He rides again

Nader announces new run for president

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."

This above all is a sad day for Nader. Some on the right are cheering but more reasonable types like Captain Ed are more realistic.

How much impact will Nader have this time? Probably none at all. Unless Hillary Clinton pulls off a miracle, the Naderites of 2000 have aligned themselves enthusiastically with Barack Obama. Having Nader attack him from the Left won't hurt Obama's prospects in the middle, where he needs to draw more heavily than John McCain.

I see him having even less impact than candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution Parties on the right. That would become considerably less impact if Ron Paul were to change his mind and make a run.


Bottom line - few will buy Ralph's no difference meme this time around.

Update
Mike Allen and Ben Smith at Politico show once again that the DC punditry is clueless and out of touch.
Nader enters in boon to GOP
Not even the Republicans think that Nader will have any significant impact. He received less than .4% of the vote in 2004 and will receive even less this time.

Update II
Atrios:

Ralph


Who cares?

.38% in 2004.

I could get .38%.

Update III

As I mentioned above this is above all a sad day for Ralph Nader. To James Fallows it's a personal issue:

Nader was funny, warm, brilliant-seeming, and, yes, caring. He visited my wife in the hospital after our first child was born. For years after that, he never failed to ask about both of our kids (or my wife) whenever I talked with him. I say all this as an indication of why Ralph Nader has so many people who actually are loyal to him -- and who wish they didn't have to face the reality about the choices he has made over the last eight years.

That he stayed in the race in 2000 was tragedy. (See: Invasion of Iraq, 2003, and subsequent occupation.) That he came back in 2004 was unfortunate; his entry in 2008 is farce. Farce because it suggests detachment from political reality (the differences between the Republican and Democratic nominees are so faint that we can say, What the hell!) and, worse, narcissism. The fact that it won't make any difference in the outcome actually is sad.

I will always like and respect Ralph Nader and will always admire the wonderful things he has done. But I wish to God that he had not made this decision, or will reverse it soon. (And, I am sorry that saying this will make me an enemy in his eyes.) He is a better man than his recent decisions indicate.

We talk about legacies and Ralph could have had a good one but instead he will be remembered as a narcissistic old fool that people laugh at and don't take seriously. No one except the political heavyweights at Politico that is.

Feudal Economics and the Republican Party

I meant to comment on this opinion piece by Jonah Goldberg yesterday:
Ron Paul isn't that scary
It's important because it tells us what the Republican Party is all about and what it fears the most. Goldberg attacks social conservative Mike Huckabee because he is an economic progressive.

What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee is a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government -- and your tax dollars -- to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

[....]

And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.

Yes, the Republican Party stands for feudal economics - to them the "ownership society" is where less than 5 percent of the population owns 95 percent of everything. Where owning a house for most means you are an indentured servant until you make that last payment if ever you do. What they hate the most is the New Deal and what they fear the most is a new New Deal just when it looked like they were turning things around. That's why many in big business support Hillary and fear John Edwards. That's why Libertarian Ron Paul does not frighten the Jonah Goldbergs as much as a "right-wing progressive" like Huckabee. Paul my cut down the war machine but he won't use the federal government to help the serfs.

It's not over until it's over.....

.....unless you're Fred
The latest poll from New Hampshire shows some real movement - in the wrong direction for Fred and Rudy.
Thompson skids while Romney, Paul climb in N.H. poll

Thompson came into the GOP race late with the hope of winning over social conservatives unsatisfied with the rest of the party's field, and racked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee last week. But the former star of the television drama "Law and Order" has trailed the GOP front-runners in early voting states since entering the race in August, and his support in New Hampshire dropped from 13 percent in a September poll to 4 percent in November's survey.
By contrast, Romney's support grew from 25 percent to 33 percent over the same period; McCain held steady at 18 percent; and Giuliani dipped from 24 to 16 percent.

Meanwhile, the percentage of support for Paul grew from 4 percent to 8 percent, putting him fourth among the GOP contenders in the Granite State.

I suspect this indicates that people are getting to know the candidates. In Fred's case once you get to know him you realize there's not much to know. In Rudy's case once you get to know him you don't like him very much.

Toxic Breeze

Some progressives had made the mistake of seeing Ron Paul as a breath of fresh air in large part because of his stand on the occupation of Iraq. A look at his record in congress shows that he is anything but a breath of fresh air but a toxic breeze. David Neiwert has Paul's record in congress and Paul may be a different kind of wingnut but he is a dangerous wingnut never the less. Go check out David's post for the details but here is a brief summary of Ron Paul's contributions to policy.

• As pro-life as one can get - he has introduced bills that would prohibit spending tax dollars on not just abortion but birth control as well.
• He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.
• He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life.
• He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism.
• He wants to dramatically reduce the tax obligations of people who make inordinately high incomes and who inherit large fortunes they did not earn. Specifically, this includes attempts to repeal the estate tax, and to apply one tax rate to all income levels.

There is much more - head over to David's post for the entire toxic brew.

Update
Glenn Greenwald takes the Neiwart post to task, unfairly I think. He mentions that tere may be some problems with the flag burning issue which I didn't even cover above and he may be right. But he fails to mention some of the worst of Paul's policy views.

Update II
Atrios has some interesting observations:

I find the Ron Paul candidacy interesting, but that has nothing to do with support. It's interesting because I don't quite understand it. It's interesting because he highlights the unacknowledged-by-the-Villagers fact that anti-war sentiment has long since spread from dirty fucking hippies like me into other parts of the population. It's interesting because despite having significant fundraising and some early poll (New Hampshire) showing, his candidacy is largely ignored by the Village. It's interesting because Ron Paul is crazy but Norman Podhoretz and Rudy Giuliani are very serious (that is, there are certain types of crazy that the Village loves and certain kinds of crazy they marginalize).

Ron Paul - A Dean or a Nader

Via Sully we have this analysis from Anonymous Liberal:
Ron Paul is not the Republican Howard Dean

Ron Paul truly is a fringe candidate, a guy whose writings (as Kevin Drum recently put it) have a "Unabomber-esque" quality to them. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but it's certainly true that Paul endorses a number of positions that have very little mainstream support (returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, getting rid of most federal agencies, etc.). Moreover, many of Paul's positions on key issues of the day are diametrically opposed to those held by most of the Republican base, which explains why Paul was overwhelmingly named the "Least Favorite Person on the Right" by this recent survey of right-wing bloggers.

There is zero chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or, after he loses, become a major leader in the Republican party. His constituency consists mainly of libertarian types who are either not Republicans or have not felt at home in the Republican party for quite some time.

And unlike Dean, I think it is pretty unlikely that Paul will endorse the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, I suspect Republican party officials are a little worried about Paul's plans for the general election. Though Paul has so far disclaimed any intention of running as a third party candidate, I think he would have little trouble securing the nomination of various third parties (like the Constitution Party) that will have a spot on the ballot in most states. If Paul can raise his profile enough to secure himself a place in general election debates (as Ross Perot did in 1992), he may well be tempted to accept a third party nomination.

Paul is much more like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader than Howard Dean. His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them. Those who want to see a Republican in the White House come 2009 should be very careful how they treat Ron Paul and his supporters. He has the potential to become a very effective spoiler in the general election.

I think this is about right. The Republicans are concerned about a defection or apathy on the part of one fringe group, the Evangelicals, as they should be. This from The CarpetBagger Report:

Perkins began by arguing that, for social conservatives, “there’s little distinction between” Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. While conceding that the two are “not identical,” Perkins added, “If they’re indistinguishable on so many issues that are vital to these voters, it’s hard to see why you should vote for one instead of the other.”

This does not indicate a possible third party candidate but just as ominous for the Republicans is that the Evangelicals will simply stay home. As Greg Sargent points out if Rudy lost half the Evangelical votes Bush received in 2004 it would represent nine percent.

But what about the Ron Paul fringe? Just head over to the Libertarian site LewRockwell.com. Now these are people who have historically voted Republican. They have also been as vocal about George W. Bush's wars of choice and his shredding of the constitution as any on the left. They see Rudy as a George W. Bush who can complete a sentence. It's Ron Paul all of the time. They are a third party threat as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are on the ballot in most States. So could Ron Paul become another Ross Perot or Ralph Nader?

Libertarian "Nut-roots"

Via Radley Balko and Andrew Sullivan; the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party may have their own Howard Dean. From Sully:

If the latest report pans out, Ron Paul has leaped out of the asterisk box in the GOP campaign. His largely online funding, if verified, would put him on a par with McCain. Money quote:

Observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million. "That's a huge number at this stage," says one observer. "That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates."

Not unlike the progressives that supported Dean in 2004 the Libertarians are fed up with their party and it's policies and are looking for an alternative. Of course it will be up to the DC pundits and corporate media to destroy Dr Paul just like they destroyed Dr Dean's chances in 2004.

Bizzaro World

I have often discussed the absurd meme that the Islamic terrorists hate us because of who we are - because of our freedoms. As Pat Buchanan said they don't hate us because of who we are they hate us because of where we are. Over at LewRockwell.com Steven LaTulippe discusses this in relation to the recent Republican "debate" in South Carolina and the flap over Ron Paul's remarks.

Rudy’s Ride to Bizzaro World

While watching the South Carolina Republican debate a few weeks ago, I finally succumbed to Justin Raimondo’s theory that 9/11 ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and transported us all to Bizzaro World – an upside down universe of fun-house mirrors and distorted thinking.

I am, of course, speaking of Rudy Giuliani’s reaction to Ron Paul’s statement that our foreign policy has fueled Muslim anti-Americanism. Rudy seemed surprised and angry as he pandered to the crowd and demanded that Rep. Paul retract his statement.

Ron Paul, to his credit, stood his ground.

But as ignorant as Rudy’s comments were, the real strangeness is to be found in our mainstream media’s reaction to the incident. Even establishment liberals like Chris Matthews have treated Rep. Paul with bemused disdain and have written off his assertion as sheer quackery.

Of course it's anything but "quackery". The US and Europe have been imperialistically manipulating the middle east since oil was first discovered there in the 1920s. That includes supporting tyrants and in the case of Iran overthrowing a democratically elected government.

So what theory is actually "quackery"?

On one side, we have the "Rudy theory." This view – held by our entire political and media establishment – asserts that Muslim extremists are attacking America because they "hate our freedom."

Even a cursory examination of this hypothesis exposes its sheer absurdity.

Are we to believe that waves of Muslims have spontaneously decided to immolate themselves in suicidal attacks because we have freedom of the press and freedom of religion? Would the Muslim world initiate a horrific war with the most powerful military in history merely because we have elections and jury trials? Do they really hate Britney Spears so much that they would blow themselves up just to take a few of us down with them?

The questions answer themselves.

That this theory is the only one "permitted" in public discussions is proof positive of our descent into Bizzaro World. No other evidence is necessary.

When the subject is framed with the above questions we can see how absurd the "conventional wisdom" is. Of course they don't hate us because of who we are. They hate us because we are in the middle east to gain control of their natural resources. It of course doesn't help that at the same time we show disdain for their culture and religion.

When our political situation has become so distorted that an obvious truism is discarded outright while an obvious falsehood is universally acclaimed, then something is seriously wrong.

Perhaps it really is Bizzaro world...or maybe it’s something more sinister.

Either way, given what I saw in South Carolina, it’s obvious that our political system is nowhere near curing what ails us, and we can expect more of the same for as far as the eye can see.

The ultimate loser?

Will the two party system in the US be the ultimate loser of the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq? While a majority of Americans want the occupation of Iraq to end the Republicans in Congress are unwilling to turn on Bush's policies and the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to end it. And here of course is the talk of a Michael Bloomberg-Chuck Hagel third party run.

Over at Antiwar.com Libertarian Justin Raimando sees The Season of Hope for the Libertarians. In 1998 he predicted that the Libertarians would be the party of peace.

"As the U.S. stumbles, or is pushed, into another unwinnable land war in Asia, the anti-war protestors of the future will come from the ranks of the Right. Buchanan, and the editors of this magazine, in alliance with other conservatives and libertarians, stood firm against the war hysteria that preceded Gulf War I. This time around, with the stakes even higher, that same alliance has the potential to expand its ranks to include the overwhelming majority of Americans. Let our rulers unleash the dogs of war to mask their own corruption: they will ignite a social and political explosion that will make the sixties seem relatively tranquil."

I wrote that in the June 1998 issue of Chronicles magazine, at the end of a piece entitled "Wagging the Dog," wherein I pointed out that the evidence of Saddam’s aggressive intent was nil, that the U.S. was starving and sickening many thousands by imposing sanctions, and that an invasion would lead to a civil war, the break-up of Iraq, the rise of Iran, and significant political turmoil in the U.S.:

"Some Republicans… bravely spoke out. Representative Steven E. Bayer, of Indiana, dared ask: ‘Why are emotions running so high at the White House? Why are the tom-toms of war sounding?’ Representative Ron Paul, of Texas, excoriated his jingoist colleagues for ‘trying to appease the military industrial complex and appear tough for campaign ads.’ He complained that ‘once hostilities begin, debating the policy which created the mess is off-limits; the thinking goes that everybody must support the troops by blindly and dumbly supporting irrational and irresponsible policies.’ The only solution, he concludes, "is a pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention.’ But ‘unfortunately, we cannot expect such common sense to prevail in the current political climate.’" Those were the Clinton years, when it was neither unusual nor even treasonous for a Republican to question the administration’s war moves against Iraq: as Ron Paul pointed out in the South Carolina GOP presidential debate the other day, we bombed Iraq for years before launching the present disastrous enterprise, all the while tightening deadly sanctions like a noose around the necks of ordinary Iraqis. What kind of hatred this produced was brought home to us on September 11, 2001, in a highly dramatic occurrence of a concept popularized by Chalmers Johnson in Blowback, his classic study of the socio-cultural, political and military costs of interventionism.

Democrats, Republicans and foreign policy

When it comes to foreign policy, the differences between the two parties have rarely given the voters much of a choice. In the "debate" over this vital issue, our options are limited to the varieties of interventionism – the unilateralist, macho-style preemptive imperialism of the Republicans, or the touchy-feely "humanitarian"-yet-just-as-deadly interventionism of the Democrats, with Iraq and Kosovo being the operative examples, respectively.

On the other hand, there has always been a populist "isolationist" anti-Washington sentiment out there, centered largely in the West and the Midwest, which at one point found a home in the Republican party, not only in the wing represented by Robert A. Taft, but also among the Midwestern progressives, such as William Borah and Gerald P. Nye. Ron Paul is the proud legatee of an "Old Right" tradition that included both libertarian and progressive aspects.

Yes both the Democrats and the Republicans have tried to silence the critics of US foreign policy, Ron Paul being the latest example. While Republicans criticized Clinton's wars and Democrats have criticized Bush's war few in either party have been critical of US foreign policy.

Raimando concludes with this:

Ron Paul’s guerrilla campaign to take back the GOP from the neocons, the Bloomberg-Hagel insurgency that might or might not rise up from the wheat fields of Nebraska and Manhattan’s concrete canyons – these are just the beginnings of the resistance, the first acts of the new radicals in American politics who are neither "right" nor "left" but merely intent on subverting the neoconservative project of authoritarianism on the home front and perpetual war abroad.

Contrary to some of my critics, I don’t agree that these movements are contradictory or in any kind of competition: Ron Paul would certainly have been helped, not hurt, by the entrance of Hagel in the race for the GOP’s nod, and even at this point Hagel launching an independent bid would do much to legitimize Paul’s position in the eyes of the media. (As for Hagel, he could always point to Paul and say – at least I don’t go as far as that guy! Not that I would recommend he do any such thing …)

We’re in for some stormy weather, this political season, that much is nearly certain. The Republic is being buffeted about by some pretty strong winds, and the hull is filling up with water. Yet I have hope that the ship of state won’t sink: in the end, the storm will have some clearly beneficial effects, starting with clearing the air of noxious clouds and other detritus that have long been poisoning the political atmosphere. When push comes to shove, in spite of the damage to this or that political institution or grouping, it will all be to the good, because a fresh breeze will blow through Washington, a sign of spring – and hope.

As a progressive I have many problems with the Libertarian philosophy but the greatest threat to the United States right now is tyranny and dangerous misguided foreign policy. These are two subjects where progressives and Libertarians have common ground and unless these threats are addressed the rest is irrelevant.

Update
Ron Paul must be scaring the hell out of the wingnuts. Sully has an example of a smear campaign the likes of which are usually reserved for Democrats.

Note
More on Ron Paul can be found here.

More Conservatives Defend Ron Paul

Yesterday I discussed the defense of Ron Paul by Libertarians Lew Rockwell and Jacob Hornberger. As the Republican establishment talks about leaving him out of future debates still more of the old style conservatives come to his defense.

A few months after 911 it was Par Buchanan, a man I loath most of the time, who wisely said "they don't hate us because of who we are, they hate us because of where we are". Buchanan of course was correct and he explains that so was Ron Paul when he essentially said the same thing at the republican debate.
But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9/11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous – the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

But wait, how did the rest of the country feel about what Ron Paul had said?

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

It's little wonder that the Republican establishment don't want to give Dr Paul a soap box.

Is Ron Paul wrong or even unpatriotic?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand.

Of course Ron Paul was saying what many of us on the left have been saying. He's right of course which is why the Republicans want him silenced.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Another Libertarian conservative, Thomas R. Eddlem, points out that everything Dr Paul said was in the 911 Report.

It’s outrageous for Ron Paul to expect Rudy Giuliani to have ever "heard that before," even though he could have read the same perspective in the 9/11 Report. After all, he was only the mayor – the chief executive – of New York City during the 9/11 attacks, the worst terrorist attack in American history. Why would anyone suggest he needed to read the official government report on the attacks?

Since it’s outrageous to expect Rudy Giuliani to have to read the 9/11 Report, it’s also outrageous to think that he would have read the part of the 9/11 Report where they outline the principle of blowback in great detail. Heck, he’s only trying to be President of the United States. It’s not like he needs to know about the long-term implications of our foreign policy.

Ron Paul and the truth about US Foreign Policy

When it comes to domestic policy Ron Paul and I would probably disagree on nearly everything. That said I will have have to agree that he may be the only one speaking truth to power when it comes to foreign policy. He joined the "blame America first" crowd when he said that US foreign policy was responsible for 911 and created a virtual fire storm at the latest Republican debate. The old style libertarian Republicans have come to his defense.

The first is Lew Rockwell himself.
Ron Paul Said It

Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.

Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.

So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.

He was asked if he was really a Republican.

"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."

He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "

And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks.

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

The founder of The Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger gives some details while defending Ron Paul.
Giuliani’s Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat

Ron Paul once again roiled Republican presidential politics on the issue of foreign policy during last night’s debate, finishing second in the post-debate poll conducted by Fox News and first in the poll conducted by MSNBC.

Pointing out that U.S. foreign policy is the root cause of the anger and hatred that has engendered terrorism against the United States, including the 9/11 attacks, Paul suggested that America would be better off ending the U.S. government’s role as world policeman as wells its longtime policy of interventionism. He pointed to Vietnam as an example of where 60,000 American men died in a senseless war while today Americans are instead peacefully investing and trading with the Vietnamese despite their communist regime.

Paul’s point ignited an attack by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who indignantly announced that he had never heard such a theory in his life and asked Paul to retract it. Instead, Paul steadfastly stood his ground, pointing out that the CIA itself has pointed out the “blowback” that U.S. foreign policy has engendered. He cited the CIA’s installation of the shah of Iran in 1953 for producing the blowback that resulted in the taking of the U.S. hostages in Iran many years later.

In a post-debate interview, Giuliani clarified his point by reciting the official U.S. canard that was issued immediately after the 9/11 attacks – that the terrorists hate us for our “freedom and values.” Giuliani suggested that it was because of our “freedom of religion” and “freedom for women.”

Iran and classic blowback.

When Paul mentioned Iran as an example of blowback from U.S. foreign policy, he was referring to the 1953 coup in which the CIA secretly and surreptitiously engineered the ouster of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, who had been selected Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. In his place, the CIA installed the shah of Iran, whose secret police proceeded to terrorize and torture the Iranian people for the next 25 years, with the ardent support of the U.S. government. As the Iranian people discovered the U.S. government’s role in all this, their anger and rage ultimately erupted in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. hostages.

And then there is Iraq; our history their has created much of the hate we now see in the Middle East - blowback big time.

Consider U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq:

1. The U.S. support of Saddam Hussein.
2. The U.S. furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and the correlative assistance provided by the U.S. in the use of such weaponry.
3. The Persian Gulf intervention.
4. The intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, with full knowledge as to what effect such action would have on the long-term health of the Iraqi people.
5. The more than 10 years of brutal sanctions, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from sickness and disease.
6. The deadly no-fly zones, which had not been authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress, and whose enforcement entailed the firing of missiles and the dropping of bombs that killed even more Iraqis.
7. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to “Sixty Minutes” that reverberated throughout the Middle East that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been “worth it.”
8. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis.
9. The torture and sex abuse of Iraqi men at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, photographs and videos of which are still being kept hidden by U.S. officials because of their potential blowback.
10. The periodic rapes and murders that some U.S. troops have committed against the Iraqi people during the occupation.
11. The arbitrary and indiscriminate searches and seizures without warrants being conducted by U.S. troops.
12. The indefinite detentions without trial of some 20,000 Iraqi men and women in overcrowded prisons.

How can anyone honestly believe that such actions would not engender horrible anger and rage throughout the Middle East and, indeed, throughout the world?

So is Ron Paul blaming America? The answer is no.

In last night’s debate Rudy Giuliani made a mistake that is commonly made by those who view the federal government as a deity. Conflating the U.S. government and the American people, he suggested in the post-debate interview that Ron Paul was “blaming America.” Actually, Paul did no such thing. He blamed the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policies for the morass in which our nation now finds itself. Like our Founding Fathers and the Framers, Paul understands that the federal government and the country are two separate and distinct groups, which in fact is precisely why the Bill of Rights expressly protects the country from the federal government.

Ron Paul’s answers in last night’s debate reflect how differently he approaches societal problems as compared to such politicians as Rudy Giuliani. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is, first and foremost, a physician. As a doctor, he is trained in diagnosing an ailment correctly because he knows that a correct prescription almost always depends on the right diagnosis. Equally important, he isn’t going to lie to a patient or feed him a false reality about the seriousness of his ailment. In order for the patient to make the correct decision as to whether to embark on a certain course of treatment, Paul knows that it is necessary that the patient confront the reality of his condition.

Therefore, during last night’s debate Ron Paul simply was doing what he has done for many years, both as a doctor and as a congressman. He was diagnosing what ails the American body politic and prescribed the radical treatment that is necessary to heal the patient. The patient can obviously go into denial, preferring to believe instead the lies and false realities of charlatans but deep down the patient always knows that ultimately reality will not enable him to escape the consequences of having done so.

Good for you Ron Paul - keep talking truth to power.

Republican Ron Paul.......

.....saying what the Democrats should be saying

Republican Representative Ron Paul gave the speech on the house floor yesterday that the Democrats were elected to give. You can read the entire thing here, The Neoconservative Empire, or watch it here.

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

I hope that at least a few Democrats were listening and taking notes but that's probably a false hope. He concludes with this.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

That's right, it's going to go badly if we leave but it's going to go badly if we stay costing lives and treasure of this country. So why would we stay.

The right wing blogosphere is is all excited about this:
Mahdi army commanders withdraw to Iran to lie low during security crackdown
somehow thinking it is an indication of victory. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sure the suggestion to leave temporarily came from the highest levels of the al Maliki government. It's purpose - to allow the Americans to concentrate on the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis. I wonder how our friends is Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will feel about that. When that's complete the al Sadr and the Mahdi Army will be back in force to take on the Americans.

But as Ron Paul notes the Democrats don't seem willing to do what needs to be done - what they were given the majority to do.

Ron Paul - support the troops, cut off funding

Texas Republican Ron Paul says the best way to support the troops is to cut off the funding for the Iraq war before it leads to even more wars.

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.

Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!

[......]

Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

There is always enough money to bring the troops home.

There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.

So support the troops by cutting off funding for this war and the next Cheney war.

Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.

This is one Republican the Democrats should be listening to.