Educating Ron Paul, Part II

"Part II???! Where's Part I?", you ask? I'm working on it, at the same time I'm working on part III, IV, and more.

From the debate last night:

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.

Who said Iraq would ever be a "cakewalk"? Certainly not President Bush. And the ones who talk about the potential bloodbath that would follow a premature exit are more than just the Administration, or even right-wing war-mongerers. Even Michael Ware of CNN, who has spent the whole time in Iraq since the beginning, acknowledges the dangers of leaving Iraq, as is. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, aired Jan 30, 2007:

It's widely acknowledged by the U.S. military and the administration and analysts and anyone in Iraq that if America were to pull out, then there would be a nightmare almost beyond imagination that would unfold in Iraq.

For Ron Paul to say "the war has not gone well one bit" is also a dishonest platitude. The past 4 years have been a series of ups and downs; good and bad. The anti-war crowd was calling Iraq a quagmire on the 8th day; and of course, they were predicting massive casualties even before major operations began. This was back when many were against the war even when they thought Saddam probably had wmds- they were against war period, under any circumstance, short of missiles aimed directly at us on the launch pads and a 60 second countdown (ok...now I'm spinning like Ron Paul; but it sure sounds good, doesn't it?).

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region?

Does this sound like a responsible man you want for President? Who does not weigh in with seriousness, the possible consequences? If one follows the pottery barn rule, Ron Paul is like the parent who warns his child not to pick up the vase; to leave it alone. The child picks it up anyway. Drops it, and breaks it. The parent wags his finger at the child, grabs him by the hand, and then proceeds to leave without paying for the pottery. That's Ron Paul.

A "bring them home now, Iraqis be damned" attitude is irresponsibly selfish. I expect my country to be responsibly selfish. Make no mistake, a stable Iraq is in America's self-interest and is related to America's national security.

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.

To parrot Chris Wallace: So since when do we take our marching orders from al-Qaeda and the anti-American ingrates who blame America for all of the bad and none of the good? MECHa and La Raza want us out of America; do we appease them, as well?

Appeasement is not the answer.

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.

Last I checked, we had withdrawn American military presence from Saudi Arabia; in 2003, I believe. And like a true-blue, blame-America first appeaser, apparently we're the ones threatening Iran with war, rather than the other way around.

So while Iran interferes, sabotages, and has a share of responsibility in killing our soldiers in Iraq, we should also be taking our marching orders directly from Tehran, apparently.

Anti-war lefties: Meet the anti-war righty. Ron Paul's come full circle. Which is why he's earned the distinction of being known as the Republican Dennis kucinich.

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 --

MR. WALLACE: So if --

(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

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.)

Bingo!

And the unhinged comeback:

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.)

"illegal under international law"?! So, now we're back to whether or not we cut muster with the "global test"?

I have a series of Ron Paul posts coming up in the next few days; one of them being about the claims of Ron Paul apologists for the "isolationist" charge. They may be partially correct; but also dishonestly wrong.