View Full Version : Ron Paul on wolf: Did Ron dodge the question about what he would do about al-qaeda?

05-16-2007, 09:48 PM
I liked the interview very much except for the last question.

When Wolf asked what Ron Paul would do about Al-Qaeda threat, Ron Paul replied that he would go after Osama Bin Laden and then drifted into a long tirade about Iran, Pakistan, Nuclear Weapons, etc.

Am I alone in thinking that the last question was not handled effectively?

Korey Kaczynski
05-16-2007, 09:56 PM
I think the point is few would understand the implications of Ron's presidency, thus discussing it in greater detail would confuse Joe Average.

Teflon Master
05-16-2007, 09:59 PM
I think he was saying if he was President he would go directly after Al-Qaeda for unjustly and undeservingly murdering civilians, but for whatever reason the US government took their focus off AQ and went off into Iraq, giving Osama asylum in a nuclear country ruled by an Islamofascist military dictator.

05-16-2007, 10:02 PM
It's not the president's place to micro-manage a war or conflict. People expect it because all the other armchair generals are doing it. It's sufficient for me to hear he'd go after the people who did it, and it's sufficient for me to hear him talk sensibly.

05-16-2007, 10:03 PM
Dr. Paul has talked about a more directed effort to find bin Laden before, on a few occasions. I believe he has supported chasing them into Packistan, there are a few speaches he gave on the subject in Congress.

05-16-2007, 10:26 PM
I liked the interview very much except for the last question.

When Wolf asked what Ron Paul would do about Al-Qaeda threat, Ron Paul replied that he would go after Osama Bin Laden and then drifted into a long tirade about Iran, Pakistan, Nuclear Weapons, etc.

Am I alone in thinking that the last question was not handled effectively?

No he said he would go after them. Rewatch it and listen. After stating that- he went on to say he voted for the authorization to go into afghanistan, and his distaste came from going into iraq without following Bin Laden into Pakistan.

05-16-2007, 11:17 PM
I thought he was clear about getting after bin Laden. It would suit Dr. Paul well to emphasize this point. However, al Queda is a large organization and if bin Laden is captured or killed someone will take over for him. Many say al Queda is in Iraq right now. So if we do what Dr. Paul says and leave Iraq, it could be perceived as an al Queda victory and strengthen them. Would Dr. Paul support Special Forces involvement going after al Queda in Iraq? What would he do to improve our intelligence groups? I'd like to hear Dr. Paul explain in further detail what he would do keep America safe from terrorist groups. I am for non-interventionism, but I don't think the terrorist groups will just stop if we change policy.

05-17-2007, 07:31 AM
The correct answer would be unacceptable to most people. Al Qaeda is a set of ideas much more than a cohesive organization. You can't fight a war against ideas, at least not militarily. The correct answer is to create a foreign policy and a world that doesn't foster those ideas. It's a tough pill for Americans to swallow, though, that we have inadvertently been driving Al Qaeda.

RP's right though. We've played right into the hands of Iran in the Middle East, and Pakistan is a festering threat that we've ignored because they're playing our game with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I say "threat," I don't mean Pakistan is going to be threatening America's borders any time soon. What I mean is that young men coming out of Pakistani Madrasses tend to be real angry SOBs who might have a long list of grievances against America, maybe even advocate violence against us. They're not a lot different than the drones coming out of the Israeli educational system or Zionist or fundy Christian households in America, just a different set of hatreds.

05-17-2007, 07:36 AM
It was a trick question. Al Kiddya is a figment of the Neo-con imagination. Remember how suspiciously fast the 19 photos and the name 'Al-Qaida' arose after 9/11?.

Rush was recently speaking about the new 'white' Al Qaida which is simply more terrorism under the guise of 'anti-terrorism' IMOH

Scribbler de Stebbing
05-17-2007, 07:45 AM
He could have brought up Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but no one would have understood that.

It's easy, when you're being interviewed, to veer slightly off point without meaning to.

05-17-2007, 07:52 AM
Does anyone have a link to this interview? I have yet to check it out firsthand. Thanks in advance.

Hawaii Libertarian
05-17-2007, 08:52 AM
The neocons and mass media have pumped up Al Qaeda into the proverbial 800 pound gorilla, boogieman, whatever it takes to terrify the populous.

Yes, they accomplished a horrific thing in their suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, among other targets in 2001, causing a catastrophic loss of life.

What the MSM fails to tell us is that in reality, these guys were not a group of illiterate barbarians, but they were highly educated men. They cleverly observed and defeated numerous vulnerabilities in our immigration system and aviation security to accomplish their task.

Short of a never ending, total lock down where all of our civil liberties are eliminated, we can never be totally "safe." That is the risk of living in a free society. We can make it harder to successfully accomplish a terrorist act, but the tradeoff is the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, such as in the pseudo-"Patriot Act."

The fact remains that a determined, educated enemy can wreak havoc and destruction next time with other types of weapons besides hijacked airliners. The current administration is caught in the classic fallacy of military operational planning is that they're always planning to fight and defend against yesterday's enemy and yesterday's tactics.

Despite the hypocritical raving of Giuliani, Hannity, and their ilk, the only real way to make America and its allies really secure is just as Dr. Paul says--examine why they want to attack us and see if there's anything in our foreign policy that we need to adjust. This isn't surrendering to terror, it's changing direction when our approach for the past 50 plus years has been one disaster after another as we try to be the world's policeman to enforce vague, unconstitutional UN mandates by force.

Now in Iraq, the Al Qaeda sympathizers are blended in and impossible to isolate in the midst of a religious civil war in Iraq. Nothing else has worked, so perhaps the right answer is to withdraw and let the Sunni and Shiia in Iraq annihilate each other along with the Al Qaeda sympathizers in Iraq.

There are not millions of Al Qaeda out there. Most credible estimates identify a typical Al Qaeda sympathizer or recruit as an 18-28 year old disenfranchised Muslims.

Dr. Paul and many others know that there is no easy "silver bullet" to "take care" of the Al Qaeda problem, but where the current administration miserably failed is not first examining their foreign policy in the region and that of past administrations for the last 50 years in the region. Of course, there are way too many conflicts of interest in the current administration and Giuliani will only make things worse. See the Accuracy in Media article at the link below posted today's on the Daily Paul web site.