To The Left of President Obama On Nothing

Not so fast Ron Paul champions. He really isn’t to the left of President Obama, even on matters of national security. That is according to Paul’s senior adviser Doug Wead.

Paul senior adviser Doug Wead on Wednesday dismissed the idea that the candidate was to the left of President Barack Obama when it comes to war.

“I totally disagree with that idea that he is to the left or the right,” Wead told Fox News host Megyn Kelly. “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 added. “He’s not against war. He’s in favor of going to the U.S. Congress — as the Constitution says — and debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it and then getting out.”

Do you hear that flushing sound? It’s the sound of a dozen talking points going down the drain.

By the way, President Obama famously said “I’m not against all war. I’m against dumb wars.” That is essentially what Ron Paul’s senior adviser is saying, and nothing this administration is currently engaged in was originally debated and committed to by this administration or even this congress. You have to go back to the previous administration to find the progenitors of the Afghanistan quagmire.

As for Iraq — it’s over.

President Obama is simply cleaning up the mess.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Epic Fail and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • missliberties

    Yes.

    The same noise from the usual suspects.

    The same folks that were against Gore and delivered us Bush, are now trying to tell us that Obama is some unnamed horribleness worse than Nixon.

    Gag.

  • http://twitter.com/JimmyAbra Jimmy Abraham

    Well, at least it looks like he may have run his course in IA…now from the non-mitts…to the mitt

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/iowa

    • missliberties

      The conservative base utterly detests Mitt. With a passion. So there’s that.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      That won’t stop the Paultards, including so-called liberals, from promoting him. I know you know this, but I point this out because it’s pretty important that we continue to talk about Paul!

  • ainsleyroad

    It’s all really just about the color of the president’s skin. Welcome to the United Racist States of America.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I keep coming up against this too! I’ve talked to friends, family, strangers, etc that think that anyone would be better than President Obama. When I question them, their reasons always turn out to be logic based on lies and once I debunk all the lies they are STILL against him. I can’t think of any other reason why…they simply can’t stand him.

      It’s bizarre to me that this country can understand and even talk about in the MSM that Mormonism is a problem for Romney in getting his party’s nomination but very few people are willing to address the fact that racism is a very big part of the opposition against Pres. Obama. I guess it would mean debunking all the BS and lies the MSM has pushed over the last few years so they can get down to the real underlying reason and we KNOW they ain’t gonna do that!!

      • ainsleyroad

        I can not fathom how you can hate another human simply for the color of their skin. I don’t get it. And the ha ha ha of it all, is most of the people that hate anyone not like them, call themselves “Christians.” What a fucking joke they are. With people like that, Hell isn’t sounding too bad. If the president isn’t relected, I don’t know how the hell I am going to get out of this shit hole.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          I know how you feel. During a discussion about how the President wasn’t “really” a Christian (I know that’s stupid too)….I actually had one “Christian” say that only born-again Christians will go to heaven (meaning everyone else would go to hell). I responded that if she really believes that then that is a hateful statement…isn’t it? I mean to condemn billions of people to hell for all eternity? Sounds like hate to me. She was sooooo offended that I said it was hateful.

          Then when I asked her why was Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology worse than Evangelical white theology that supports states rights to secede because of abortion, gun rights, taxation, etc? She got offended again. Evidently it’s okay for white Christians to be mad enough to say treasonous things but not okay for African American people to be angry and say negative things (not treasonous mind you, just negative and angry things). I asked her why she hasn’t publicly denounced any pastors who have spoken about secession as she demands that Pres. O do for Wright’s ugly rants. I told her it was an racist double standard and hypocrisy of the highest order. These supposed Christians are full of sh*t.

  • http://twitter.com/scottie_reid Scott Reid

    You have to pick and choose what issues are important to you. Sure Paul may not be progressive on every issue, but if it’s the war on drugs on legalization of gay marriage that are the main issues for you, Paul is your guy. Obama has said time and time again that he is completely against gay marriage. Paul supports it at the state level.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Paul also just yesterday touted an endorsement by a preacher who wants to use the death penalty to punish gays. Gay marriage is the least of what gays need to worry about when it comes to ron paul.
      His newsletters were also homophobic.
      Ron Paul would be just fine with even more restrictive drug laws…….in any state which chose to make it an issue. He is simply against Federal involvement.
      Ron Paul would be fine with states legalizing gay marriage OR penalizing gays. He is simply against Federal involvement.
      Many of those who support him don’t understand his positions at ALL.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Furthermore, even though the President says he’d leave it up to the states, the Fed Govt would still be empowered to go after the states if the states laws goes to far. Paul would remove that remedy and set us back to being independent states that could do whatever the hell they wanted.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    No, I think you are mis-characterizing both the President’s and Paul’s position. The President has said that he would leave it up to the states to decide, but he felt it shouldn’t be determined at the federal level. Paul has said that he thinks government should not have anything to do with the “voluntary association” of two individuals. However, if he would not allow a federal law and the states chose to pass their own laws, his recourse as President would be to send the Dept of Justice after the states which he would NOT do because he also supported a bill (forget what it is called now) that would remove the power of the Federal government to judicially review the state’s laws on issues like Civil Rights, same sex marriage or relationships, etc. So Paul’s position is the Federal government has no right to intervene if two gay people marry but if the state’s choose to, oh well, I am not supposed to do anything about it. That is NOT supporting gay marriage (or any other civil right we take for granted now) because we KNOW left to their own devices the states will become little dictatorships very quickly.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Exactly Nicole, thank you. Can you imagine how insane AZ would be? I would have to leave if the state legislature and governor actually could overturn civil rights, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. it would be one of the worst outcomes. We might as well go back to the Articles of Confederation–and we know how well that worked!

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      It would be an unimaginable nightmare, IG. Seriously worth leaving the country.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        I’d like to think that if Paul was nominated and elected that when he tried to do the things he wants, such as getting rid of the Dept. of Education, etc that the other Branches would block him (although the Tea Party would support him God help us) and if not then the people themselves would take things into their own hands.

        Can you imagine the 5,000 employees at Dept of Ed, about 20,000 at the Federal Reserve, many of the active duty forces overseas coming home who don’t have jobs to come home to, etc….all those people all of sudden unemployed and pissed off? Then what would happen to the schools….I mean quite a few of them would be in a world of hurt without grants and scholarship monies given by the Dept of Education? What about all the college students that get Pell Grants…that would be gone….thousands of pissed off, bored college students…..the ramifications are staggering. The effect of a Ron Paul win could literally make this country explode.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          I shudder just thinking about the ramifications of an RP presidency.
          What really concerns me though is the affect the emoprogs could have on Obama, especially now that they’re all pro-RP. Makes me sick.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Yeah, know what you mean. They cannot be seriously reading and understanding his stances. Anything more than a cursory glance should tell them that he is the antithesis of liberal progressives. Ultimately, Paul stands for individual liberty at the expense of everything else–everything. No liberal would view any of that as acceptable!

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    The mission in Afghanistan is to leave Afghanistan. The mission in Pakistan is to leave Pakistan. The mission in Libya is to stay out of Libya. The mission in Iraq is to stay out of Iraq. I’m not sure what part of this dissatisfies the PL so much they flirt with the Ron Paul they imagine, but there you go.

  • mrbrink

    Implying Ron Paul is a friend of Israel because in 1881 he supported what was a preemptive military strike is hilarious.

    His worldview also allows for Iraq, Iran, Syria… the Nazis, the Baseball Furies and Pat Buchanan to defend themselves against Israel with a strike-first policy of self defense. Ron Paul doesn’t care about Israel in any sane sense of geopolitical reality, or emotional kinship.

    It’s all about the principles, even when it’s an inherently paranoid distrust of Jews.

  • http://twitter.com/JE1988 Jason Edwards

    Bob — Before I get to my point, let me say this: Ron Paul foreign policy supporters who say Ron Paul is against all wars are being mislead. Ron Paul is against pre-emptive war and the US policing the world. Ron Paul supports diplomacy instead of war. However,Ron Paul would:

    * Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks. Meaning he would do what Obama did with Osama and was the purpose of his 40 million bounty bill he tried to get passed.

    * Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

    * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

    * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged. (this, to me, is the most important part)

    Now to my point. Did Obama get Congressional approval for his drone wars in Yemen (as one example)? What do you say about the use of drones escalating under Obama?

    I am on the left and my thoughts on war are this: If you are attacked, you go after who attacked you. Meaning if X group attacked you, you go after X group after formulating a plane that gets you in and out fast. You don’t go bombs away. It is all about strategy. I would remove military bases (the 900+). The cold war ended a long time ago. I wouldn’t use drones in Yemen or anywhere else without first going to Congress to get approval. Simply follow the constitution and stop using bombs to bring democracies. War doesn’t help anyone.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      First, I don’t think you’re understanding Ron Paul’s actual positions, but I am not interested in going through all of the crap at this time. Suffice to say that you are reading the wrong people.

      Second, Ron Paul has the most conservative record of anyone since the 1937 congress. He is in no way progressive, not even his positions on war, which are not feasible, and which he very likely would not follow through on.

      Third, you are living in lala land. I don’t like the drones. but I’ll take Pres Obama and the drones rather than another right wing president anytime. And, Ron Paul? He is a nutjob who hasn’t got a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination. Thank the Sky Fairy.

      Finally, it shouldn’t matter to you what Ron Paul would or wouldn’t do, as it doesn’t matter to me because I believe he has no business even running for the presidency. He is a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic crazy person whom I wouldn’t want in my house much less as the leader of the free world.

      Ron Paul is UNQUALIFIED to be the president of anything but a tiny little third world country which is populated only by white heterosexual Christian men.

      • ranger11

        But remember he’s on the left so we should listen to him. Bottom-line is that Paul aint gonna win shit. This is a pointless exercise.

    • ranger11

      Great, another Ron Paul dick who’s on the “Left”. Shoot me now. Guess the left doesn’t give a shit about poverty now? Fuck you!

    • villemar

      You can take your drones, and shove them up your ass. I don’t remember you having a shit fit when Bill Clinton was using drone strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998. I don’t remember you people raising a fit about bombing Serbian or Kossovo targets. I know, I know, IOKIYNBHO (It’s Okay If Your Not Barack Hussein Obama).

      I’ll tell you what. You get all 43 preceding US Presidents going back to (and including) George Washington successfully retroactively impeached for every act of force engaged by the US since 1789 and then we’ll talk. Until then, go take a flying fuck off a short pier.

      By the way, how’s the Stormfront/Emoprog alliance working out thus far?

    • mrbrink

      That’s a miserly foreign policy of indifference and our adversaries would love it.

      We have a Xanadu economy with embassies all over the world serving the promotion and security of America, our economy, and our allies. Those aren’t evil things bankrupting America’s future. Tax cuts and concentrated wealth, on the other hand, are very much bankrupting America’s future and you should know it. Corporate giveaways and their externalizing costs are a Xanadu liability– to the environment, food supply, education, healthcare, rule of law, democracy and they are also bankrupting America’s future. The threat Ron Paul poses to civil rights and redress are threatening to bankrupt America’s future.

      You said this: “Ron Paul is against pre-emptive war and the US policing the world. Ron Paul supports diplomacy instead of war.”

      Ron Paul didn’t invent the idea of diplomacy and his limited understanding of the laws of the jungle put him at a diplomatic disadvantage on the global stage, to put it kindly, not to mention his faith in absolute corporate freedom should viewed as criminally insane, especially when woven into a foreign policy where we have an interest in policing multi-national corporations and their access to third world resources, labor, and corrupt governments. But we have a dynamic economy at the epicenter of complicated global interests and military positioning and Ron Paul’s idea of diplomacy would allow the Taliban and the I.S.I. to control trillions in energy resources(minerals, natural gas, and oil)along with the world’s heroin supply.

      President Obama presided over the withdrawal from Iraq– a war he was very outspoken in seeing come to an end and a position that propelled him to see it through. Ron Paul did stuff, too!

      President Obama ordered the end of Bin Laden. Ron Paul would have totally done that, too! Sure thing. A 40 million dollar bounty?! That’s some scary ass free market solution! Won’t be the rich paying those bounties, though.

      There are domestic terrorist plots being thwarted all the time. There’s probably one being thwarted right now. To say that there’s nothing to worry about, or the threats to domestic tranquility is something “they want you to believe” is negligent and immature at best. There’s room for discussion about the degree, but you cannot just will away people who are willing to drop bombs in garbage cans. You cannot say with any authority that if we simply repealed all our surveillance laws we could live with all the dumpster bombs exploding with Ron Paul’s idea of “freedom and liberty.” It’s always cracked me up how voyeurs spilling their shit on the internet can be so outspoken about all their lost freedoms. How has the Patriot Act impacted your life?

      But Ron Paul wants to avoid long expensive land wars? Who doesn’t? You know how you do that? Drones, special forces, and credible intelligence leads. Ron Paul would use them too because reality is a bitch. Pass a law banning the use of drones, but not an international law with any teeth or enforcement mechanism because Ron Paul is threatened by treatise and accords with the international community.

      So let’s see… you basically say Ron Paul would want to do the same things President Obama is doing, getting Bin Laden, getting out of Iraq, stop doing things like invading Iraq, “Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats” presumably without divulging national security secrets like: what exactly constitutes a “legitimate threat” by Ron Paul standards? Who knows? He surely doesn’t.

    • villemar

      By the way, are you not allowed to use pronouns in Ron Paul’s cult? I’ve counted you’ve used his full name 5 times in one short paragraph. Is that’s kind of like how you have to capitalize “He” when referring to God?