Ron Paul Is A Raving Lunatic

[Cecropia]

Did you watch the Republican debate on Wednesday? Can you believe this guy? He must be totally nuts. It's so obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm so riled up about it, I want to go point by point and SCREAM about how ignorant he is!!!

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.
Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.
I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --

See what I mean?? He's blaming America (ok, American Policy... whatever) for causing 9/11! I don't believe it, IF we had troops in Saudi Arabia at the time there is no way that it had any influence on Al-Qaida, no way it was a cause of 9/11. I'm going to look this up and disprove it once and for all.

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

Oh... Well, that's Paul Wolfowitz speaking, uh, Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2003... and the interview is archived on the U.S. Defense Department's website, so I guess it's a credible source.

But just wait and see what Paul says next!!

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying -- (laughter) -- I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

What is he talking about? Of course we declared war, I remember there was some sort of resolution which gave the President authority to invade Iraq. And of course Saddam was supporting Al- Qaida so Iraq is partly to blame for 9/11. We weren't just going to let them get away with it! I'm going to look this up, too.

Wait, did he just say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? But I'm certain Saddam was at least helping Al-Qaida.

Conclusion 1: Postwar findings indicate that the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa'ida in particular. Postwar findings indicate that bin Laden attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. Saddam thought al-Qa'ida was an effective organization and reportedly expressed some willingness to broadcast anti-Saudi speeches at the request of al-Qa'ida, but there is no evidence he did. Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
That's page 105 of the Select Committee on Intelligence's (a bipartisan government panel) "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments," 2006.

Ugh. Well, it's beside the point - we authorized Bush to go to war. That's what Paul was arguing with, anyway. The war is illegal? Who cares about international law? Paul claims he only follows the Constitution, so I'll go look there.

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power [...] To declare war [...]
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Let's see, what else does the Constitution say?

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The U.N. Charter is a Senate-ratified treaty, so the Constitution says it's the "law of the land" now? What does the U.N. Charter say about war?

CHAPTER VII

4) Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions […..]

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

So basically a nation that is part of the U.N. can't go to war unless it's authorized by the U.N. or in self-defense. But it seems like Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 and we never did get U.N. approval. Is this what Paul meant when he said "aggressive, illegal war?" How does the U.N. define aggression?

"Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition." General Assembly Resolution 3314

Well, I have to say that whether I agree or disagree with Ron Paul, I can't really pass him off as a crazy buffoon. Maybe his positions, though unconventional, actually make some sense and are persuasive. If his reasoning makes sense when it comes to Iraq, maybe his reasoning makes sense with his other answers in the debate. After all, he was only given one minute to answer broad questions that would probably take hours. Seemed to me that the questions might have been purposefully worded to give him a disadvantage.

Go ahead, read for yourself.
Ron Paul on arming pilots and preventing more hijackings:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678668/posts
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html
Ron Paul on eliminating federal government departments and programs:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=202
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=379
Ron Paul on eliminating the Federal Reserve and the IRS:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=677
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=199
http://www.antiwarpresident.com/ronpaul/Ron-Paul-less-government-abolish-IRS.html

[JuliJoy]

Sep. 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM Thanks for sharing, I love Dr. Paul!!!!!

[MamaSandre]

Sep. 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM Very interesting.. .Thanks for sharing!  I need to be more politically up to date on these important things!

[Ohliveeeah]

Sep. 7, 2007 at 6:52 PM Awsome. I love Ron Paul too!  He is definately my pick.  I want my freedos back I want to keep them!

[jlizgar]

Sep. 7, 2007 at 7:59 PM

OMG! You just blew away any post ive ever written about Ron Paul...this is FAN~FLIPPIN~TASTIC! LOVE IT! and I LOVE Dr. Ron Paul and his message of freedom and liberty and actually following our Constitution.....he is no raving lunatic, Id give that title to the man so called running this country into the toilet!

Thanks for all the facts you posted and information....just an amazing post all around!

RON PAUL 08! Join The Revolution!

[sm_]

Sep. 9, 2007 at 2:14 AM

Awesome!!! Thank you soooo much for doing such thorough research! Vote Ron Paul! No more income taxes!!

[Cecropia]

Sep. 10, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Update: I found the "fatwa" which Bin Ladin issued, stating his grievances with the US.  You'll see that they are mainly geopolitical, not "hatred of our freedoms."

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

This serves as an explanation of 9/11, not an excuse.

(Original Poster)