Ron Paul: Would you buy a used democracy from this man?

Much virtual ink has been spilled in the past few days about Ron Paul’s leftier-than-thou credentials, especially regarding warfare. What does his campaign’s senior adviser, Doug Wead, have to say about all that?

Megyn Kelly: You know, one of the issues, obviously you know, that Congressman Paul’s most controversial on is his foreign policy stance, and in particular Israel and Iran, and whether he would allow Iran to get the bomb. He’s said he doesn’t want it, but he doesn’t want it because he’s worried that the United States will then go to war with Iran, and he doesn’t want that, just the same as he didn’t want the Iraq War, he thinks we’re too ... too prone to attacking other countries and to ... injecting ourselves militarily .... Newt Gingrich came out and said given that kind of attitude and policy stance, it would be a tough choice for Americans if the choice came down to Barack Obama versus Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is to the left of Barack Obama on certain issues, including foreign policy with respect to Iran. To those voters and to Newt Gingrich, what do you say?

Doug Wead: Yeah, yeah, I totally disagree with ... that idea he’s to the left or the right. He’s pro-Constitution. He’s in favor of taking the idea of war ... he’s not against war. He was the only public figure in 1981 to stand up and defend Israel’s right to defend herself and take out those Iraqi nuclear facilities. He’s not against war, he’s in favor of going to the US Congress as the Constitution says, debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it, then getting out. He’s against these endless wars that just happen ... at a whim because somebody ... believes that someone’s a threat to the United States. If they’re a serious threat to the United States and/or our allies, then let’s take it to Congress, let’s discuss it, let’s commit, and let’s get in and win it and get out.

Not so much shuck and jive as shock and awe.

(Updated to correct misheard spelling of Wead’s surname.)

Posted by YAFB on 01/03/12 at 12:09 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersElection '12Manic ProgressivesNuttersTeabaggeryOur Stupid MediaPoliblogsWar In ErrorSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Ron Paul is not anti-war, he’s just pro dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s before bombing the hell out of some brownpersonistan.

I think my main takeaway is that as far as a foreign policy platform sketched on the back of a cigarette packet goes, it sounds disturbingly Rumsfeldtian. And we all now how all that worked out.

Some of us didn’t even need to learn that lesson at the time. It appears that others still do. I’d rather they found a different planet to live out their fantasies and fuck up.

Paul isn’t anti-war—he just wants to contract it out to mercenaries and get the Damn Gummint out of what should clearly be the province of the ... free market! (Cue heavenly choirs and swooning glibertarian congregation.)

YAFB, did you originally spell the guy’s name as “Weed?” Because if he’s a Paultroon, that would be apropos.

Sadly, no, Oblo. It’s what you get (plus the original typo in the title) for trying to post when crouching by candlelight with your laptop teetering on an ironing board next to the only phone outlet in the house because you’ve got to use dialup because the heavens have decreed that environmental cataclysm is so 2012 and the power lines are down again.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

Next entry: Caucus Schadenfraude Open Thread

Previous entry: TwerpStory

<< Back to main