Post comments on this Washington Post hit-piece

[terlinguatx]

...

[1000-points-of-fright]

That's a hit piece? You must be really thin-skinned.

[terlinguatx]

...

[goldstandard]

The video is good.

[ACJohn]

Huh??

[terlinguatx]

...

[Nefertiti]

How is Ron Paul expressing his own views a hit piece?

[DrNoZone]

The video was good because you got to hear Paul qualify what he said about initiating war. He DID NOT say there was NEVER a reason to go to war. What he said was that under our current circumstances, today, there was no reason.

So yes, the writer either was lazy in his written piece, or intentionally misconstruing what Paul actually said.

[1000-points-of-fright]

If the article was based on that video interview then it was pretty accurate. It's not the reporters fault that Ron Paul didn't mention fighting terrorism. When somebody asks him about war he answers specifically about going to war with nations. But what they're really asking about is terrorism. In conversations like these RP needs to interject his plans on defending against terrorism in addition to wars against other countries.

When he says nobody would dare attack us, he's thinking about nations while everyone else is thinking about 19 guys on hijacked planes. He needs to talk about strategies for dealing with both.

[terlinguatx]

...

[FreedomLover]

If the article was based on that video interview then it was pretty accurate. It's not the reporters fault that Ron Paul didn't mention fighting terrorism. When somebody asks him about war he answers specifically about going to war with nations. But what they're really asking about is terrorism. In conversations like these RP needs to interject his plans on defending against terrorism in addition to wars against other countries.

When he says nobody would dare attack us, he's thinking about nations while everyone else is thinking about 19 guys on hijacked planes. He needs to talk about strategies for dealing with both.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Ron will have to inculcate his own effective counter-measures to the threat of terrorism into the minds of voters before the opposition is allowed to. There is a 99.9 % chance we will be attacked again soon. He needs to establish a position that will make the voters feel safer.

[max]

sooner or later...9/11 has to be exposed for what it really was...

if not, when the next fals-flag inside job terror attack hits....the whole RP movement will be swept away by a neo-con/media tsunami of "See, we told you so"

[terlinguatx]

...

[me3]

Have some faith people. Ron has to maintain his position as being absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war. It's his biggest differentiator in the primaries and the general election.

Enough hand wringing and second guessing already!

[1000-points-of-fright]

sooner or later...9/11 has to be exposed for what it really was...

if not, when the next fals-flag inside job terror attack hits....the whole RP movement will be swept away by a neo-con/media tsunami of "See, we told you so"

False flag or not, RP still needs to explain how he would defend America against terrorism without full scale war with other countries in order to get the frightened segment of the public (which is substantial) to start considering him as a viable candidate.


Have some faith people. Ron has to maintain his position as being absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war. It's his biggest differentiator in the primaries and the general election.

I think you misunderstand Ron Paul's position on war. He is not absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war. He is absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war illegally and unjustifiably. If he came out and said he would not go to war ever under any circumstances, he would lose big time. Even I would drop him as an unrealistic peacenik. I'm no hawk, but I know when it's time to fight.

[goldstandard]

I think you misunderstand Ron Paul's position on war. He is not absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war. He is absolutely, and totally committed to not go to war illegally and unjustifiably. If he came out and said he would not go to war ever under any circumstances, he would lose big time. Even I would drop him as an unrealistic peacenik. I'm no hawk, but I know when it's time to fight.
Totally agree. But posting angry comments here won't help our cause at all. We should comment in a respectful manner and try to elaborate on Ron's position.

[wsc321]

I do think the article significantly misrepresented what Dr. Paul said. Dr. Paul - in the video interview - clearly stated he saw no reason to launch a military action or war "under current circumstances". The article, however, states "Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch military action or initiate a war".

That's a significant distortion of what Dr. Paul said and believes in my opinion.

[Johncjackson]

Near the top of the article he says this

"I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours."

That certainly shows he is not against defending the country. He is against pre-emptive war. Against the initiation of force, but not the THREAT of force, or use of force in defense. If defended properly, other nations should be afraid enough of the U.S. potentional force, because we could wipe them of the face of the earth. And if they were foolish enough to attack, we certainly could.