Ron Paul- Pandering to Kooks? Or Merely Careless in His Speech?

By Proof

Right Klik had this, which is possibly the most sickening statement ever to come from a serious presidential candidate's lips:



Glee, Mr. Paul? I have seen video where you would not set 9/11 Truthers straight on their sick conspiratorial fantasies about our country staging the 9/11 attack, but on what basis can you claim that there was "glee" in the Bush administration over something this horrific?

Mr. Paul, many conservatives who strongly disagree with your naive, neo-isolationist foreign policy, at least respected you for your views on and adherence to the Constitution.

Statements like this, sir, will lose you much of that respect.

More at CBS, Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

33 comments:

  1. Cheney and the neocons wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

    To say there was glee at this opportunity, which there was, doesn't mean that the neocons weren't also horrified by the 9/11 attacks.

    To deny that Cheney and the neocons were excited to have an excuse to go to war is to be delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron Paul is right, of course. I lived through all that. There is certainly glee from the corporate cronies that the Libtards are keeping us in these undeclared wars. I pray that Dr. Paul wins the Presidental election. He is the only one speaking the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron Paul and his followers are delusional as to who is a "neocon". To say, AS HE SAID, that there was "glee" in the Bush administration over the death of 3,000 Americans is not only delusional, but dangerous.

    If Paul is this careless in his speech, that every time he makes a proclamation, he needs to issue an explanation of why he didn't really say what he said, is a luxury we cannot afford in the de facto Leader of the Free World.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ron Paul speaks as though he assumes that people know what he is saying. This is a serious flaw of his. I think it happens because he is surrounded by people who understand what he is saying and then there are those, unfortunately, who do not.

    It seems as though I spend an eternity defending Ron Paul. I do this because he is a truthful, transparent, politician. One of a very few. He is also a die-hard libertarian. Every thing he does, says, and believes in- is a party tenet of the libertarian party.

    War is big business. Who likes war? Big corporations, defense contractors, big banks and the FED loves wars- they have financed every one- big oil, they sell lots of product-

    Our government loves war also. It expands their power base, gives the pentagon and the CIA something to do.

    When 9/11 occurred, that was the perfect excuse to kick off a bunch of war. Geezus I can't even keep track of how many wars we are fighting. Glee? Perhaps. Perhaps the Presidency, the Pentagon, the FED the military industrial complex, the bankers, big oil, and every other swinging dick saw opportunity here. A chance to make money and pass things like the Patriot Act.

    But mostly wars are HUGELY expensive. We have lost trillions. I don't want to lose a son fighting a war in Afghanistan that we can't win. We're not there because they want us there. We simply insert ourselves to protect "our interests." And then proclaim how we are the good guys. It's a businessman's war. When you are a bankrupt country-it doesn't matter how righteous your position may be- you simply can no longer afford to wage war anywhere you want.

    Do entities find "glee" or opportunity when calamity strikes? Absolutely. Pandering to kooks or careless speech? Neither. Assuming your audience knows as much as you do? Guilty your honor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW, Bill Clinton and Al Gore talked about the necessity for regime change in Iraq for months and years before 9/11. Are all of the prominent Democrats in the Clinton administration "neocons", too?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "When 9/11 occurred, that was the perfect excuse to kick off a bunch of war."

    Kinda like Pearl Harbor, right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Ron Paul speaks as though he assumes that people know what he is saying" Maybe. But, he also gets carried away with his own rhetoric. As a libertarian, he says that we should not get involved in "squabbles" (his word) between other nations, and in principle, I can see the wisdom of it. But, when one our our democratic allies is in a fight for their life, this, to me, rises above a mere "squabble". If we will not come to the aid of our allies, then soon, we will have no allies.

    He is, at best, very careless with the words he uses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "on what basis can you claim that there was "glee" in the Bush administration over something this horrific?"
    I heard nothing in the video where Dr Paul said the Bush admin was gleeful over what happened to those on 9/11

    There was Glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq...
    Did Ari Fleischer deny that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Due to the seriousness of this issue, and the obvious propensity to misrepresent Ron Paul's statement (his intent) Rational Nation USA Will be posting on this bruhaha. Cross posting is a certainty. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I heard nothing in the video where Dr Paul said the Bush admin was gleeful over what happened to those on 9/11"

    "Immediately before there was any assessment...there was glee" I don't know about you, but "immediately" after 9/11, with the folks I know, there was a numbness and shock and horror.

    If Paul had a point to make, he certainly did it in the most careless fashion. He is, at best, extremely careless with the words he uses.

    I do not think that even those who may have wanted the opportunity to invade Iraq (which, incidentally we didn't do "immediately", did we? I thought we went into Afghanistan first?) did so with "glee". Perhaps he has a recording or a memo of an e-mail that might bolster his point. If so, let him produce it. Don't hold your breath.

    The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001.
    The Iraq war began on March 20, 2003. So much for "rushing" into war with Iraq after 9/11! Maybe Paul should get his wars straight?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I guess your hearing is impaired over your glee to attack Dr Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here, let me fix that for you Varones:

    "To BELIEVE that Cheney and the neocons were excited to have an excuse to go to war is to be delusional."

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have yet to hear someone use the word "neocon" who actually understood what the word means.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Then please tell us "uninformed" what "neocon" means Nick!
    I certainly know what it means to me...

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The most sickening statement to ever come from a serious presidential candidate"? Ha! On Right Kliks blog you can see the interview with Megyan Kelley where he identifies one source of his assertion: Bob Woodward. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush was truly contrite about 9/11 yet I do believe there were multiple hawks that didn't want to 'see a good crisis go to waste' and wanted to finish the Gulf war.

    If you study the statement in context, there is no need for your mean-spirited hack job on a man of character and honor and the only candidate with actual military service.

    Here's just one example of a ***FAR*** more sickening statement by a serious presidential contender:

    "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everyone." (Obama to Joe the Plumber)

    ReplyDelete
  16. @nacilbupera

    Ron Paul needs to do better than to throw out a vague allusion to something Bob Woodward might have intimated in a book.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ John: You get all your exercise jumping to conclusions? I have no "glee" in attacking anyone, but what you characterize as an "attack" is no where near compared to 3,000 violent deaths at the hands of Muslim extremists. Your false equivalence further proves my theory that Paul supporters and liberals are nearly indistinguishable when commenting on conservative sites.

    And if there was "glee" that we could invade Iraq, why didn't we? We went to war in Afghanistan in October of 2001, not Iraq.

    "I certainly know what it means to me... " Not good enough. It's like "empire". It means something different to Paul and his supporters than it does the rest of the world, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

    Those who believe in preserving the Constitution generally believe in "original intent". How can anyone believe in original intent if they or their followers take perfectly good words and use them to mean something else?

    @ Nick: Neocon is a perfectly good term with a precise historic meaning. Unfortunately liberals and Paul supporters think it sounds like a neat slur to call someone a "neocon". Again, why do Paul supporters sound so much like liberals? (Not in what they believe, but rhetorically, they were hatched from the same egg.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. If anyone ever finds a candidate who participates in scores of debates and possibly hundreds of interviews and doesn't make a statement where his point is garbled or fumbled fairly often, let me know who it is.

    All these guys trip up regularly, as I'm sure all of us would too. IMO, Paul will make a great President, he could obviously be a better candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @nacilbupera,

    You said:
    "There is no doubt in my mind that Bush was truly contrite about 9/11 yet I do believe there were multiple hawks that didn't want to 'see a good crisis go to waste' and wanted to finish the Gulf war."

    Totally agree. Of course Mr. Bush was shocked. Who wasn't? But indeed I do believe there were those who secretly were happy to be able to return to The Sandbox to finish Gulf War 1, and like you said, 'not let a good crisis go to waste'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Grant,

    You said:
    "If anyone ever finds a candidate who participates in scores of debates and possibly hundreds of interviews and doesn't make a statement where his point is garbled or fumbled fairly often, let me know who it is."

    You should pick me. Just ask my bathroom mirror: I am an excellent debater, and I never make mistakes. My words are always perfect, pointed, and awesome. No one can stand toe-to-toe with me, not even Newt or Ron Paul. I run circles around them.

    Like I said, just ask my bathroom mirror. It has all the details.

    I'll open a PayPal account to begin receiving campaign funds. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'Think of what happened after 9/11,' he said. 'The minute before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,' he told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072314/Republican-hopeful-Ron-Paul-claims-Bush-administration-GLEEFUL-9-11-terrorist-attacks.html#ixzz1gCIQgI4S
    -------------------------

    Hmmm. I can see how the MSM would spin this to make it look like Mr. Paul said that the Bush Administration was gleeful after 911. But I don't believe for a second that that was the thrust of Mr. Paul's statement. At all. He isn't Newt Gingrich who thinks a good terrorist attack now and again would do America well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Grant: Paul has a history of pandering to kooks, specifically 9/11 Truthers. He accepts their support and contributions from them. He says he has no control over what his supporters believe, but he does nothing to discourage them.

    He patronizes them with hints of "more government investigations into 9/11" but he says he doesn't believe it personally.

    I do not believe this was a "garbled" point. I think is was an "applause line" from his stump speech.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chakam said...

    "I can see how the MSM would spin this to make it look like Mr. Paul said that the Bush Administration was gleeful after 911. But I don't believe for a second that that was the thrust of Mr. Paul's statement."

    I sincerely hope you're correct.

    I'd like to see more of the context of that speech to judge for myself. But from what we do have, and from Paul's follow up with Megyn Kelly where he said he'd describe the administration's reaction as "a lot of pleasure" if not "glee," it's hard not to conclude that Paul meant exactly what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A neocon is, metaphorically, a liberal who has been mugged by reality. More literally, a neocon is a former liberal who became a conservative after a crisis of confidence in their former ideology.

    The original neocons were democrats who were critical of Great Society programs and anti-communist. They included Irving Krystol and Scoop Jackson.

    One example is David Horowitz who was a Marxist until other Marxists murdered his girlfriend.

    Other neocons met their conversion under less dire consequences. Dennis Miller became a neocon after 9/11.

    The term was corrupted in its contemporary use against people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Libby, and others who supported the Iraq War. It has been applied particularly to the 20% minority of politically conservative Jews.

    Scratch someone who says "neocon," and smell an anti-semite.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nick, I would agree with you in most part but add that;
    a neoconservative in American politics can appear to be conservative while in fact favoring big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then dominated the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. Neoconservatives are often preferred by liberals to portray the conservative voice in the media, as in television talk shows, newspaper columnists, magazines, think tanks, and advisory positions in Republican Administrations.

    In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues, [and] are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with paleoconservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

    On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

    Proof you keep saying the same thing...

    If this is the best the MSM can find against Ron Paul, then I'd say he is the most conservative candidate we'll find!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Neoconservatism

    A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

    Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

    Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

    The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away from those candidates, Sarah Palin.

    Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.

    In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

    On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

    Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide.

    Soure - Conservapedia

    ReplyDelete
  27. As opposed to "Classical Liberalism"

    Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

    Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

    People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

    On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes. Read more at (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism)


    So, who is the limited government guy in the republican field who stands for liberty? Seems pretty clear to me...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Proof, If he tried to for an applause line from a few kooks, he doesn't count too well when it comes to voters because there are so few of them among voters, particularly Republican voters. I understand why you might come to that conclusion, but I simply disagree.

    Additionally, if he was trying to get applause, he failed. It's my understanding he was booed when he said it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John: "If this is the best the MSM can find against Ron Paul..." Lose the rose colored glasses, John. This is not the "best" the MSM can find, this is just the latest in a long line of things that point to Ron's carelessness and/or inadequacies to assume the highest office in the land.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Let's get back to basics for a moment.

    "glee  [glee]
    noun
    1. open delight or pleasure; exultant joy; exultation. "

    Can we agree that the use of the word "glee" to describe anyone in the Bush administration "immediately" after 9/11 is intemperate at best and a vicious smear at worst?

    Do words have meanings? Is it important for the next leader of the Free World to be cognizant and careful in his or her choice of words?

    ReplyDelete
  31. RN USA: I can't see anything on your list of "neocon" beliefs that I or any of the conservatives I know hold to. Maybe Paul's supporters would do well not to insult conservatives by lumping all of them together in some false category and then heap derision on them for what they have never said nor believe.

    News flash: Not every conservative outside the Ron Paul camp is ipso facto a "neocon".

    ReplyDelete
  32. As would conservatives likewise do well not to do the same to Paul supporters.

    I find't say they all were neocons now did I?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I didn't say they all were neocons now did I?"

    No, you may be the exception that proves the rule, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to say. But generally, whenever I write a piece less than flattering to Ron Paul, I get told by his supporters that I am a "neocon" and the blogs I write for are "neocon blogs", that I favor big government, yada, yada, yada. When asked for examples of anything I have said that proves their points, they are strangely silent.

    I think some may have a macro on their computers of "All you neocons". I hear it a lot, used as a pejorative... from liberals and Paul supporters. Needless to say, my estimation of their judgment falls as they jump to erroneous conclusions.

    Likewise, I do not say that all Ron Paul's supporters are "Paulbots". They are a definite subset, and some of y'all know who you are!

    ReplyDelete

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.