I'm going to quote some things from an article. Here's the full text:
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. 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.
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
In point of fact, the US did not enter WW2 to "prevent the holocaust."
ReplyDeleteThat may well be true, but it hardly redeems everything else attributed to RP by his former senior aid.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is appealing in the same way half-truths appeal. What he says on certain issues has a grain of truth. Same thing with heresy.
Omigosh!
ReplyDeleteRon Paul recognized ahead of time the murderous fiasco that would become the war in Afghanistan? Off with his head! (In fact, I hold that against Ron Paul. He should not have voted for the resolution.)
Ron Paul doesn't prostrate himself before the gods of war anytime "The Good War" is mentioned? Must be a Nazi sympathizer.
Jeff, do try, just occasionally, to apply a little intelligence to the issues at hand.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, to retaliate against a country that hosted the 9/11 attack doesn't mean we must sign on the dotted line of a grand plan by Paul Wolfowitz.
It's the chronic simplemindedness of so many Ron Paul supporters that discredits their cause.
Steve, are the estimated tens of thousands of Afghan civilians who have died as either a direct or indirect result of the invasion mere irrelevant collateral damage in your estimation?
ReplyDeleteWould only a simpleminded fool such as myself be concerned about the mass deaths of worthless Afghanis?
As Madeleine Albright said of the estimated half million Iraqi children who died as a result of the US-led sanctions during the 1990s: was the price worth it?
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIf another person, killed my wife, and burnt down my house, I would be justified in my desire for justice. I wonder from your viewpoint what would be the appropriate response for the US when many people died, two big multi million dollar towers were destroyed, and our economy was burdened for some time?
Jeff, there's a time for war. We all want peace, and there's a time for peace as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen the USA dropped the A-Bomb on Japan it wasn't what we wanted to do, but we did what we thought best. And there's always mixed feelings, isn't there.
Ron Paul would be great to have as our President for the Economic crises we are in, because he won't spend, and Government will not grow and grow nad grow, like it shall with any of these others.
But he is weak in some areas. He's not a Churchill, nor a Reagan, nor a Harry Truman, nor someone who would be a war time president. That's how I see it.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, are the estimated tens of thousands of Afghan civilians who have died as either a direct or indirect result of the invasion mere irrelevant collateral damage in your estimation?"
i) Unless you're a pacifist, collateral damage is inevitable in war. But national defense is a logical extension of the right of self-defense.
ii) Don't blame America for Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Your "direct or indirect result" caveat is morally blind.
iii) I can support counterattacking Afghanistan without supporting nation-building schemes.
"Would only a simpleminded fool such as myself be concerned about the mass deaths of worthless Afghanis?"
Yes, your being a simple-minded fool. For instance, an armed robber may have dependents (wife, kids, elderly parents). The robber may be killed in the course of his crime. His wife and kids are collateral damage. They suffer the consequences. That's unfair.
Does that mean the police were wrong to shoot the armed robber? Suppose he threatened to kill hostages?
"As Madeleine Albright said of the estimated half million Iraqi children who died as a result of the US-led sanctions during the 1990s: was the price worth it?"
In general, I don't support sanctions.
"Yes, your being a simple-minded fool."
ReplyDeleteOh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Steve.
My chief objection to the Afghanistan resolution was that it was a blank check. We're still there some ten years later doing God knows what. The policy advocated by Colin Powell at the time would have been a far better response: Get in, kill those responsible, get out. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com wrote a good piece back at the time (and remarkably prescient, as well), which more or less sums up my thoughts on the matter (though there are several points I disagree with him on).
I'm not a Tolstoyan pacifist. Murray Rothbard actually summed up my views on the matter really well:
"It is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion."
There's a time for war and to kill Jeff.
ReplyDeleteAnd "...Og the king of Bashan came out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. But the LORD said to Moses, “Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and all his people, and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.” So they defeated him and his sons and all his people, until he had no survivor left. And they possessed his land."
Numbers 21:32-35
The Lord's wisdom for war and killing whole peoples is way different than ours. He is very, very compassionate, and yet there's a time for war, as nasty as it may look to us.
Don, I'm not an inerrantist evangelical, so I do not think God ever issues such commands as "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
ReplyDeleteNot trying to be rude, just calling it the way I see it.
Also Don, I perhaps could have mentioned that my views on war and foreign policy were exactly the same back when I was an inerrantist evangelical.
ReplyDeleteEven if you believe that God would sometimes have entire peoples wiped out, how do you establish that that is the case, in any individual modern circumstance? In other words, how do you know that God would have "us" wipe out "them"?
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteGod's word hasn't changed - you've just become more honest about the fact that you don't believe what it says.
-TurretinFan
What Francis said Jeff.
ReplyDeleteWait, wait, wait a second Don and Francis. I'll repeat the Murray Rothbard quote that I said sums up my thoughts on war and foreign policy:
ReplyDelete"It is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion."
Am I understanding correctly that you two are saying that this is an unbiblical ethical position to hold?
"Am I understanding correctly that you two are saying that this is an unbiblical ethical position to hold?"
ReplyDeleteNo. You're not even close to correctly understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying you don't particularly care whether your ethical position is biblical or not.
-TurretinFan
Francis, that's way off topic. Unless you think my position on war and foreign policy is unbiblical for some reason (which apparently you do not think that's the case), then what does my personal view of scripture have to do with anything we're talking about here?
ReplyDeleteJEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"The policy advocated by Colin Powell at the time would have been a far better response: Get in, kill those responsible, get out."
I agree, although we might well differ on the scope of who's responsible.
"It is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion."
i) So the man who flies the bomber is fair game, but the man who builds the bomber is off-limits. That's morally arbitrary.
ii) Your position is backdoor pacifism.
iii) We don't have equal obligations to everyone, including innocents.
iv) Evil often removes the best options, leaving us with unenviable options we'd rather not have to choose from. But we must play the hand we're dealt.
Whatever we do or refrain from doing will have consequences. Either way, innocents may suffer. In a fallen world, that's often unavoidable.
Frequently we didn't create the situation we find ourselves in. So we have to work with what we've got.
Another former aide to Ron Paul who also happens to be an Israeli and a U.S. citizen, says Ron Paul is not anti-Israel.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/u-s-presidential-hopeful-ron-paul-isn-t-anti-israel-former-aide-says-1.403946
Also, in 1981, Ron Paul was one of the only people in Washington who supported Israel's right to attack a nuclear reactor in Iraq, while the Reagan administration and the United Nations condemned them for it. He believes we should respect Israel's sovereignty and their right to do what they feel is in their country's best interest, without the U.S. or any other nation trying to tell them what to do.
He does not oppose foreign aid to Israel because of some animosity toward them in particular, but because he opposes foreign aid in general.
"Francis, that's way off topic. Unless you think my position on war and foreign policy is unbiblical for some reason (which apparently you do not think that's the case), then what does my personal view of scripture have to do with anything we're talking about here?"
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who brought up your personal view of Scripture!
-TurretinFan
The Bible says: "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
ReplyDelete..... a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace."
Ecclesiastes 3:1,8
And also:
"...a time to keep silence, and a time to speak" (v.vii)
It's now my time to keep silent. Thanks for the frank discussion.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"We might well differ on the scope of who's responsible."
Perhaps. My standard would be closely analogous to court-of-law definitions of principals, accomplices, and accessories. Clearly the death and destruction in Afghanistan has far exceeded that standard.
And I should clarify my "get in, kill those responsible, get out" statement: Use lethal force only when necessary. Whenever reasonably possible, take into custody (rather than kill) those responsible.
Francis said:
"You are the one who brought up your personal view of Scripture!"
Yes, in response to an objection from Don. I found it to be the simplest, most direct response to his specific objection. Soon thereafter I realized it was an unnecessarily alienating response, and so I decided to go a different route with my subsequent response. Anyway...