Originally in American Thinker, May 16, 2011
By Chuck Rogér
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, now officially seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, says that the raid which killed Osama bin Laden “was absolutely not necessary.” In the same radio interview, Paul conjectured that the United States could have convinced Pakistan to turn over bin Laden. The congressman added a bizarre non-sequitur.
What if [bin Laden] had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the… helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out?
Can Ron Paul not distinguish between steadfast ally Britain and a Pakistani regime poisoned by duplicitous people? The London scenario seems to have sprung from a mind unable to discern the difference between close friends and shifty acquaintances that cozy up close just often enough to collect handouts.
In answer to Paul’s two questions, if bin Laden had been in London, British Special Forces would have popped the scoundrel as a favor to a close friend. That the congressman offered the implausible London ploy presents voters with a scary view into the “thought process” of an aspiring President of the United States.
The bin Laden raid condemnation gives clear-thinking Americans a reason to turn away from Ron Paul. And there is another, less-noticed reason. On a recent episode of Fox Business Network’s Stossel, self-declared “man of the left” and history Professor Thaddeus Russell stated that “if we’re going to end the wars, if we’re going to end the American empire, the only thing that will do that is a coalition between the left and people like Ron Paul. And in fact, he knows that he’s talked with Ralph Nader in public and with Bernie Sanders and other very leftwing people in American political discourse about doing just that. And so I know that Ron Paul agrees with me in this project of working with the left.”
“Do you?” host John Stossel asked Congressman Paul.
Paul responded, “I have certainly worked with those on the left and with the progressives. I think our problem that we face is…”
Stossel interrupted, “And just to back that up. I mean, you’re right about Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank. You’ve co-authored bills with Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich.”
Paul replied, “Right. I worked with coalitions. People talk about our solution comes from compromise and I don’t like the word compromise. That’s why you give up half your beliefs and I don’t believe that.”
So while Paul clearly declares no intention to compromise his values, the man is unclear as to what those values may be with respect to working “with those on the left and with the progressives.” Absent from the exchange between “man of the left” Russell and libertarian Paul, was any retort to Russell’s observation that the Congressman has “talked with Ralph Nader… and with Bernie Sanders and other very left wing people” to determine how to “end the American empire.” From a libertarian point of view, drastically reducing America’s involvement in foreign countries would be a good thing. But hatching plans with “very leftwing people” seems like a horrific way to achieve said reductions. That Paul offered no response to Russell’s exhortation leaves Americans wondering how liberal the “libertarian” may be.
Ron Paul’s bin Laden comments and his willingness to “work with the progressives” provide Americans with reasons to be skeptical of libertarian ideas. The two lapses in judgment are unfortunate, because America’s core principles are indeed libertarian. Those principles are as right for America today as when set forth more than 230 years ago: free markets, low taxes, small and non-invasive government, no special interest influence on government, maximum personal freedom, and overseas involvement only in the interest of commerce and self-defense. When a libertarian Presidential candidate shows a tad too much love for big-government-loving progressives and shies away from bringing an enemy to justice, libertarianism gets a bad name.
hello Chuck how does it feel to be a new world order puppet?
I wouldn’t know how that feels.
Thank you for your question.
Chuck
Its simply amazing how ‘out of context’ you quote Ron Paul throughout this piece. I’m a libertarian sir, and we understand the rule of law. Entering Pakistan without their headsup when they have given US intelligence much access to enter to arrest many known terrorists over the past 10 years. All of whom were tried and convicted, given severe sentences. We murdered bin laden (even though dr steve pieczenik head of intel and prof of army war college declared for 9 years that bin laden has been dead for years) and entered Pakistan while we are still murdering innocents w done bombs throughout Te country. Ron Pauls foreign policy is reflective of libertarianism. You sir are an obvious neoCon. A LINO in Sheeps clothing.
First, let me thank you for being the first among dozens of commenters to submit remarks that I could actually post–absent of any vitriol, profanity, and nasty name-calling. My hats off to you for addressing the issues.
I point out to you that I provided context for all Ron Paul comments. Without knowing much about me, however, you have incorrectly labeled me a NeoCon. I believe in libertarian foreign policy, simply not to the extent that you seemingly do as I judge by your remarks. And I certainly disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on not going after bin Lden without the cooperation of the government that was harboring him.
We can agree to disagee on certain points and still be libertarin in general.
Again, I appreciate your civility.
Take care.
Chuck
Mr. Roger,
In terms of your column and your recent appearance on Fox Business, I have to say some of your points were very slanted and very absent of context and/or knowledge:
“So while Paul clearly declares no intention to compromise his values, the man is unclear as to what those values may be with respect to working “with those on the left and with the progressives.”
If one has kept up with Paul’s time in Congress it would be explictly clear as to what his intentions have been working in coalitions from time to time with the left …to advance the cause of limited government where those rare chances occur. Some of those recent efforts include Paul’s “Audit The Fed” bill that was also offered by Sanders with the Senate version and championed by Ralph Nader and cosponsored by over 300 members of the House … over 100 of those Democrats.
In the cause of Liberty, we should be willing to advance that cause by any peaceful and honest means necessary right or left.
I’ve been in the greater libertarian movement for 25+ years as a writer and activist and have come in contact and knowledge of a VAST number of writers within it. This is the first time I’ve heard you or been exposed to your writing as a steward of “libertarianism”.
For the record, there are some things I disagree with Paul on as well. One of those was his comments on the Bin Laden raid and also the associated timing of them. However, with that said, it should also be clear, that despite his age and flaws, Ron Paul has done the more over the last few years than has been done in the previous forty to expose American’s to libertarian ideas. Without those efforts, libertarians of all stripes would still be wondering alone in a vast, political, wilderness and issues like our military being in 130 countries with 800 related bases around the world and the Federal Reserve would NOT be disussion topics.
Your comments on Fox Business and related article in American Thinker, in particular on this topic, were intellectually dishonest and helped to give libertarianism a bad name … for what end is unknown.
“Slanted” and “intellectually dishonest” are default terms used to criticize arguments with which someone disagrees. You and I seem to disagree, but I do not consider your opinions to be “slanted” and “intellectually dishonest.” You do not hold my opinions in as high a regrad as your own. Understandable, I suppose. All of my points were given context and backed up with solid arguments.
Thank you for giving arguments of your own.
Take care.
Chuck
Mr. Roger,
Thank you for your reply. I guess we’ll just have to disagree. My point was that your comments were intellectually dishonest not as a “default term”, but by design. Ron Paul is not hanging out with Lefty’s to hug trees and sing Micheal Rode the Boat Ashore as your comments imply, but rather advance libertarian legislation where common interest can be found. The Fed Audit bill and TARP are just to cite two of the latest examples. Furthermore, anyone in the libertarian movement would have known that. But that doesn’t get you published outside the blog-o-sphere or on Fox by putting any vegetables with the red meat does it?
It is curious that you assign devious/dishonest motive to my opinions. They are my opinions, based a real-life events, real things that the very real Ron Paul said and failed to say.
The Fed needs to go away. We need to pull most of our troops out of many places around the world. The police need to stop wasting taxpayer money to fight “the drug war.” And Dr. Paul needs to stop playing to the audience on hand. He needed to refute Thaddeus Russell’s ridiculous assertion that he was inclined to work with “very leftwing people” to “end the American empire.” He did not.
Can I believe these things and still be a “good” libertarian?
Chuck
” And Dr. Paul needs to stop playing to the audience on hand. He needed to refute Thaddeus Russell’s ridiculous assertion that he was inclined to work with “very leftwing people” to “end the American empire.” He did not.”
THAT’s MY POINT … Paul IS inclined to work with “very left wing people” to advance libertarian policies …or your grandmother …if they will work with him in Congress to vote yes or no on a particular piece of legislation whether that is to end the fed, decriminalization, or to reduce our role overseas. Doesn’t mean you have to support Bernie Sanders when he wants a single payer health care bill. Mind you Ron’s not perfect, but he is the same guy who was the sole no vote on a taxpayer funded Congressional metal for Rosa Parks and instead offered to pay for part of it out of his own pocket.
I’ve been at this thing since Karl Hess went underground and became a welder instead of a presidential speechwriter so he could work for cash to avoid the Income Tax and I would follow the same process if I could as Paul did.
Furthermore, the “crowd on hand” that you reference with the Stossel show were virtually all Paul supporters and already knew his position on this. I would dare say a good share of the viewing audience knew that position as well. Therefore, there was no reason to “refute” it.
What bothers many of us with your appearance on Fox and your column, is that those with an anti-libertarian adjenda will galdly comb the blog-o-sphere to find a “libertarian spokesperson” who will add some uncooked, unqualified, red meat to be served up on a stick to their viewing audience precisely to undermine libertarianism. As far as Fox is concerned, it would have been better if you showed up with a needle hanging out of your arm.
They went on before and after your part in the play to trash libertarians and Paul for the “Crazy idea of ending aid to Israel” …over and over again …not mentioning the fact that we give $3b a year in aid to Israel and $12B in aid to her enemies and our idea is to end All of it.
At the end of the day, the only thing that a viewer could have gotten out of that program was that libertarians hate Jews and stand on the floor of Congress having sing-a-longs with Bernie Sanders to further the left wing adjenda every day. Thanks.
You are a thinking man, and I appreciate that. We are speaking crosswise at each other when in fact we are on the same side.
What I said (in my post and on FBN) is that Paul sat there and heard a lefty claim that the congressman works with “very leftwing people” in order to “end the American empire” and Paul did not correct the misstatement. Please read that sentence again. The final word is “misstatement.” Russell attributed a behavior to Paul of which the congressman is not guilty, i.e.–wanting to join lefties to cut America down to size. You and other staunch Paul supporters seem to be focussed on my calling the congressman out for working with lefties and you don’t seem to catch that my concern is very specific. Most Americans do not take kindly to lefties who want to “end” America. By not clearly distancing himself from that remark, but in fact only making a general statement that actually strengthens the notion that he works with progressives, Ron Paul did libertarianism and himslef a disservice.
For goodness sake man, I agree with you on your logical libertarian points. Can you not agree that Paul may have messed up here? When he condemned the bin Laden raid, he lost a lot of support. Couple that with Russell getting away with casting the congressman as a lover of lefties and Paul’s got a real problem.
My comment regarding Paul playing to the audience on hand needs to be weighed with a view toward the entire audience, which on Stossel’s show included “man of the left” Russell. To me, it was disturbing to see a man whom I respect for many good ideas, Paul, play into Russell’s hands. This is the same behavior that irks the hell out of me in Newt Gingrich, whom I cannot stomach for many other reasons. I expect this sort of playing into the hands of an opponent and drinking in the opponent’s glowing adoration when it comes to Gingrich. I had not expected it from Paul and it was startling to see it happen.
Take care.
Chuck
Chuck, for the record I don’t disgree with you on the Bin Laden raid. It was a lapse on his part and politically analagous to saying “Kennedy was a jerk” the day after Dallas. It was dumb and I think Paul is smart enough to know it.
My point was (and stands I think) is that particular group with FBN used your 15 seconds to underscore their propaganda machine that went on for the next 15 minutes that had almost no true statements in terms of Paul’s or libertarian positions on the issues.
Thank you for clarification.
Rod,
Noted and acknowledged.
Chuck
This is what Paul should be doing. This is good. Check it out:
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110519007204/en
Thanks
That just about nails it.
CR
Since when are you a libertarian? Your comments ib this article and on FBN are those of a statist. What is wrong with working with Democrats to pass legislation such as Audit the Fed? Do you support Fed secrecy Mr. Roger? Let’s remember that not did Reagan SUPPORT and ENDORSE Ron Paul, Reagan himself said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism and Paul’s positions fit much closer to that statement than yours!
Please expand on your claim that I appear to be a “statist.” There is nothing wrong with working with Democrats to abolish the Fed. I’m all for that. Please go back and read my Ron Paul post again and view the FBN interview. Nowhere did I criticize Paul for working to such ends. I was critical of Paul making no attempt to set Thaddeus Russell straight. Russell gushingly praised Paul for working with “very leftwing people” to “end the American empire.” Together with Paul’s bin Laden raid comments, his failure to refute this ridicuouls accusation gives libertarians a bad rap. I stand by this claim.
I agree with most of what Dr. Paul is trying to do. I vehemently disagree with him on these two points. Does this make me a statist?
Chuck
I am also a Chuck.. and a libertarian.. I feel that the Pakistani raid has done more harm than good. We invaded a nuclear power, who is also an ally in the region, to kill one man. We jeopardized any possible future dealings with this nation. We’ve now shown to the world that we will use our military might to enforce our will on any nation we deem to be “unacceptable.” This is dangerous, as well as morally bankrupt. While Dr Paul’s chosen nation of England isn’t the nation I would have chosen, the point is still valid.
Is the killing of one man worth it?
Not in this libertarian’s opinion.
Very thoughtful and logical considerations, all. I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your rationale.
Take care.
Chuck
Hope you don’t mind me being supportive to your website/opinions unlike most other commenters, at least in this segment.
I have found myself in favor of Ron Paul’s positions most of the time. I could never vote for him for president because I prefer a full time conservative, not a weekend warrior.
I disagree with the first half of Paul’s assessment that the raid on the Bin Laden compound was unnecessary. It was necessary, and a bit overdue.
I agree with him that the execution of a unarmed man in custody was not necessary. But then, the Seals had their orders.
If the United States was not bombing and terrorizing these people and supporting their tin-pot dictators we wouldn’t have to worry about bin Laden. As much as there may be crazy terrorists there and elsewhere they do not pick their targets at random or because ‘they hate our freedom’. And the U.S. empire is not reducing their number by mangling children by saturation bombing.
Ron Paul is too soft on American foreign policy.