signing statement saying he would be sure to play good president and not indefinitely detain American citizens, even though the very bill he signs into law says he can... YOUR PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT DID THIS. RON PAUL AND RAND PAUL WERE AGAINST THIS KIND OF POWER. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS!
"The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient."
Link to Greenwald's blog post discussed above
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_...
Comments are closed on this entry