Ron Paul in Rolling Stone...

Just released. I love what he says about Guliani. Actually, I love everything he said :)

Ron Paul: A Republican Takes the Lead Against the War : Rolling Stone

Ron Paul: A Republican Takes the Lead Against the War

Tim DickinsonPosted Nov 14, 2007 7:06 AM

Ron Paul may be an old-school Republican, but no other candidate running for president ? in either party ? has spoken out against the war in Iraq as bluntly as he has. Sure, the former obstetrician has a goofy nostalgia for the gold standard, not to mention medieval views on abortion and immigration. But his anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race. On November 5th, Paul raised $4.2 million online ? a record single-day haul for a GOP presidential candidate. Rolling Stone caught up with the seventy-two-year-old Texan in between votes at his day job in the House of Representatives.

What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?

He's a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.

We get hysterical over a guy who doesn't have a single weapon, and nobody's proven that he's ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That's why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn't have a chance of having a weapon. That's exactly what we did with Iraq. I'm scared to death they're getting ready to do that with Iran.

The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They're capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that's what they want.

Whether the Iranians have helped the insurgency or not is almost irrelevant from my viewpoint. Why wouldn't they have an interest? It's like saying that if the Russians were in Mexico, we wouldn't have an interest in who wins that war. We'd have every right. They're the next-door neighbor.

But the administration alleges that the Iranians aren't just backing the Shia against the Sunni ? they are complicit in the slaughter of our soldiers.

I haven't seen any proof of that. They're assuming that it's true, but that's part of the war hysteria that's going on.

Giuliani seems to be the warmonger in chief ? leading the drumbeat for war with Iran. What would a Giuliani presidency mean for our national security?

If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani's would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn't go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks ? he took, what, four deferrals?

The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff. But whether it's Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it's quite proper to go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose themselves.

In a recent debate, you blasted Mike Huckabee for supporting the war, saying we're only staying in Iraq "to save face." But wouldn't leaving Iraq be a propaganda victory for bin Laden?

Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they're very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don't have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we're there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There's more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we're in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.

Besides, who are the people telling us there'll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?

You talk about limiting the size of government. How much of the Pentagon's budget would you ax?

We are now spending close to a trillion dollars a year, when you add up every single thing we do overseas. You could start off easily cutting $100 billion. Bring the troops home, you could save $200 billion the next year. And maybe $250 billion the year after that.

Quit paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Bring that money home. Our bridges are falling down. Our levees are falling down. The only way we can get enough money is by stopping this insane foreign policy of running this empire that we can't afford. Policing the world? It's impossible.

I say, just quit it. Let's come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. Get rid of selective service. Don't have the draft. And no more wars like this. It's a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record.
 

Thor4140

EOG Dedicated
Re: Ron Paul in Rolling Stone...

Maybe the right-wingers in here can read this and learn a little something. i doubt it tho. When you are a pigeon who gets plucked over and over again by nitwit neocon radio and Fox News you are basically just a useless clown who will believe anything that is run by ya. Some people are just un-teachable. Nobody likes to admit they have been scammed. they want to tell us what a rotten choice Hillary is when they brought us George Bush. :+clueless I can't make shit like this up. And they still would vote for George Bush if they had the chance.
 

Thor4140

EOG Dedicated
Re: Ron Paul in Rolling Stone...

All I got out of the article is that Paul is deluded.

Unfortunately Merlin what he had to say is the real world and not the fantasy world Fox News shovels you daily and you suck it up like a clueless sponge.
 

mr merlin

EOG Master
Re: Ron Paul in Rolling Stone...

Anything specific, or is that what Rush told you to say??
the part where he thinks that if we merely pull out of Iraq(and the rest of the world for that matter), everything will be hunky dory and the money savings will run into the hundreds of billions.Or maybe it was the part where he said there is no evidence that the Iranians are supplying weapons to be used against our troops. Face it guys, he's nuts!
 
Re: Ron Paul in Rolling Stone...

I think he may be referring to the lack of actual, real, verifiable evidence; not the kind of rumor and innuendo leaked to Fox News. Bear in mind that we can no longer believe anything this regime says as their continuing course of conduct and lies has squandered all credibility. If this regime has any actual, real, verifiable, hard evidence that Iran is complicit with the insurrection in Iraq, I don't believe that it's been released. Just because this regime says it--no matter how many times its repeated--doesn't make it so.

He never says that "everything will be hunky-dorry" if we declare victory and leave Iraq. He's saying that it will be better for America's actual, real interests and security to leave than it will be to remain in the shooting gallery disaster there now--that has little to do with any American interest.
 
Last edited:
Top