Yesterday I was in the car listening to Leland Conway, and he was discussing the debate. Getting off work I only heard the last half hour or so, so I don’t know how the treatment was of the other candidates; however, sadly his treatment of Ron Paul was typical. He started off praising and giving accolades to Paul for his performance in the debate, I thought good, too good to be true, I knew there was a “but” and boy was it a big one. The show ended with Leland pretty much telling everyone that Ron Paul wants to apologize to the Islamic World for America, that he is naive and wears a tin foil hat when it comes to Al-Qaeda and the “War on Terror” (a tactic by the way, how do you declare war on a tactic…oh wait we have not even done that) and at one point informed us that Paul categorically lied. Thus all the praise for Paul was undone all in the name of I am sure appearing to be “Fair and Balanced.”
So let’s examine the last segment in his show. Here is the link to Leland’s 3rd hour (the 5PM Hour) starting at about the 35:35 mark. This is where he makes his tin foil hat comment, then later eludes after he actually agrees some more with him, that Ron Paul thinks we should apologize to the Islamic world for our actions, when in fact he says nothing of the sort. He actually says we need to have wisdom about how our foreign policy affects things, which Leland then agrees with still. In fact Ron Paul consistently votes against those feel good apology resolutions that the Libs in D.C. think up. So commentary not reflecting the reality of what happened, what was said or what Ron Paul believes.
Then at the 39:10 mark Leland says that Ron Paul misunderstands Al-Qaeda’s purpose. So what is Al-Qaeda’s purpose? Well it seems that there are several reasons: The sanctions against Iraq, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and the United States support for Israel. You don’t have to believe these things are right or wrong necessarily to see that they were definite issues that drew the ire of the Islamic world. Ron Paul also mentions that Al-Qaeda wanted to draw us out into a prolonged conflict over there in the worthless sandlot that is Afghanistan (where the British and Soviet Empires met their ends)
This article here also backs this claim up and below is a quote from the article.
“In The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.
Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.”
Yet Leland goes on to claim that it is just the expansion of radical Islam. Question, why can’t both be right, in fact Ron Paul has said many times that our current foreign Policy fuels radical Islam. The CIA even coined the term Blowback for the consequences of our foreign policy.
At the 40:20 mark “Mr. Theocracy” Rick Santorum of course is given the chance to chime in as he has in the past few debates as if this whole thing is scripted anyway being critical of Paul for what was posted on his website on 9/11. So let’s take a look at this ill advised post shall we.
There were two; this is the one I think is in question, “Learning Nothing from 9/11”
The second was this one, “Never Forget”
Leland agrees that Santorum was correct in his assessment. I would too, as well as Paul. We have to stop seeing in black and white in this colored world to understand all aspects and deal with it wisely. I think Paul does that, Paul does not condemn all of the Middle East or Islam for the actions of radicals nor does he condone their actions. What he does do is point out their own stated motives, (yes in a letter) they do all kinds of horrible things, but they do explain it in writings and videos, you don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to like it, it does not even have to makes sense, but you had best recognize it and give it some consideration. When one commits a murder we try and find out the motive, just because we find the motive out does not mean we acquit them but convict them (little more complicated than that but you get my point); however, at the same time the punishment must fit the crime. Are 2 wars almost 10 years long, and several others under way in an entire region of the world at the cost of many lives, resources, and liberties worth it; especially when it is there goal to have us languish there until bankruptcy and sacrificing liberty at home. I say not.
Now to what I consider the most egregious comment of the show, I can handle the tin foil stuff, that is old “hat” if you will, but to assert that Ron Paul told a lie, thus making him a liar is beyond the pale, especially when by many he is considered the most honest man in D.C. and American politics in general despite whatever political affiliation one may have or agreement or disagreement people have with him.
Ron Paul asserted around the 42:45 mark that we have killed 100’s of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s for 10 years (not tens of years Leland) which is about how long the Iraq war has been going on, so pardon the rounding. Also pardon the rounding on Paul’s death count too if that makes him a liar, but for the totals check out the links below.
For this Leland, you call him a liar, thus attempting to unravel and discredit the most likely 85% of which you agree with Ron Paul on all for the sake of this one issue. It’s also naive to think they only attack us because we are free and not because of our foreign policy, especially given their own words. The way I see it both angles are correct but one is not being understood, most likely because we like to live in willful ignorant bliss.
BTW The troops don’t seem to mind his ideas as in 2008 and now in 2012 Ron Paul gets the most donations from the troops. I figured they would be the best gauge of where this country needs to be going in terms of military conflict and Paul is the easiest candidate to gauge on his stances as he is consistent in them. Follow the Constitution!
For the Best of Ron Paul’s answers during the debate, check out this clip