When will RP realize that he will never be potus until he abandons the gop?
On Jun 8, 10:52 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron Paul vs. the GOP EstablishmentIt’s round two – and the stakes are > higherbyJustin Raimondo, June 08, 2011 > As libertarianism becomesmore visible, politically, andgains groundin the > GOP, the enemies of freedom are poised – on both the right and the left – for > the attack. Libertarians have never had to deal with this problem before, in > the main because their movement was consideredmarginal, if it was considered > at all. Today, however, the situation is quite different: a wave of > “anti-government” (i.e. pro-freedom) sentiment issweeping the country, and > the realization that libertarians werethe original tea-partiers– coupled with > theelectoral successof that populist upsurge – has the Establishment in a > panic. What we’re seeing is a two-pronged, left-right attack on libertarians, > with the initial forays in the foreign policy realm. > The main thrust of the attack is naturally directed at the leader of the > libertarian movement, the man who has donethe mostto make libertarianism a > significant political force in the modern world, and that man isRep. Ron > Paul(R-Texas). Ron has single-handedly raised the profile of the movement way > beyond what anyone imagined only a few years ago. A lot of this has to do > with Ron’sprescientwarningsabout the state of the economy, and the bursting > of the real estate bubble, which have given him the kind of authority he > never enjoyed in all the years spent crying in the wilderness. > However, Ron’s prescience isn’t limited to economics: unlike most > conservatives, Ron was clearfrom the very beginningthat our foreign policy of > global intervention would blow back in our faces some day, and the 9/11 > terrorist attacks confirmed his view in a way that was not, at first, readily > apparent. Yet Ronkept making this point, even in the wake of the war hysteria > that followed the attacks, and ten years anon – as a war-weary anddead > brokeAmerica staggers and seems about to fall – his views are seen as > prophetic rather than marginal. > This is precisely whatterrifiesthe Republican party Establishment, and > positivelyenragestheneoconservatives, whoseentire philosophyispredicatedon > theglorification of war. As might be expected, they are sharpening their > knives and hoping to go in for the kill, but they can’t do what Rudy > Giulianitried to dothe last time around when he got up on his high horse and > demanded Ron “take back” his statement that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback,” > in CIA parlance, an unintendedconsequenceof our foreign policy adventurism in > the Middle East. Rudy, for his trouble, got a grand total of one delegate in > the 2008 Republican primaries, and this time around – he’s madenoisesabout > entering the fray again – I wouldn’t be surprised if he got less than that. > Ron, on the other hand, went on to become the grand old man of the populist > Tea Party movement, a candidate whosemillion-dollar“money-bombs” are a > fundraiser’s dream and whose political prospectsbrightenby the day. > No, this time around the neocons have to be a bit more subtle, while cashing > in on the last dregs of the post-9/11 war hysteria. And the only way to do > that is to completely misconstrue his words, and twist them to mean something > other than what was intended – and then spread the “Ron-said-this” meme far > and wide. The latest such attempt wasan interview with Simon Conway, a > British import with a radio show in Iowa, in which Ron was asked if, given > his opposition to violating the sovereignty of other countries, he would have > ordered the raid that assassinated Osama bin Laden. Ron answered that, if he > were President, “Things would be done somewhat differently.” You’ll note he > didn’t say there would have been no raid: instead,he citedthe case of Khalid > Sheikh Mohammed, theactual mastermindof the 9/11 attacks, who was found > andarrested by the Pakistanis, as an example of US-Pakistani cooperation. > Conway follows up by saying “I don’t want to put words in your mouth” and > then proceeds to put words in Ron’s mouth by stating that “you would not have > ordered the raid.” Ron then says: “No. No, it was absolutely not necessary” – > in this locution, “it” refers,notto the option of a joint US-Pakistani raid, > but to a unilateral raid kept secret from the Pakistani government. Once > again, Conway goes into his “I don’t want to put words in your mouth” > routine, and reiterates that Ron is saying he wouldn’t have ordered any raid > whatsoever. Ron answers: “Not the way it took place.” > Naturally, the neocons jumped all over this, with a shortpieceinNational > Reviewclaiming in a headline “Ron Paul Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid,” > and quoting only a single sentence – “It was absolutely not necessary” – torn > out of context.NRfollowed this up with an extended riff on the same theme, by > one Marion Smith, who starts out his polemic with a lie – “Last month, Ron > Paulsaidhe would not have ordered the military action that ended in the death > of Osama Bin Laden. In his view, ‘It was absolutely not necessary’” – and > then goes into a lengthy historical disquisition about the Barbary pirates > and other irrelevant topics. Before careening off on that tangent, however, > Smith briefly touches on the real issue:“In the case of the bin Laden raid, > Paul argues that the United States had no more right to violate Pakistan’s > sovereignty than to violate England’s, had Bin Laden hypothetically been > lodged in London instead of Abbottabad. But bin Laden was not in London, and > for an obvious reason: The United Kingdom is an ally, in the true sense of > the word. Pakistan, it seems, is not. Nevertheless, the strict > non-interventionist argues that the U.S. should have respected Pakistan’s > sovereignty.”Marion’s argument is based on the dubious assumption that > President Obama wastelling usthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > truth about the raid being a “secret” withheld from Pakistani authorities. > This is certainly odd coming from a magazine that spends the rest of its > column inches questioning the President’s credibility. How do we really know > who knew about the bin Laden operation in advance and who > didn’t?ThisGuardiannews reportavers that an agreement had been made, well in > advance, that such a raid conducted in Pakistani territory would be > immediately disavowed by the authorities in Islamabad, although it would be > carried out with their consent. As theGuardianput it:“The US and Pakistan > struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation > againstOsama bin Ladenon Pakistani soil similar to last week’s raid that > killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.“The deal was struck > between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George > Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late > 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.“Under its > terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside > Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the > al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously > protest the incursion.”Although Antiwar.com ran this story when it appeared – > and Ron,I know, is one of our regular readers – he must have missed this one. > In any case, the Musharraf-Bush deal was no doubt still in effect when the > raid that killed bin Laden was launched – or else why are we sending > thembillionsof US taxpayer dollars? – and so the entire dispute is simply a > lot of hot air. The raid was indeed carried out with the cooperation of > Pakistan, no violation of Pakistani sovereignty took place, and the President > was simply telling a half truth when he said the operation was kept secret > from Pakistan: we may not have told themwhenwe were going to launch it, but > they had agreed to it in advance anyway. > Ron’s point about the importance of respecting the national sovereignty of > our allies is, here, underscored by what actually took place: the reality is > that we didn’t just barge in, without any legal or moral justification, and > simply take out bin Laden. Islamabad was in on it from the start, and – as > the Presidentnotedin his address to the nation – intelligence provided by > Pakistan played an important role in the operation’s success. > If yougo to YouTubeand listen to the Conway interview, orthe partwhich deals > with foreign policy, Ron gives precisely the right answer when asked if we > should get out of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) now that bin Laden is dead: “We > should’ve done that a long time ago,” he said. “I’ve been saying that all > along.” Indeed, we could have pulled off the raid on bin Laden’s Abbottabad > headquarters without invading either Iraq or Afghanistan: both invasions were > a typically Americanover-reactionto what should have been an operation > focused on intelligence-gathering and what boils down to ordinary police > work.The Mafia, too, was a terrorist organization, one that, at the height of > its power, killed a great many people on American soil - and yet we didn’t > have to invade Italy to neutralize them. > At a time when even Republicans are learning the lesson of what happens to > empires that allow themselves to become over-extended, the War Party lives in > mortal fear ofRon Paul’s messageof a peaceful, non-interventionist foreign > policy. They are desperate to convince the public that Paul is against > defending the country, and even that he sympathizes with the terrorists. This > was Giuliani’s failed tactic, and they’re trying it again. It won’t work any > better this time around: more and more conservatives are questioning > theneoconservative dogmathat all war all the time is a sane or sustainable > foreign policy for a republic. The impending bankruptcy of the US has imbued > this lesson with a new urgency – and that accounts for the urgency of the > smear campaign against Paul, which is only just beginning to unfold.NOTES IN > THE MARGINAt the beginning of this column, I wrote that the attacks on Ron > and the movement he leads are coming from the left as well as the right, with > the implicit promise that I’d write about both prongs. After 1500 words or > so, however, it looks like I’ll have to deal with the attack from the left in > a future > column.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/06/07/ron-paul-vs-the-gop-establishment/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
