View Full Version : WorldNetDaily smears Dr. Paul and states inaccurate facts on his positions

06-15-2007, 07:32 AM
A couple of days ago Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, wrote an article in support of Fred Thompson for president. In that article he took a dig at Ron Paul. Today, Mr. Farah has written a hit piece on Dr. Paul called, "Why Ron Paul is disqualified." WND is the largest and most influential conservative website, reaching millions of people. I'm asking everybody to write WND and show your support for Congressman Paul. Let's flood their mailbox! Thanks.



Admin- Discussion thread:

-------- Ron Paul Media Matters --------

*** Please read forum guidelines before posting ***

06-15-2007, 01:43 PM
He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East
There are two forms of propaganda used here:

Demonizing the “enemy”: Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for Viet Cong soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations.

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
This is a misrepresentation of Dr. Pauls statements which could better be stated by Dr. Paul himself, right after the debate in question Dr. Paul said to Sean Hannity in the Fox spin room: "I think it [our foreign policy] contributes significantly to it [hatred towards America]... The Americans didn't do anything to cause it [9/11] but policies over many years caused and elicited hatred towards us so somebody was willing to commit suicide."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuLjV3XHP_0 (start at 2:40 mark)

Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
Dr. Paul's position is based on expert study and analysis, PBS reported in a 1987 documentary that the actions in Iran in 1979 were the result of the 1953 CIA coup as shown in this video:

Dr. Paul did not state anything about the Ayatollah Khomeini revolution; he referred only to the hostage crisis.

More information on blowback can be found in this book:

While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction... It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.
This is a smearing and mischaracterization of Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war. The use of the term "cut and run" when charactering Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war is inaccurate since this term implies a change in judgment that is not true for Dr. Paul. Wikipedia includes the following when describing the term "Cut and run":

"The added pungency of the phrase comes from the partially obscured implication that this withdrawal is a course only undertaken by dishonorable fools whose fear and confusion has overcome their better judgment."

Dr. Paul has maintained his judgment on the Iraq war issue from the beginning:

I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit-one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with." –September, 2002

He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.
This is a guilt by association "Reductio ad Hitlerum" propaganda tactic and Mr. Farah offers no supporting evidence for his claim.

Reductio ad Hitlerum propaganda technique: used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position.

Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul's position on amnesty for illegal aliens.

In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

Dr. Paul has a firm stance against amnesty in any way as stated in his past writings, an example:

Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American

In the debate, Dr. Paul implied the opposite of what Mr. Farah is stating in that he is against amnesty by discussing how states are forced to subsides illegal activity which in turns promotes illegal activity. Here is the debate transcript:


MR. BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I want you to weigh in on this as well.

I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — you voted o support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you?

REP. PAUL: I did.

MR. BLITZER: What about Canada? Is there a need for a similar fence along the border between the United States and Canada?

REP. PAUL: No. No, because that bill — probably the fence was my weakest reason for doing that, but for other reasons — to enforce the law — was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to.

But one thing that has not been mentioned here, which I think is very, very important — if you subsidize something, you get more of it. So — we subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn’t they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable, but because of economic conditions, they have become the scapegoat.

This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country.

Hardened criminals come to the U.S. illegally.

Terrorists come to the U.S. illegally.

Drunk drivers come to the U.S. illegally.

Millions of low-skilled workers come to the U.S. illegally and transform our culture.
After misrepresenting Dr. Paul's position on illegal immigration, these strawman arguments are irrelevant. Dr. Paul does not support terrorism, drunk driving nor hardened criminals.

But it would still be no substitute for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
Dr. Paul has voted to secure the borders and enforce immigration laws. In the third GOP CNN debate that is referred to in this piece, the moderator (Mr. Blitzer) states "Congressman Paul... I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — you voted o support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you?" Which he did as shown here:

More on Dr. Paul's position:
"Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws.", November 16, 2001

even if he had the support necessary to win, which he doesn't and never will.
Mr. Farah is implying that he knows the future with 100% certainty, a complete absurdity. These type of philological attacks are commonly used bandwagon propaganda tactics.

"Bandwagon: Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking.""

Readers of this piece should be cautioned, in this 657 word essay about Dr. Paul, Mr. Farah used the term "Islamo-fascist" four times.

Argumentum ad nauseam: This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

06-15-2007, 01:59 PM
I have written a response to Joseph Farah. Any feed back you can give would be appreciated. http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/politics/ron-paul-joseph-farah-and-the-qualified-man.html