Ron Paul, Apologist for Dictators

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Aside from the distraction of waiting to see of his eyebrow would slip and fall again, I listened to Chris Wallace's interview with Ron Paul on Fox News Sunday. Aside from his glossing over the isolationist charges against him by narrowly focusing only on trade, he revealed how the US would "intervene" in foreign affairs in a Ron Paul administration.

He doesn't want to use predator drones, because he claims that collateral damage "creates ten times as many enemies" for the US than they take out.

He doesn't want to use troops, but rather bring them all home. All of them.

He doesn't want to use sanctions, because, as in Iraq, "little kids couldn't get medicine".

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Back the truck up! This is the same argument liberals used back when Uncle Saddam was in power, to try to get the US to lift sanctions against Iraq, and it was a lie then, too.

In those days, most of the reporting in Iraq came with a price. Aside from the cash that "journalists" would pay for access to the country, a representative of Saddam's repressive government would accompany any journalist or documentarian and monitor the answers to any questions asked. This was also a time when the rape rooms and Abu Ghraib were run by people who genuinely tortured and killed the prisoners there. So, the sampling was "skewed" to say the least. People did not tell the truth for fear of their lives. Even CNN bravely admitted (after the dictator was gone) that they had censored themselves lest Saddam proclaim them persona non grata.

But let's examine the leftie lie that Ron Paul seems to have bought into, that "little kids couldn't get medicine". Was it that there was no money to buy medicine for children? U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 allowed Iraq to sell enough oil to buy medicine. We know that Uncle Saddam, dear grandfatherly Uncle Saddam, had millions of dollars to build and furnish lavish new palaces. Millions for luxury but not one thin dime for sick children? This was a political calculation of a ruthless and heartless dictator. He used the suffering of sick children, giving copious access to allow photos and video of sick children to leave the country, to tug on the heartstrings of the West and try to manipulate the West into lifting sanctions. (Videos of suffering children may have been Iraq's second biggest export during the sanctions.)

Was it that there was no medicine to be found that could be made available to sick children? After the liberation of Iraq, there was at least one warehouse that was found stacked to the rafters with medicine set aside for Saddam's so-called Republican Guard.

From a Department of State report in 1999:

*Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished...

*Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

*Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas.

Saddam Hussein’s priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq’s resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

*Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

*Saddam’s priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq’s citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq’s resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

This ain't bean bag, Mr. Paul. If you want to strengthen your flaccid reputation on foreign policy, you might want to start by getting your facts straight. How much "medicine for little kids" could you get for the price of 47 of those 48 palaces? If children did not have medicine in Iraq, it was because a brutal dictator denied it to them. A dictator who was removed, by the way, by the use of force, by those troops you never would have sent. But, according to you, you would have traded with Saddam and would have been his "friend". Yeah. That would have worked!

You can't have it both ways, Congressman. If you want to tug on our heartstrings about little kids who can't get medicine because of our big mean sanctions, how about we mention the kids' mothers who were raped by Saddam and his sons, their fathers who were killed because they did not toe the tyrant's line, and their playmate who were gassed because they were born to the wrong parents?

The report card on Ron Paul still stands: Domestic policy A+, Foreign policy F- .

My apologies to all you Ron Paul fans out there, but cold hard facts are cold hard facts.

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. No apology needed. But Nice try at taking one issue and trying to make it part of the "unelectable" argument. At least this one has a slight amount of substance... I much rather hear some argument rather than the "unelectable" statement which in my opinion is just a nice way of saying, "shut up"!
    Even still, who has been more consistent and true to the constitution than any other candidate? Democrats included!
    Our whole Govt needs to set their clocks back 200 years!

  2. If you can't attack the substance, use hyperbole to confuse the issue. By your argument, we should attack North Korea at this very moment and then China and then any other Country that we believe is unfair to its people. Get off your fake war horse and realize that Iraq was a huge mistake in the cost to our American troops. Let Asian boys fight for Asian freedom.

  3. "If you can't attack the substance, use hyperbole to confuse the issue."

    Which you proceed to do. Stupidity sure seems limitless these days.

    If you can't take over the entire world, you should have no military. Right? Linear thought isn't that difficult. You might do yourself a favor and read what you write with a critical eye. If you're capable, that is.

  4. "Stupidity sure seems limitless these days."
    Voice of experience?

  5. "taking one issue and trying to make it part of the "unelectable" argument"

    John: It is a part of his unacceptable, and some might say naive, foreign policy. I go into a little more detail with another link to Paul's foreign policy weakness here:

    In Defense of Not Defending Ron Paul

    ffbull: "If you can't attack the substance, use hyperbole to confuse the issue." (And then you use hyperbole to attack what I said. Nicely played!) But, try this:

    Saddam said: The sanctions (not the evil dictator) caused little kids to die for lack of medicine.
    Ron Paul said: of the Iraqi sanctions that "little kids couldn't get medicine."

    Explain the "hyperbole"... how is parroting the same lie Saddam told, not acting as an apologist for Saddam Hussein?

  6. Sanctions reduce the trade entering a market. When that market is controlled by someone like Saddam, regular people cannot trade for what they need. They have to depend on the government.(aka Saddam) If you open the market up, business and doctors have a better opportunity to buy the goods they need. Yes sanctions reduce the amount of medicine available to regular people. The hyperbole is comparing Ron Paul to Liberals. Liberals love the wars now the Barry is President. Ron Paul is consistent.

  7. I would say that I want my President to have strong foreign policy ability. He is the figurehead of our Nation. He is to represent us to The World. I firmly believe this to be one of the bigger priorities as President.

    I have nothing against Mr. Paul. Not a thing. But this particular instance, looking at what he said for myself, does rather disturb me.

    I'll be watching to read the comments of others as this thread expands.

  8. Wella, Wella Wella... The only republican candidate running for the parties nod to challenge Obama in 2012 with a fully awake brain IS Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul is consistent, understands the constitution and limited government by far better than any of the so called "conservatives" {who are really reactionaries} that are attempting to win the opportunity to unseat Obama.

    For those who haven't read Ron Paul's book {I'm betting most haven't taken the time} you should.

  9. Ron Paul isn't a serious person. He's an activist. He's essentially the libertarian equivalent of Cynthia McKinney. I actually like the guy, but as a politician, he's a cartoon character. His running for president is a vanity project and nothing else. I truly pity those poor souls who consider him to be our "only hope".

  10. Part of Paul's stated "foreign policy is to withdraw from their lands, stop fighting them and "be their friends".

    I ran across an apt quote from George Orwell on Pacifism:

    "Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force."

    I fear the "moral force of our "friendship" will not mean as much without Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick".

  11. The pacifist is the willing ally of the aggressor.

  12. Chuck - Ron Paul is a serious person who understands the constitution and constitutional law quite well.

    The fact we have become so indoctrinated by the statist baboons that occupy positions of authority says nothing about Ron Paul's "seriousness." It does however say something about the rest of us.

    He certainly is not the "only hope", but he may be the best thank you...

  13. You posted Proof...

    "Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force."

    I fear the "moral force of our "friendship" will not mean as much without Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick".

    No issue with this here.

    However, national defense does not mean nation building. Nor does it mean forcing our will on others.

    Unfortunately this seems to have escaped many. I'm sure our founding fathers may agree.

  14. "Ron Paul is a serious person who understands the constitution and constitutional law quite well."

    Which is your way of saying you agree with his supposed understanding. That by itself doesn't amount for much in the grand scheme of things. Ron Paul's "understanding" of the constitution is certainly no greater than mine, but that also is irrelevant. Neither of us are ever going to be President. He's a circus act.

  15. Ron Paul is a joke. As Chuck said, I like the guy personally and share some of his beliefs, but some of his views smack of frothing conspiracy theories and reactionary views of economics that carry no weight in a modern economy.

    His foreign policy views of isolationism had to be defeated over and over and over again. While America debated "staying out of other people's problems," brutal enemies expanded their territories, murdering and oppressing billions of people.

    Two massive oceans cannot protect us anymore. Do I need to get Walt Disney World to sing "It's a Small World, After All," to you? What happens overseas matters to us greatly, not only from a military, political, and economic standpoint but from a MORAL standpoint.

    Yes, China and North Korea are evil, but by no means does that imply we should mobilize and invade them. China is a nuclear armed power, and their social structure is moving in our direction. Whether we like it or not, North Korea is under their sphere of influence, and we dare not risk millions of lives in Seoul and Taiwan in a pissing contest over a dying Cult of Personality.

    We fight battles we can win with relative ease, and seek better ways to tighten the noose around our enemy's necks. It took a long time to get Qaddafi, but now he's gone. In case you haven't noticed, multi-decade dictators have been dropping like flies lately.

    I don't approve of Obama fighting a quasi-war without Congressional support, but if I were president I would have supported the resistance with air power too.

    We are already in World War III. Some people just haven't figured it out yet.

    Read Orwell's Notes on Nationalism (1945) to see what he has to say about pacifism and nationalism.

  16. RN: "However, national defense does not mean nation building" I agree. And most liberals do too, unless it's Clinton in Somalia or Obama in "pick a spot".

  17. You guys are priceless. You support nation building, but have reservations when democrats instigate it. In other words I like it when my guy is in charge, but not yours. Its the same guy in charge. Our spending is out of control. One of our problems is military spending. Why do we need military in Germany? Germany is in no threat of attack. Bring them home. I can name many more, but you people want world empire and not freedom. If you want to pay for that empire off of my back and hard work, I will not pay it. I will fight you every step of the way.
    Didn't you see Ms Rice today suggest that we should invade Iran.

  18. Seems the "conservatives" need to set their clocks back... 200 years!
    The Republican message has become so distorted that people today don't even know what it is...
    Follow the constitution! Not a difficult concept. That's why Dr Paul is able to stay on message.

  19. This is the only blog I know of where you can the full range of opinions on Ron Paul. It's quite remarkable. Come to think of it, diversity of political opinion is hardly tolerated on any blog on any issue...even in the comments

  20. Sadly for neo-cons and other big government types from both sides of the political spectrum, the Ron Paul campaign is gathering more and more steam.

    I wonder who they will vote for if it comes down to Paul and Obama. That prospect must have them shuddering and looking for a denial hole to jump into.

    I expect the attacks to ramp up even more as the media is finally forced to cover his campaign.

    He's not the perfect candidate, but since no such thing exists, the above choice may turn out to be the one that they end up having to make.

    Who knew the final vote on whether America lives or dies would be so much fun to watch?

  21. "Why do we need military in Germany? Germany is in no threat of attack"

    Gee. Tautology. Neat.

    My main problem with Paul are his supporters. This whole fantasy-based foreign policy to which they and he ascribe assumes an awful lot of things that no one is in a position to assume. World stability is no accident, and hasn't come about because of iPhones and Levis. Paul wants to buy the world a coke in lieu of actually having a cogent plan to preserve the stability and security his adolescent support base seems to imagine is as much a given as salt in the ocean and clouds in the sky.

  22. There are folks who simply cannot post comments without including ad hominem attacks. I'm guessing their posts command the appropriate respect.

  23. O the irony. Your post is an "ad hominem" attack and a baseless one at that. What is it about Ron Paul that makes his followers such hateful little people? It's truly weird.

  24. "Sadly for neo-cons and other big government types from both sides of the political spectrum, the Ron Paul campaign is gathering more and more steam."

    Sadly for Ron Paul supporters, that much steam will barely let you blow the whistle!

  25. Chuck, do you really think your comments send non-conservatives a positive image?
    I only ask this to be constructive... Because IMO you sound just like a liberal troll.
    Perhaps you can use some critical thinking to do some self examination.

  26. I "sound" like nothing of the sort. I'm simply unimpressed with Ron Paul and have little patience for his Zombies. The fact that Ron Paul's people are so incredibly sensitive to any reasoned criticism of his policy pronouncements, I think , is an insight into his lack of seriousness as a candidate. It's a celebrity thing. Hell, I've been pretty charitable in describing him, too. The guy actually proposed that we should "be friends" with the lunatics running Iran since they're on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, for Godsake. I can think of a lot of words to describe that, but "wise" or "rational" are not among them...and there is a lot more than that. Paul has a WHOLE lot of batshit crazy ideas. Not one or two. A ton.

  27. @Chuck,

    Oh, my sir...are you making friends, again, as only you can do? :)

    All of the political figures have Zombies, as you say. All of them. It's simply how some people are wired. Even Anthony Wiener has sycophants.

    I support Cain, so does this make me a knee-jerk "Cainiac"? Nah. I simply support him. Are there some freakshow "Cainiacs" out there? Sure, you bet. It's simply the nature of the game.

    I like you, Chuck, as much as I am able having never actually met you. But sometimes your words need a bit of tactful reeling in. Not all Paul supporters are lunatics. You know this, I know this, we all know this.

    You're smarter than this, Chuck. You can write better. I've seen you write better, using critical thinking and rational verbiage to make a succinct point.

  28. Sticks and stones... Childish name calling is what I see so often from Liberal trolls.
    I'm simply suggesting that you can stand above this. After all, we're all on the same side as I see it.
    As "Critical" thinkers, we all have our own ideas. It doesn't makes us evil, wrong or stupid. Key word is we think. Unlike the liberal ideology that follows the "script".

  29. I assume that as a sitting member of Congress, Paul knows more about the effects of our sanctions on Iraq were. The liberal left (in the form of Madeline Albright and Bill Richardson) almost gleefully admitted that the sanction related deaths were "worth it."

    Every single prediction Paul has made, both in economics and foreign policy, has been spot on. Nobody else in the race can make that claim.

  30. Careful Angela, you are about to set upon. :-) I agree with your points.

    As for me, I'd put my freedom ahead of foreign policy differences every time. But that's just me.

    Right now we are stuck with a bad foreign policy and very little freedom left, so it's an easy call for me. And since I essentially agree with Paul on foreign policy anyway, it's even easier.

    I'd be interested to know if most Republicans have a plan in mind to deal with Iran. War? More useless sanctions? Tougher talk? What exactly is being advocated other than just opposing Paul's approach?

  31. "I'd be interested to know if most Republicans have a plan in mind to deal with Iran. War? More useless sanctions? Tougher talk? What exactly is being advocated other than just opposing Paul's approach?"

    And with that, Grant lays it down! Now let's see who picks it up. This is a good thread, by the way.

  32. The biggest threat to our national security these days is the national debt.

  33. "I support Cain, so does this make me a knee-jerk "Cainiac"? Nah. I simply support him. Are there some freakshow "Cainiacs" out there? Sure, you bet. It's simply the nature of the game."

    I like Cain too, but that doesn't mean I treat any criticism of him as though someone just called my mother a whore. That's the difference. I'd lay money that you're the same way when it comes to defending Cain's (fading)legitimacy as a candidate. If you treated him as though he were some kind of divine being, then you'd be acting like the Paul people do. It's creepy, and there is nothing untoward about calling attention to it.

  34. I have a few questions.

    One; who on this thread has treated Paul like a divine being?

    Question two;
    Which poster has displayed a "creepy" attitude toward him?

    Question three; which posts have denigrated other posters and their opinions and resorted to name calling?

    Just curious.

  35. @Chuck,

    I'm glad you read my comments and responded as you did. You are spot-on in that I do not view Mr. Cain as my Messiah or that I am willing to foam at the mouth in his defense. He's a man, like any other.

    The only thing I do that may be considered "hardline", is that when people speak poorly of him, I request facts, ie, show me what he said and where he said it and don't try to spin his words if you cannot show me.

    We see eye to eye, Chuck. Sweet.

  36. In the end, foreign will not matter if our country is destroyed from within! How is our "Foreign policy" doing on our southern border? We are busy protecting the border of Kuwait from the likes of Saddam and that boogey man Osama and our southern bored leaks like a sieve!
    Funny thing how all our foreign interest involve oil or the transport of it...
    Troops in Germany.. Ours are the last of the occupation from WWII. Even the Russians left! I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about Adolf anymore...

  37. There seems to be be more questions than answers.

    I'd hate to think that those who have attacked Paul's approach (which they certainly are entitled to do) seem to have no proposals of their own when it comes to Iran.

    I've always thought we should state "what we think AND why." (which, curiously enough, is the name of the blog I write for.)

    Shameless plug:


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.