Colorado, birthplace of the Libertarian Party, and home to numerous elected Libertarians and libertarian Republicans could give fellow "Westerner in Spirit" Mitt Romney a huge victory on Super Tuesday. Latest polls have Romney way out ahead of McCain. Social conservative populist Mike Huckabee and foreign policy leftwinger Ron Paul are picking up the rear.From the Denver Post:
Colorado Republicans leaning toward former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney latch on to his successful businessman image and, like other Western voters, are more open to his Mormon roots, according to the voters and a poll analyst.
Likely Republican caucus-goers tipped to Romney over Arizona Sen. McCain by 43 percent to 24 percent, with former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee at 17 percent. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had 5 percent, while former New York Mayor Giuliani, a former front-runner who has been concentrating on Florida, was at 4 percent.
Posts
21 comments:
"foreign policy leftwinger Ron Paul" LOL
Hitting the wrong target (Iraq) is NOT left wing, it is simply WRONG!
Defending civil liberties is libertarian and constitutional, and destroying them (@ Patriot Act) is going to the FAR RIGHT.
(No wonder there are white supremacists defending the Iraq occupation, saying the USA should NEVER retreat from Iraq).
BTW: While Romney had a crowd of 1000 in Denver, Paul had more than 3000 (1600 in the arena and the rest outside), and they are all enthusiastic, while Romney's neutral to luke-warm.
Perhaps you're right. Let me correct my assertion. Ron Paul does not have a leftwing foreign policy, he has a Fascist foreign policy.
He's aligned himself with Islamo-Fascists, and has blamed the United States of America for the attacks of 9/11. While some consider Fascism to be a leftwing philosophy, I will accept that others see it as opposite, as rightwing.
So, I withdraw my categorization of Paul's foreign policy as "leftwing" and simply label it "Fascist."
yes giong to war against a nation that was a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" for over a decade, had committed multiple Acts of War against the US for over a decade. Including firing at our planes, trying to assassinate our POTUS and continually violating the Cease Fire Agreement that he signed, each time being a case to resume hostilities................is the "wrong target".
Al-Qaeda and their Jihadist allies certainly don't agree.
stefan,
Actually, the FAR Right is against the war. Go to StormFront or David Duke's website, they are all anti-war in Iraq because they all feel it is a war on behalf of jews.
You could not be more wrong in your statement.
Eric: a fascist foreign policy interferes in other country, and take them over military (like with Hitler in Austria, Poland etc.) and sanctions a total authoritarian control of its subjects (in the direction of the Patriot Act of today), while Paul's policy of non-interventionism means the OPPOSITE of this. Countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, China etc etc. all have a non-interventionist foreign policy. So, I am sorry to correct you. Must have been the marijuana that you smoked today that caused you to write such nonsense. (You said "real Libertarians smoke marijuana" Well, Romney is against the use of marijuana for even medical use, so you have a problem with supporting him).
Andrew: Ron Paul was against the occupation in Iraq for DIFFERENT reasons than David Duke, whom has lately criticized about Paul's positive remarks about MLK and some other white supremacists have recently found out Paul is alligned with quite a few Jews. They were alerted by the appointment of Peter Schiff as one of his economic advisers, but if they would have done their research, they would have found that Paul has been influenced by Jews like Von Mises, Murray Rorthbard, Milton Friedman etc. and is currently supporting Murray Sabrin (whose parents were the only in their family to survive the Holocaust). SO they are NOT supporting Ron Paul anymore. I researched their blogs, they supported Tancredo before and not sure about Paul. Now that Paul has made again a positive remark about Rosa Parks today in a statement, it would be soon the end of their "spoort" for Ron Paul.
Ed Crane and most of the Libertarians are also against the war in Iraq (which lasted 5 days) and the subsequent invasion. So are senior members of CATO, the Libertarian Party now closet supporters of fascism?
Also: I have found websites as proof that there are white supremacists that say the US should never pull out of Iraq (they probably love McCain) and they have also joined the US Army and use graffiti in Baghdad with with supremacist signs.
The whole idea of a majority white nation (like the US) invading a foreign non-white country (like Iraq), telling them how to run their lives, structure their politics etc. sounds as well as US troops in Asian countries (Japan, Korea etc.) after so many years sounds like a white supremacist idea and philosophy to me. Does the US believe countries like South Korea, Japan cannot manufacture weapons themselves and cannot defend themselves without US help and training?
Jonathan: which countries has Iraq sponsored with terrorism? and with which sort of weapons (perhaps US made sold by the CIA and US military?). As far as I know it is North Korea that has manufactured long distant missiles, of which they may have sold to Iran and Iraq. Why then - if you want to be consequent in your argumentation and logic - not start bombing North Korea, who was openly in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons (in the case of iran only alleged, and we have found out the CIA reports say NO proof whatsover). How is Iran or Iraq going to attack the US (ludicrious idea)? North Korea has long distant missiles that could reach Florida coast. Why has the US not bombed North Korea a few years ago? Could it be that Korea has no oil, while Iran and Iraq plenty of it???
Well, you obviously probably belive the Bush-Giuliani etc. doctrine that 9/11 was because the US is rich and free. Well, in that case you have nothing to fear from Jihadists anymore, as the US has record
debt now (e.g. not so rich...if China, Japan, Middle East decide tomorrow to stop buying US bonds and sell their existing US D bonds, the US will be not only poor, it would be flat-out broke) and not so free anymore (Patriot Act, media manipulation and biased reporting, FBI raids on medical drug users, president has SUPER powers etc etc.).
stefan wrote,
"Ed Crane and most of the Libertarians are also against the war in Iraq (which lasted 5 days) and the subsequent invasion. So are senior members of CATO, the Libertarian Party now closet supporters of fascism?"
Not true, some of the best anti-war stuff comes out of the cato Institute. Are you suggesting Ted Galen Carpenter is pro-war?
www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tgc01112007.html
www.cato.org/pubs/articles/carpenter_innocent_the_iraq_war_and_iranian_power.pdf
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353
I never said anything about fascism. Ron Paul views are isolationist and Anerica Firster but it is in now way fascism.
I don't think Eric Dondero knows what fascism even is.
Seriously.
my bad stefan, i re-read what you wrote, I thought you meant that Cato had only supported the war for the first 5 days and now were for it. My mistake.
I think this all comes down to having an ecumincal spirit on this issue. I think you, me, Scott, Morerice and the otehrs would agree that the Patriot Act, the excessive powers given to the Excutive branch, the torture down in Iraq and so forth are all bad and I frankly do not support and hope we can resend some of this stuff.
But I don't beleive that just because somebody was for or against this war makes somebody less of a libertarian. John Hospers and Randy Barnett for example endorsed the war in Iraq and supported the President in this regard. Are Hospers and Barnett now excommunicated from libertarian thought?(Ironically of course, Barnett is a Rothbardian natural rights scholar)
Personally, I think libertarians who support protectionists like Buchanan or supported increasing government to curtail immigration are more on shaky grounds for being a libertarian then supporting the war against Al-Quaeda
Fascism is simply trying to control other peoples' lives through big government. What could be more Fascist than Sharia Law?
Recall, the Grand Mufti who ruled most of Pan-Arabia in the 1930s was a close ally and friend of Adolph Hitler.
No Eric, Fascism is NOT "simply trying to control other peoples' lives through big government." Fascism is where big government and big business collude with each other to gain control over peoples lives.
There are many variants of fascism, as there are many variants of monarchies, oligarchies, or democracies. However, there are commonalities in almost all fascist systems. Religion usually plays a very small role in fascist governments. Also, hyper nationalism wrapped in military worship (like the kind you subscribe to) is common to fascist systems.
In this context, the term Islamo-fascism has no validity since there is no collusion of big government and big business in this vague term.
Also in this context, here in the US of A we are well on the road to fascism, and have been for many decades, where the military-oil-banking-farming-pharmaceutical-industrial complex exerts huge favors or money from those in power in trade for huge favors or money.
Libertarians (not horribly misguided ones like you) generally abhor this type of fascism that is so rampant in or country, government, and body politic today.
Andrew: Indeed, not all of those who supported the Iraq war initially can be called ant-libertarian, they most probably believed the weapons of mass destruction "evidence" in Iraq. Walter B Jones, congressman from NC is best known for leading the effort, along with GOP Rep. Bob Ney to have french fries renamed "freedom fries" in House cafeteria menus as a protest against French opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[ Jones later modified his stance on the war to a considerable extent. In 2005, he stated that he had come to believe that there had been little reason to go to war, despite his earlier support, which had been based upon selective intelligence supplied to Congress. He said of his previous position on the fries, "I wish it had never happened." In July 2006, the names were quietly changed back. He has endorsed Ron Paul and is a friend of Ron Paul and part of the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Well, Ron Paul is for restrictive illegal foreigners in the US for anti- terrorist reasons as well as economic and legal reasons (US cannot afford it at the moment), and not ideological reasons.
And may I remind you that Ron Paul is indeed against the war against Al Queda, stronger than Bush even, and supported the Afghanistan action (like Goldwater and Reagan would also have been).
There were no Al Queda in Iraq before and during the the (illegal) US attack and invasion, so Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war against Al Queda. If the US wanted to invade a country that had something to do with the Al Queda terrorists, they should have invaded Saudia-Arabia rather, as most of the hijackers came from that country. We know the Saudi king and govt. itself had nothing to do with the attack. TheIn fact, the US military may probably have captured Osama Bin Laden and his group if they were not reguided to attacking Iraq.
Obama also supported the Patriot Act, along with Hillary CLinton and all the Republican candidates, except Ron Paul of course.
www.knowbeforeyouvote.com gives you a good summary of the issues.
Non-interventionist foreign policy is NOT interventionist. If Paul were an isolationist, he would never support free trade, diplomacy etc. between countries, as he is doing very strongly. He is for free trade, not managed trade, which benefits mostly the large companies (and not also SME companies.
In fact the interventionist foreign policy of the Bush administration has isolated the US considerably politically. Pat Buchanan was protectionist (like the Democrats are) and also the reason why Rothbard became disillusioned from him later. It could be that Buchanan has changed his position int he meantime? Not sure. Paul's philosophies has a (much) wider appeal than Buchanan.
No Al Qaeda in Iraq before we attacked in 2003?
It is a well-documented fact, even liberal media types agree, that Zarcawi was in Iraq since 2001. He was receiving extensive medical treatment at Baghdad hospitals, and even received a government pension from Saddam.
Additionally, Saddam harbored two Terrorist training camps, one was explicitly Al Qaeda - Answar Al-Islam in northern Iraq, and the other harbored Al Qaeda Terrorists - Salman Pac 20 miles south of Baghdad.
Read Richard Miniter's book "The Shadow War: How Bush is winning the War on Terror."
Miniter's Appendix D documents over 40 instances of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and cooperations between Bin Laden and Saddam.
If you believe Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you are truly drinking the Daily Kos/Huffington Post kool-aid. Only question is, what flavor is your favorite? Orange-ade or Fruity Punch?
Ron Paul "supports Free Trade"? How's that?
Paul opposes the proposed Texas Super Highway from Mexico to Canada. In fact, he's a rabid opponent of it.
He voted against NAFTA, and CAFTA and railed against Free Trade agreements during his 8 years in Congress.
He's a regular and consistent Mexico-basher.
Show us please where he's a "Free Trader."
NAFTA and CAFTA are not free trade, they are managed trade. They are government regulated trade. They are anything but free trade.
I might add that if Fascism is "simply trying to control other peoples' lives through big government" than the United States is the most fascist nation in the World as ours is by far the largest government. Is that what you believe Eric?
Like I said, I don't think Dondero has any clue what Fascism is.
Really? I haven't seen any Health Police knocking on our door here in Houston to check to see if my wife has had an abortion.
Then again, if Ron Paul were President, we'd have that happening every day, being that he's "Pro-Life" and all.
Oh, oh I see.
Not only do you not know what fascism is, but you also don't know how presidential power works.
Eric: the reason why Iraq was attacked was (first) based ont he (false) theory that Iraq and weapons of mass destruction AND that they would attack immenently. The whole thing was sexed up, remember. Remember Colin Powell's UN "demonstation and statements"? something he said later he was terribly ashamed of and said lies were told. My source of info is the BBC, CNN etc. (not Daily
Kos/Huffinton) etc. and everybody accept this as facts now. Tariq Aziz said there were no weapons of mass destruction, and none has ever been found, as Rumsfeld later said. Do I have refer you to the vid. (on utube) where Bush joked later about, no weapons here and there? The worst thing of all, is that the Bush admin. did not recognise their mistake. They changed the reason for the invasion to "regime change" and democracy: wonderful peaceful "democracy" we have in Iraq now, not true?
The fact that you still try to justify the attack on Iraq shows one you have never really followed the news. (Were you hiding in a cave for months?? or do you simply not have the ability to understand this?). Of course the media in the US has done a terrific job in playing along with the US govt., as they know oil interests etc. are the real reason for going in. Also Alan Greenspan - who was initially for the war in iraq (he is a libertarian in Ayn Rand style as you know) suggested this - about oil - in his book last year.
BTW: When Iraq was invaded, do you remember Bush and Cheney said the focus has now shifted, getting Osama Bin laden was not so important. And Bon Woodward has said in his book Bush's father was wise enough to decide against invading Iraq with the first Gulf (Kuwait) war.
Face it: Ron Paul was 100% right and would have saved the US a lot of money and lives and he would have well captured Osama Bin Laden, had he been president. Ordinary Americans will have to pay the price for the Iraq war and US diplomacy has been destoyed for years. As Rdy Giuliani has said, you practically have only Israel as friend in the Middle East (and the world). In the Middle East the relationship with moderate countries like Jordan, Egypt etc. and int he EU (France, Germany, Spain etc etc.) has been destroyed. It will take a ROn Paul to re-establish trust and co-operation. Same with China, who is trading with Africa, Iran etc as well speak and growing ever stronger, while the US is facing various economic and political problems. Your "libertarian" pres. Bush will not only go into history as one of the worst US presidents, some left wing European groups may well sue him for his lies and the destruction after he leaves office in a year's time.
stefan,
As early as 1992, Iraqi intelligence referred to Bin
Laden as an asset... Abu Hajer al Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda operative meet with Iraqi intelligence in
1995. Another top al-Qaeda representative, Abu Abdallah was sent to Iraq by Bin Laden personally in 1997 to obtain weapons from the Baathist regime.
The Clinton Administration especially a one Richard Clarke
was convinced that Sudan, al-Qaeda and Iraq were collaborating in the creation of chemical weapons. In
2001, US intelligence obtain photos of al-Qaeda members traveling in northern Iraq to secret Iraqi compounds.
Zarqawi in iraq.
After leaving Afghanistan, Zarqawi set up an Al-quaeda organization within Iraq (made up of Fedayeen
Saddam foot soldiers) but Zaraqi was also in many ways
the de facto head of the Ansar al-Islam within Iraq.Ansar were jhidist who thought that their main jobs as holy warriors were killing the Kurdish leadership
within northern Iraq.
The CIA’s 2003 paper "Iraq Support for Terrorism." On page
86, he will find the following quote, "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appears to be overseeing the operations of al-Qa'ida members in Kurdish-controlled Iraq...the
al-Qa'ida presence in northeastern Iraq-we estimate about 100 to 200 members and associates in the
area-began to increase late last year after the US military campaign began in Afghanistan”
The obvious question is: What
would your alterative strategy in 2003 have been? It was obvious that the sanction policy against Iraq was a disaster and Iraq could not continue to be a ward of
the international community. Saddam’s regime was imploding very slowly. In fact, as we came to find
out, the Iraqi Treasury was already at the point of printing money off copier machines and the divide and rule of the Baathist regime was causing a time bomb
just waiting to go off. Much of the hatred we see between Sunni and Shite currently is due to this 35 year type of terror management.
With the exception of a few eccentric neo-conservative
writers like Laurie Mylroie,nobody has suggested that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The case against Iraq was set in stone and put into motion when George
W. was still the governor of Texas and Dick Cheney was still the CEO of Halliburton. It was the Clinton
administration that finally, during most of the 1990s,
determined that the Saddam regime could not be trusted, and on Oct. 31, 1998 signed into law the Iraq
Liberation Act, which made it a matter of U.S. foreign policy to move Iraq into the post-Saddam era.
What was the case against Iraq? There are four conditions, according to international law, for which a nation-state can lose its sovereignty and the
international community can intervene. One, if a nation wages aggressive war against its neighbors.Second, if it is a signor of the Genocide Convention
and is found to have committed genocide. Thirdly, if it violates the Non-Proliferation treaty by trying to make or obtain weapons of mass destruction, and lastly, if it harbors and financially sponsors international terrorism.
The Saddam regime meets all four of those international standards. It had invaded Iran and
Kuwait within a 10-year period. It had committed genocide against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. The
regime attempted to obtain WMDs from North Korean agents in Syria in early 2003, not to mention its
obvious attempts to hide and bury its primitive nuclear technology from the U.N. inspectors. Some of
the world's most notorious terrorists found safe haven
in Iraq including late Abu Nidal, Abdul Yassin of the 1993 World Trade Center infamy, and the late Abu al-Zarqawi. The Saddam regime was offering to pay the widows and children a heavy stipend for life for all Palestinian militants that would “martyr” themselves
against targets in Israel.
Andrew: You have indeed described that the invasion of Iraq was already planned during the Clinton administration. Yet, you have left out that Bin Laden was on the payroll of the CIA. Should the US govt. then not act against the CIA as well, since Al Queda was also in Iraq. Fact remains before the Iraq invasion in 2003 there were virtually no Al Queda in Iraq and now there are quite a lot (from other countries). And I am sure not all those that fight the US forces at the moment are Al Queda. You should be honest and consequent all the time: According to this, the US should then invade every country where Al Queda is.
Do you think outlawing the Baahtist Party was a good idea? The military invasion in Iraq qas planned, but was there a plan for further, the polical and economic aspect of Iraq (not for US interests). Should the US not have invaded "axis of evil" countries like Iran and North Korea? North Korea was much further developed with weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.
Of course there were problems in Iraq (like with many countries), but Iraq was a "check" for Iran. Now with Iraq's national power vs. Iran has been eliminated, Iran is becoming a problem for the US.
The solution in Iraq would have been to keep its national sovereignty and let them sort out their problems. Concrete: the CIA could have worked with the (oppressed) Kurds to send a "suicide bomber" to Saddam and get rid of him, for instance.
Now, after the US invasion: the situation in Iraq is WORSE than it has ever been! The country is in a civil war, and what is the solution? The US govt. is in fact acting like a neocolonial power. While earlier there may have been shiites that welcomed the US overthrow of the Sunni govt., now the majority of the population are united against the US forces, in sentiment and thinking. The Al Maliki govt. was described as the dawn of democracy to Iraq, but now they have problems... It is in one word a MESS,
thanks to the neocons. in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Rory Stewart, who was a UK governor of a major province in iraq (and thus by default for the Iraq invasion), has noted this and also written a book and proclaims leaving Iraq now would be the best for the US (and UK).
The Democrats would have done the same as the Bush govt., also as interventionism is at the core of its foreign policy. The neocons in the Republicans have in fact taken over the Democrats foreign policy.
While Iraq and Iran have signed UN declarations regarding nuclear weapons, countries like Israel, India and Pakistan have NOT signed such agreements with the UN. In theory such countries should then be more dangerous then!
Only Paul would have pulled the US out of Iraq, Clinton will not pull out before 2013, Obama 2009/2010?, McCain, up to 100 years, Romney and Huckabee for an unlimited/unspecified amount of time. Why not pull out now, it is not a defeat? Terrorism will continue, especially with all the blowback that will follow. Rather pull out now. If the argument is accepted (which I and many others do NOT accept) that once the US pulls out, they will be vulnerable for terrorism attacks in the US, then the US will be vulnerable for attack once the US leaves, be that in 5, 10 years time etc? And what is to say Al Queda has to use Iraq as a basis to attack the US? They can use many other countries, since they are spread all over. Where they were a small majority earlier, now they find it so much easier to attract new converts, as some of the moderate Muslims are driven into the hands of the extremists due to the fact that the US has invaded two Muslim countries, with a third (Iran) waiting. ("Clash of Civilizations: Samuel Huntington, neocon intellectual). The philosopher Francis Fukayama has indeed seen the light and abandoned the neocon. philosophy and is now condemning the US invasion if Iraq (a la Ron Paul).
Post a Comment