That's No Moonbat, That's a Statesman
May 21, 2007
A variety of pundits have been decrying Ron Paul as a lefty stooge, but Tammy Bruce, author of The New Thought Police, in her commentary on the Fox News debates said the following:
This is the best moment of the evening: The exchange between Ron Paul and Giuliani... Paul... is... a moonbat. ... He said directly that September 11th happened because we asked for it. He also noted we should talk to al-Qaida, and recognize, essentially, that we deserved what happened to us.
Over and out for that freak. Giuliani stepped in perfectly, and shamed him for the comments, at which point the audience applauded.
I extend to Ms. Bruce the courtesy she wouldn't provide Ron Paul, I quote her directly rather than paraphrasing her remarks in my own context.
Her article was then followed by a litany of reader comments from Neo-Cons rushing to attack Dr. Paul and applaud Rudy, who apparently has never read the 9-11 Commission Report.
Did any of these people actually listen to what Ron Paul said? To ask the question is to answer it.
- He never said we "asked for" what happened on September 11
- He never said we should "talk to al-Quaida"
- He never said we "deserved" it
e did say that we need to stay out of foreign affairs and "entangling alliances." He sounded just like another "moonbat," Thomas "Tommy the Commmie" Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. H
e did say we should trade with foreign nations rather than fight them. He said this because war advances the state, and the state is the antithesis of and liberty and prosperity.H
e did say that American foreign military policy over the last half-century (and more) contributed to the arsenal of reasons that zealous Jihadists have for attacking the United States. A HISTORY LESSONB
ecause, you see, Iran in 1953 posed no threat to the United States, but the United States had a heck of an impact on Iran when we overthrew their elected leader to install a dictatorial shah, one whom they worked twenty years to remove. All this for the sake of "fighting the Soviets," a one-sided cold war that ended because we started trading with them.I
n the 1960's, Iraq had no impact on the United States, but the United States decided they wanted a banana republic. They mucked around for years and finally, in the vacuum created by our stunts, Saddam Hussein emerged. This, of course, was no problem for the United States. W
e sided with Saddam in combatting the angry Iranians, who hated the US for "some" reason (maybe the one cited above). Then, in 1991, April Gillespie told Saddam, who sought to add Kuwait to Iraq's territory, the US would have no position were he to do so. O
f course, in a surprise move, right after Iraq entered Kuwait, the US pulled an about face, declaring Saddam Hussein "the new Hitler." We spent the next 10 years bombing Iraq and upholding sanctions that would starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.M
y favorite, however, is how Osama bin Laden was an asset to us when he was planning terrorist attacks with CIA assistance (and funding) during the 80's, but a threat once he used those same tactics against us later. O
ddly enough, HIS views have never changed. He was and will be a religious zealot who wants to kill the infidels, particularly those occupying and controlling Muslim nations without being asked, but as long as he was our attack dog it wasn't a problem.S
o, either people weren't listening, or people are lying. As an optimistic lover of freedom, I assume the former.--Michael Hargett, Coordinator "Ron Paul '08 for 'Indy'-pendence"LINKS:
Tammy Bruce: FOX News Republican Debate
A History of Folly by Adam Young, Mises.org