Open letter to GOP base on Ron Paul

[Len Budney]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/beito2.html

Nicely written piece. Some highlights:

Many conservatives have said that they agree with Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul on just about everything, but they just can't see things his way when it comes to dealing with the Middle East...

Al Qaeda is not an Islamo-fascist caliphate on the march, but they have attacked us and remain a threat. It is al Qaeda  not extremism everywhere  that Dr. Paul means to fight. Responding appropriately demands a cold and objective assessment of the situation, not unchecked, knee-jerk emotion.

... the purpose of al Qaeda terrorism... was to provoke a reaction... Essentially, their goal was to recreate their war against the Soviets a generation before  a war that they, of course, consider to be the primary cause of the USSR's collapse. In other words, they meant to lure our military to their sandtrap to bleed our treasury dry, forcing our empire out of their region for good...

Not only did Paul foresee the problem with terrorism stemming from our continuous bombing campaign in the 1990s, he also predicted the consequences in Iraq were Saddam and the Ba'athists to fall. In the February '98 speech quoted above, he also asked:

"And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists."

The Iranians pose no real threat to Israel or the West. Their nuclear enrichment equipment is nothing more than first-generation crap bought second-hand from the Pakistanis, every bit of which is monitored by international inspectors. Ninety percent pure Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 is needed to make an atom bomb; the Iranians have yet to enrich their uranium higher than 4 percent...

Suicide bombings are rife in Sri Lanka where neither side is Muslim. By contrast, radical Islam is prevalent in Sudan, where it has no relationship to the current widespread violence (both sides are Sunni Arabs) and there has never been a suicide bombing. Did radical Catholicism motivate the IRA? ...

It is a mistake to think of Ron Paul's foreign policy as some sort of liberal exception to the rest of his conservative outlook. Instead, his views follow the tradition of the Old Right Taft Republicans. They opposed foreign interventionism for the same reason America's founders did  out of caution for the inevitable domestic detriments that accompany permanent military establishments. It has only been since the Vietnam War era that the antiwar position has been perceived as the province of hippies and leftists...

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Coo-Coo-Lew should have stuck to criticizing Abe Lincoln. At least that was amusing, if just as irrelevant.

[Brad Johnson]

Coo-Coo-Lew should have stuck to criticizing Abe Lincoln. At least that was amusing, if just as irrelevant.

Same here.

Brad

[Len Budney]

 

I'll just wait for intelligent discussion from folks with more to say than "nanny nanny foo foo."

[Finch]

Coo-Coo-Lew should have stuck to criticizing Abe Lincoln. At least that was amusing, if just as irrelevant.

And of course, you attack the man, not what he said.

The hardcore Bush republicans will never listen to anything but "Hate us for our freedoms."

Edit - Lincoln wasn't as great a president as public school would like you to think. You know, with all the suspensions of Habeas and jailing of dissenters...

[Brad Johnson]

Coo-Coo-Lew should have stuck to criticizing Abe Lincoln. At least that was amusing, if just as irrelevant.

And of course, you attack the man, not what he said.

He brought the label on himself.  In modern social terminology it is both descriptive and accurate.

Brad

[Manedwolf]

Coo-Coo-Lew should have stuck to criticizing Abe Lincoln. At least that was amusing, if just as irrelevant.

And of course, you attack the man, not what he said.

Um...that implies that what he says comes from a perspective completely detached from reality.

Which is the case with all of the dribble he posts on the web. He's one step from a UFO & Illuminati site.

[Len Budney]

... all of the dribble he posts...

[pet-peeve] It's drivel, dude. "Dribble" is what you do when you get to ranting so hard you forget to swallow.[/pet-peeve]

[Finch]

Despite what you may think of Lew, I think the purpose of Lens post was to engage discussion on the article. I really doubt Len was hoping for personal attacks on the author, although that seems to be the standard M.O. when it comes to anything that strays away from the standard If you want peace, prepare for war B.S. mentality.

[Manedwolf]

... all of the dribble he posts...

[pet-peeve] It's drivel, dude. "Dribble" is what you do when you get to ranting so hard you forget to swallow.[/pet-peeve]

I have an English degree, thanks. When I said dribble, I mean dribble. As in the sorts of slobber that such bloggers, lacking an editor and sense, drool upon their pages.

It's not writing. It's vomiting, drooling and dribbling nonsense on an electronic page and holding it up proudly to the public in the manner of a grinning idiot.

[Len Budney]

I have an English degree, thanks. When I said dribble, I mean dribble.

Give it back. "Dribble" is an ignorant redneck malapropism for "drivel."

[Manedwolf]

Despite what you may think of Lew, I think the purpose of Lens post was to engage discussion on the article. I really doubt Len was hoping for personal attacks on the author, although that seems to be the standard M.O. when it comes to anything that strays away from the standard If you want peace, prepare for war B.S. mentality.

Okay, then! According to Finch, Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum, written by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, is B.S.!

Finch knows better than a respected Roman military author! Got it! 

And Len, give it up, dribble is derived from the archaic "drib", a variant of "drip". You're citing answers.com as a source.  Any of my professors would have smacked you upside the head with an MLA citation manual.

[Finch]

Wow, this train jumped the tracks before it even left the station.

Let's try again. Hey guys, who all I would love to have a beer with, here is an interesting and thought provoking article that we can discuss in a civilized manner...

Many conservatives have said that they agree with Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul on just about everything, but they just can't see things his way when it comes to dealing with the Middle East...

Al Qaeda is not an Islamo-fascist caliphate on the march, but they have attacked us and remain a threat. It is al Qaeda  not extremism everywhere  that Dr. Paul means to fight. Responding appropriately demands a cold and objective assessment of the situation, not unchecked, knee-jerk emotion.

... the purpose of al Qaeda terrorism... was to provoke a reaction... Essentially, their goal was to recreate their war against the Soviets a generation before  a war that they, of course, consider to be the primary cause of the USSR's collapse. In other words, they meant to lure our military to their sandtrap to bleed our treasury dry, forcing our empire out of their region for good...

Not only did Paul foresee the problem with terrorism stemming from our continuous bombing campaign in the 1990s, he also predicted the consequences in Iraq were Saddam and the Ba'athists to fall. In the February '98 speech quoted above, he also asked:

Quote
"And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists."

The Iranians pose no real threat to Israel or the West. Their nuclear enrichment equipment is nothing more than first-generation crap bought second-hand from the Pakistanis, every bit of which is monitored by international inspectors. Ninety percent pure Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 is needed to make an atom bomb; the Iranians have yet to enrich their uranium higher than 4 percent...

Suicide bombings are rife in Sri Lanka where neither side is Muslim. By contrast, radical Islam is prevalent in Sudan, where it has no relationship to the current widespread violence (both sides are Sunni Arabs) and there has never been a suicide bombing. Did radical Catholicism motivate the IRA? ...

It is a mistake to think of Ron Paul's foreign policy as some sort of liberal exception to the rest of his conservative outlook. Instead, his views follow the tradition of the Old Right Taft Republicans. They opposed foreign interventionism for the same reason America's founders did  out of caution for the inevitable domestic detriments that accompany permanent military establishments. It has only been since the Vietnam War era that the antiwar position has been perceived as the province of hippies and leftists...

I'm going to go play TF2 now.

[Glock Glockler]

It's too bad no one seems capable of actually debating whether the points brought up were sound or not, personal attacks are so much less demanding.  

[Len Budney]

One of the points I find most interesting is that RP is documented predicting in the 1990's the very problems we're seeing now in Iraq. He's not the only one, of course. In 1994 some guy named Dick Cheney predicted a "quagmire" if the US attempted to occupy Baghdad and topple Saddam.

It's one thing when unforeseen problems arise. But it's another when practically everyone foresaw the problems, and we run headlong into them anyway.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

It's too bad no one seems capable of actually debating whether the points brought up were sound or not, personal attacks are so much less demanding.  

It's difficult to seriously debate the points of someone who's "points" teeter on the brink of tinfoil hat-dom.  

There is a guy in my hometown who sits on the courthouse steps giving out handwritten end-of-the-world tracts.  They are literate, concise, and make very convincing points (not to mention his astonishingly perfect penmanship).  Unfortunately they are the product of a troubled and disturbed mind.  I would no more debate those points than I would Lew Rockwell's, as I view him a only a slightly more legitimized version of Tractman.

Brad

[Len Budney]

I would no more debate those points than I would Lew Rockwell's, as I view him a only a slightly more legitimized version of Tractman.

Ad hominems aside, the author of the essay was not Rockwell. The arguments are at least cogent enough to deserve discussion. The fingers-in-ears refusal even to engage the topic is not a good reflection.

--Len.

[Finch]

It's too bad no one seems capable of actually debating whether the points brought up were sound or not, personal attacks are so much less demanding. 

It's difficult to seriously debate the points of someone who's "points" teeter on the brink of tinfoil hat-dom. 

There is a guy in my hometown who sits on the courthouse steps giving out handwritten end-of-the-world tracts.  They are literate, concise, and make very convincing points (not to mention his astonishingly perfect penmanship).  Unfortunately they are the product of a troubled and disturbed mind.  I would no more debate those points than I would Lew Rockwell's, as I view him a only a slightly more legitimized version of Tractman.

Brad

You know, browsing Lew's site, I find nothing that even puts him close to the tin-foil hat brigade. Or is it just that fact that he doesn't hail Bush as the our personal political savior.

[Tallpine]

You can't talk to conservatives 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The quote from the article doesn't present anything of substance worth discussing.  It is a series of illogical statements backed up by irrelevancies.  It really does look like the product of an irrational mind.  The "logic" presented in the article actually does imply that Lew is coo coo (I assume he meant his words to be taken seriously, not as satire.)

Truly, this article doesn't merit a rational, civil discussion.  Unfortunately, I know that too many of you will think that a lack of refutation somehow makes that drivel/dribble true.  So here ya go:

Al Queda isn't the only threat emanating from the middle east.   American soldiers on the battlefield have captured (and undoubtedly been killed by) extremists of all middle eastern nationalities.  Al Qaeda is perhaps the most prominent organized entity to threaten the US, but there are plenty of others, both organized and unorganized, national and non-national.

Everyone knew that removing Saddam would cause a power vacuum.  Everyone.  That's why the stated policy all along has been regime change, and not simply regime removal.  That's why we didn't pack up and head home the day after we bagged Saddam, and why we cannot and will not do so now.

The fact that Iran can't, yet, enrich past 4% doesn't in any way make them a safe, warm, fuzzy, nonthreatening country.  It is utterly, completely, totally illogical to think that it does.  Those who said Lew is crazy are right!

The sort of thinking offered by Paul, Rockwell, and the "Old Right Taft Republicans" is a relic from the days when the prime threat to our nation was that of foreign invasion.  The days when we could safely say "they'll never get off the beach, therefore we have nothing to worry about" are long, long gone.

[Len Budney]

Al Queda isn't the only threat emanating from the middle east.

They are, however, the ones who perpetrated the attack on US soil. And they're the ones we invaded Afghanistan in order to bring to justice--before we plumb forgot about them and decided to invade Iraq for kicks.

Everyone knew that removing Saddam would cause a power vacuum.  Everyone.  That's why the stated policy all along has been regime change, and not simply regime removal.

Too bad they proceeded to create precisely the vacuum that was predicted.

The fact that Iran can't, yet, enrich past 4% doesn't in any way make them a safe, warm, fuzzy, nonthreatening country.

It does, however, mean that they don't pose a nuclear threat. Which is the argument Bush is using to whip up support for an invasion.

If you ever read the article, you'll find quite a bit there of substance. For example, when Bush and Giuliani were babbling about "hating us for our freedom," Congressman Paul was accurately identifying the real motives of Al Qaeda. Not surprisingly, it's hard to counter a threat effectively when you haven't the foggiest idea what makes them tick. Congressman Paul wasn't the only one who understood what was going on, but he was the only one who consistently acted on that understanding, giving solid advice to Bush and to Clinton before him--none of which was heeded.

--Len.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

You can't talk to conservatives 

Seriously man.  Hippie leftists too.

[HankB]

I just saw a story to the effect that Dennis Kucinich would consider Ron Paul as a running mate.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119606963456620.xml&coll=2

I'm not one that ordinarily subscribes to the whole "guilt by association" thing, but if a lunatic like Kucinich likes Paul . . . 

Especially telling is:

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul.

I have friends and colleagues with different beliefs, but I don't think I could ever be "friends" with a raving pinko commie socialist like Kucinich, or regard him as anything but the enemy . . .

[Perd Hapley]

OK, "So-and-so is a kook" does not constitute a well-reasoned debate on the issues.  Everyone here knows that.  But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.  Everyone here should be able to figure that out, too.  If I want polite, rational discourse on a particular issue, I know better than to start off with an Ann Coulter column or a sermon by Pat Robertson.  (Not that I would compare the two in any other way.  Sorry, Ann.) 


Paul-backers and WOT-detractors, if you want to talk about this reasonably, don't cloud the issue with a nut like Lew Rockwell.  Months and years ago, before many of you were even members here, Iraq and the larger WOT were discussed about a thousand times.  There have been many good points raised by those on both sides.  It can be done.   

[GigaBuist]

OK, "So-and-so is a kook" does not constitute a well-reasoned debate on the issues.  Everyone here knows that.  But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.

... but nobody posted anything written by Lew Rockwell.