Ron Paul is Still the Most Intelligent and Capable Candidate In the Room

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Updated 12/11/11 at 10:00 AM EST at Rational Nation USA.

I have heretofore proudly been, and proudly remain, a staunch Ron Paul supporter. Given the the field of inept and unqualified republican candidates that 1) lack vision, 2) lack consistency of purpose and therefore find it necessary to test which way the political wind is blowing almost daily, 3) claim to be 'conservative' when their brand of conservative is really nothing more than neo-conservative statism, 4) are as hypocritical as any liberal ever was, and 5) are only interested in amassing power that {may} allow them to impose their statist vision and will on all Americans, is it any wonder why the republican party in general is rapidly becoming irrelevant?

Ron Paul is, above all else, honest and therefore calls 'em as he sees 'em. Which by the way is refreshing as well as spot-on when analyzed with a rational perspective. As such his views have a great deal more merit than most views floating around in the rooms of statist republican politicians.

Okay... Ron Paul is human. Being human he is certainly susceptible to occasionally making statements that are ill-advised, even foolish. The record is certainly replete with questionable and ill advised, even foolish statements by Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Did I forget any of the RINO or neo-con statists ? The gaffes, errors, and misinformation from those above have certainly been many, as opposed the very few uttered by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did in fact open himself up to the barrage of neo-conservative condemnation {here and here} that has followed his ill-advised statement that the Bush administration was gleeful of 911 because it gave them the justification to invade Iraq. However, a rational analysis of the situation in the Mid East can only lead one the rational conclusion that U.S. actions have indeed resulted in unintended consequences from time to time. To deny the truth of the preceding statement is, to cut to the chase: sheer lunacy.

The Paul statement:

{CBS NEWS} - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the December 9, 2011 12:17 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the stage for an invasion of Iran. {Read More}

Ron Paul's choice of words were most assuredly ill-advised. He should have reasoned through his word selection before uttering them. On this point rational men and women can agree.There can be no doubt that GWB and those in his administration were as stunned and numbed by the horrific events of 911 as all Americans were. So was Ron Paul.

Given his lapse of judgment in this instance he should, 1) offer his heartfelt apologies for a stupid choice of words, and 2) clarify precisely what he meant so those who do not generally understand his positions will grasp the real meaning behind his choice of words.

While I cannot speak for Ron Paul I am confident his message was meant to put forth the position that the Bush administration used the events of 911 to further their arguments for a Iraq invasion following our invasion of, and eventual occupation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Paul's point was that the presence of American boots on the ground in Islam's holiest of soil {Saudi Arabia} inflamed the Muslim people of the Mid East and therefore our actions in the region resulted in unintended consequences, i.e.: 911.

Yes Ron Paul should have phrased his statement differently. And yes he should have known this instinctively. He could have sent the same message with the following statement...

The horrific and evil attack on American soil by Islamic fundamentalists that resulted in the loss of over 3,000 innocent American souls on 911 was appropriately and decisively responded to by President George W. Bush. However, the Bush administration's decision to invade the sovereign state of Iraq without a single act of aggression on the American state and its people by the government of Iraq was, I believe, not only ill advised but driven in part by the evens of 911. The decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, irrational premises, and in fact worsened the already volatile environment in the Middle East.

My words. They do not carry the sanction of the Paul campaign. They do represent my view as to what Ron Paul's intent was based on my understanding of his ethics and guiding principles.

In the end each individual must decide for themselves whether the neo-cons are right or whether Ron Paul simply had a slip of the tongue. I know where I stand. It is the only rational stance {conclusion} to take if you are truly concerned with liberty and proper ethical governance. If you have done due diligence and actually studied the positions of Ron Paul the choice is clear. Ron Paul is the greatest defender of the Constitution ad its principles alive today.

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc.... Liberty hangs in the balance.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. "Ron Paul's choice of words were most assuredly ill advised". That would be the "Careless in His Speech" option.

  2. Les, Ron Paul, my former boss, said pretty much the same thing for years in the car with me when we were traveling to events. (I was his personal travel asst.) Back then I thought he was just playing devil's advocate. Now I see he meant it. The guy is a 9/11 Truther. He believes Bush/Cheney knew of the attacks and may very well have been behind them.

    Do we really want a Truther as president, a guy who can't bring himself to acknowledge the threat of Islam?

  3. Whoa!!! Les, you're just as bad as Ron Paul. Did you just say that Iraq and Saddam did not foster a "single act of agression against the United States"???????

    Are you friggin' kidding me?

    USS Stark - 37 US sailors killed by Saddam Hussein

    Now evidence has come out of direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda right before the 9/11 attacks. He harbored Two! Al Qaeda terrorist training camps - Ansar Al-Islam and Salman Pac.

    There is OVERWHELMING evidence to indicate Saddam and Iraqi Intelligence was behind the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 182 innocent Americans - John Doe II. Google - Hussain Al-Hussaini. Read the Jayna Davis book The Third Terrorist.

    Saddam bombed Israel our close ally, consistently during the first Gulf War.

  4. No Les, the decision to invade Iraq, was "not based on faulty evidence." That is a complete and utter liberal media lie. The bastards lied through their teeth. And you left-libertarians just sucked it all up. How gullible you left-libertarians are to leftist media lies.

    FACT: Weapons of Mass Destruction were found on at least 5 different occasions, most glaringly 500,000 tons of yellow cake in 2008. And a massive cache of missiles in a warehouse by Polish forces. And a smaller cache of missiles laced with sarin that seriously injured two US soldiers.

    LES, CORRECT THE RECORD. To say that WMD was not found, is a complete and utter lie.

  5. Les, there's nothing "NeoConservative," about it. It's called PRO-DEFENSE LIBERTARIANISM.

    NeoCons are just as bad as the Ron Pualists. They're appeasors. They are weak on defense. They want "diplomacy." They want to "make friends with the Arabs." They want to give them foreign aid. With the exception of the latter, the Ron Paulists are aligned with the NeoCons on Middle East policy.

    We Libertarians see Islamism as a direct threat to our liberties. Call us crazy, but we don't want our wives/girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burkqas from head to toe. We don't want our marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life. we don't want our gay/lesbian friends executed in town squares. We don't want alcohol outlawed, pornography banned, and gambling eliminated.

    The NeoCons halfway agree with the Islamists on all that social prudery. The Ron Paulists don't give a hoot about protecting libertarian culture.

    So, NeoCons, Ron Paulists, Islamists, they're all pretty much the same to us Libertarians.

    We want to defeat and destroy Islamism. You appeasors want to coddle it, make friends with them, and even eventually surrender.

    Eric Dondero, Publisher
    Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul 1997-2003
    Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
    Libertarian National Comm. mbr. 1986/87

  6. Eric - Thanks for the info. Perhaps you might provide linkage for us all to refer to.

    In the meantime a neo-con is what a neo-con is. I have provided the explanation with linage to source.

    I also have explained what a "classical liberal" 18th century and early 19th century is. Again wioth credible linkage at RN USA.

    While you smear real Libertarians I shall refer to you as a neo-con statist. Wich judging from your remarks wouldn't e all that far from reality. IMO.

  7. Can you explain to me what exactly is NeoCon about the following:

    Drug Legalization, Abolish the IRS, Support Pornography, Titty Bars, Swearin' drunken sailors, Prostitution, Repeal of Seat Belt laws, Higher Speed Limits on the Highways, Hooters Clubs on every Street Corner, Ending all Foreign Aid, Privatization of Social Security, Abolish the EPA, Eliminate funding for politically correct PBS, and NPR, Topless Beachs across the United States?

    NeoCons are social prudes. They are Bill Bennett (Drug Warrior), Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, George Will,

    We Libertarians are the polar opposite - social libertines, who love our beer, some times a little cannibas, and want our women in skimpy bikinis, or even better topless, not covered in some ugly black burka.

  8. I would also note that its rather intersting you never see Ron Paulists talking about sexual liberties issues. Like I said, the Ron Paul-tards are essentially NeoCon lite.

  9. Eric - Your last statement is bulls**t and you know it. Typical statist line of misrepresentation. Go figure...

    Oh, and I just love how any individuals who think freely and rationally you jump to calling them tards. Telling, oh so telling. Like I said...

  10. Why no response to my questions Lessie baby?

    Again, what's NeoCon about drug legalization? Topless bars? Is supporting women with big boobs in skimpy bikinis "NeoCon"?

    How about repealing Seat Belt laws? When was the last time you heard talking head Billy Kristol advocating seat belt repeal?

    And Big Billy Bennett, Mr. NeoCon himself? When was the last time you heard him advocating marijuana legalization?

    How about abolishing the IRS, and complete amnesty for tax protesters like Irwin Schiff? Are NeoCons in favor of that?

    C'mon Lessy monster. Don't deflect. Don't avoid. You called us Pro-Defense Libertarians "NeoCons." Umm, okay, now prove it.

  11. You left-libertarians are very close to NeoCons. You essentially support the same ends, just with different means.

    Ron Paul-tards could care less about Islamism. Stopping Islamization of Europe and America is not on the left-libertarian radar screen.

    Ditto for the NeoCons. They want to "make friends" with the Arabs. They want to buy them off with our tax dollars. They're appeasors. They see no threat from Islamism.

    Ron Paul-tards, NeoCon-tards, essentially one in the same.

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Cong. Ron Paul, (R-TX) 1997-2003
    Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
    Libertarian National Committee mbr. 1986/87

  12. Eric it you who lie. I responded in my post. For the record I have no issues with your litmus test examples. Now read the post and update.

    Oh, btw, resorting to childish name calling really strengthens your position now doesn't it Mr. Dondero?


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.