Walter Russell Mead bleats madly against Ron Paul's Peace and Prosperity Institute

[supermario21]

What a hack, does the usual "let's blame truthers and dictator lovers." Calls it a "fringe advisory board."


http://blogs.the-am erican-intere st.com/wrm/2013/04/25/run-for-the-hills-ron-paul-goes-full-nutjob/



The biggest question mark over Ron Paul has always been his affinity for unsavory wack jobs on the fringes of American politics, but these days he’s turning that question mark into an exclamation point. The Daily Beast reports that the ex-Texas Congressman is creating the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a think tank concerned with what Paul considers important foreign policy and civil liberty issues. It appears that the institute’s board contains some truly bizarre characters: Putin shills, Serb genocide apologists, 9/11 truthers, and pro-Confederate loons. Here’s a summary of one of the members, John Laughland:
A prominent defender of the late Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Laughland penned a book on his Hague war-crimes trial titled Travesty (the “travesty” in question not being the Bosnian Serb genocide of Muslims, which Laughland denies ever took place, but the “kangaroo court” that brought Milosevic to justice and which Laughland blamed for his 2006 death). Laughland has also defended Ukraine’s Kremlin-backed president Viktor Yanukovych (whose attempt to steal the 2004 election sparked that country’s peaceful Orange Revolution) and lamented the fate of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Europe’s last dictator, victim of “humiliating treatment” at the hands of a “propaganda campaign waged against” him “by the West.”
There are truthers with “doubts” about what happened on 9/11, and then there’s Walter Block, who blames America’s current troubles on “the monster Lincoln” and the defeat of the South in the Civil War. In their private lives and other avocations no doubt these gentlemen show many positive qualities; their ability to make constructive contributions to American political debates seems limited. It would be interesting to know what kind of wisdom Congressman Paul absorbs at their feet.
Having retired from Congress and never gotten far in Republican presidential politics, the elder Mr. Paul can safely hang out with all the Confederate apologists, truthers and Putin sympathizers he wants; he doesn’t have a lot of future to damage. But if Mr. Paul wanted to ruin his son’s run for the White House, he could hardly have put together a more effective advisory board.
Senator Rand Paul has wanted to reach out to the sensible middle without losing the tinfoil hatters; his father’s choice of board members makes that line much harder to walk. Senator Paul wants to be the future of the GOP, but to get there now he’s going to have to say in public that his father’s nutty friends have no place in his politics or his life. The son’s interests required that the father play nice, but Ron Paul has never been one to play by the rules.
The young Paul was conspicuously absent from the press conference announcing the institute’s launch, and has distanced himself from his father’s more controversial foreign policy views. He will have to do more; Ron Paul has come close to wrecking his son’s presidential hopes, and there is no telling just how much more trouble he and his friends will be making.

[sailingaway]

Who?

--

LOL! These guys are seriously scared! they are FROTHING, and babbling complete leftist type attacks, and so far Ron's hardly done anything with the institute!

I'm going to join, right now.

[supermario21]

Per Wikipedia, Mead is the ultimate globalist....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell_Mead


Walter Russell Mead (born 12 June 1952, Columbia, South Carolina) is James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine. Until 2010, Mead was the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.[1] He is a co-founder of the New America Foundation, a think tank that has been described as radical centrist in orientation.[2]
Mead's father, Loren Mead, is an Episcopal priest in Washington, D.C., who grew up in several places in the South. Mead received his B.A. in English Literature from Yale University. He is an honors graduate of Groton School and Yale, where he received prizes for history and debate. In addition to his position at Bard, Mead currently teaches American foreign policy at Yale University.
Mead is a Democrat, and has said he voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election.[3] In 2003, Mead supported the Iraq War.[4]
[edit]

[torchbearer]

Who?

--

LOL! These guys are seriously scared! they are FROTHING, and babbling complete leftist type attacks, and so far Ron's hardly done anything with the institute!

I'm going to join, right now.

same.

[Petar]

Well, of course I support Ron Paul and what he is trying to do here, but I do find it a little bit disturbing if there really is an apologist for Milosevic on board.

I'm not saying that the US really needed to bomb Serbia the way that it did, but Milosevic was in charge of a genocidal paramilitary campaign.

I mean what kind of sick individual goes out of his way to write a book about how "innocent" Slobodan Milosevic was?

Anyway, I realize that it is beside the point, which is that the USA should not be involved in these things, but Milosevic apologists really are disturbed, ignorant individuals.

[supermario21]

Well, of course I support Ron Paul and what he is trying to do here, but I do find it a little bit disturbing if there really is an apologist for Milosevic on board.

I'm not saying that the US really needed to bomb Serbia the way that it did, but Milosevic was in charge of a genocidal paramilitary campaign.

I mean what kind of sick individual goes out of his way to write a book about how "innocent" Slobodan Milosevic was?

Anyway, I realize that it is beside the point, which is that the USA should not be involved in these things, but Milosevic apologists really are disturbed, ignorant individuals.


Yeah, I think that's why Rand and not Ron is the one people are talking about as a possible president. Non-intervention means not getting the US involved in other nations' affairs but it shouldn't mean praising tyrants just because we were opposed to bombing them. But I think the author cited only defended Milosevic over the trial and punishment, not the action. Sort of how folks like DiLorenzo defend the Confederacy without defending slavery.

[Petar]

Yeah, I think that's why Rand and not Ron is the one people are talking about as a possible president. Non-intervention means not getting the US involved in other nations' affairs but it shouldn't mean praising tyrants just because we were opposed to bombing them. But I think the author cited only defended Milosevic over the trial and punishment, not the action. Sort of how folks like DiLorenzo defend the Confederacy without defending slavery.

Well, I understand that you can be against the US civil war, without being for slavery, just the same as you can be against an international trial, without being for Milosevic's genocide.

It's just that I do find it disturbing if this guy actually goes so far as to claim that Milosevic was innocent, that's all.

[angelatc]

Mead is excerpting an article over at the Daily Beast, written by our old friend James Kirchick. I won't link to it. Justin Rainmondo was mocking him on Twitter for saying something untrue about Scheuer in it.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, I think that's why Rand and not Ron is the one people are talking about as a possible president. Non-intervention means not getting the US involved in other nations' affairs but it shouldn't mean praising tyrants just because we were opposed to bombing them. But I think the author cited only defended Milosevic over the trial and punishment, not the action. Sort of how folks like DiLorenzo defend the Confederacy without defending slavery.

I think it is because Ron is 77 and is less likely to capitalize on the organization he already built across the nation, so Rand is taking that organization he built and taking it from there.

For every person who is turned out because someone associated with something Ron does once had a thought they didn't agree with, there are people who are turned off by other things. I think we all read our own personal tastes into these things.

[sailingaway]

Well, I understand that you can be against the US civil war, without being for slavery, just the same as you can be against an international trial, without being for Milosevic's genocide.

It's just that I do find it disturbing if this guy actually goes so far as to claim that Milosevic was innocent, that's all.


What does that have to do with Ron? I have no idea what this guy believes, nor do I care, so long as it is Ron's policy coming out of the institute.

[sailingaway]

Well, I understand that you can be against the US civil war, without being for slavery, just the same as you can be against an international trial, without being for Milosevic's genocide.

It's just that I do find it disturbing if this guy actually goes so far as to claim that Milosevic was innocent, that's all.


IF he does, consider the source and the crap they throw at other people.

[sailingaway]

Mead is excerpting an article over at the Daily Beast, written by our old friend James Kirchick. I won't link to it. Justin Rainmondo was mocking him on Twitter for saying something untrue about Scheuer in it.

He puts out untrue smears all the time. On the one hand, I'm thrilled they are like hornets (old, disoriented hornets) whose nest has been knocked off a tree, but on the other hand, I don't want to raise their profile when they are being shoved into a back closet where they can be hidden from view, either.

[Petar]

What does that have to do with Ron? I have no idea what this guy believes, nor do I care, so long as it is Ron's policy coming out of the institute.


IF he does, consider the source and the crap they throw at other people.

Look lady, I'm trying to be diplomatic here.

I know the media is biased against Ron and blah blah blah, but IF this guy really is a demented loser who wrote a book about the "innocence" of SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, then maybe he really does not belong on the advisory board of Ron Paul's foreign policy organization.

I realize that you are an American with your own interests who wants to keep the USA out of world affairs, and in case you have not noticed I am very much on your side.

All I am is a Canadian/Croatian who is making the suggestion that including APOLOGISTS FOR GENOCIDE as leaders within your enlightened political movement is probably a shitty idea IF the allegations against this guy turn out to be true.

That is all that I am trying to say.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This is really grasping. Pathetically so. I can't even imagine the bleating that'll be taking place from this crowd in late 2015/early 2016 if Rand Paul is leading, or if it's late in the primary and it's a close race between him and whoever.

"But...but...marijuana. Not pro-life enough! Uh, uh...racist newsletters under his father's name...war on terror, war on terr...[gurgling on spittle]."

[Petar]

This is really grasping. Pathetically so. I can't even imagine the bleating that'll be taking place from this crowd in late 2015/early 2016 if Rand Paul is leading, or if it's late and the primary and it's a close race between him and whoever.

"But...but...marijuana. Not pro-life enough! Uh, uh...racist newsletters under his father's name...war on terror, war on terr...[gurgling on spittle]."

I really do dig it as well.

[fr33]

Fuck the neocons. I just became a charter member of the Ron Paul Institute.

[sailingaway]

Look lady, I'm trying to be diplomatic here.

I know the media is biased against Ron and blah blah blah, but IF this guy really is a demented loser who wrote a book about the "innocence" of SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, then maybe he really does not belong on the advisory board of Ron Paul's foreign policy organization.

I realize that you are an American with your own interests who wants to keep the USA out of world affairs, and in case you have not noticed I am actually on your side.

All I am is a Canadian/Croatian who is making the suggestion that including APOLOGISTS FOR GENOCIDE as leaders within your enlightened political movement is probably a shitty idea IF the allegations against this guy turn out to be true.

That is all that I am trying to say.

What I'M trying to say is that what people do on other projects shouldn't be given legitimacy on smearing Ron on Ron's project. The Institute certainly hasn't taken that position. It would be lovely if all people anywhere on Ron's projects were absolutely pure as driven snow, but what they are supposed to be doing WITH RON is within the confines of the project. On THAT they may agree.

Ron doesn't feel he in any way endorses any ideas that don't come out of his mouth. That is simply how he takes life, and it opens him up to 'associational' attacks, but he considers it part of tolerance to appreciate parts of people he likes and not judge parts that don't concern him.

[Petar]

What I'M trying to say is that what people do on other projects shouldn't be given legitimacy on smearing Ron on Ron's project. The Institute certainly hasn't taken that position. It would be lovely if all people anywhere on Ron's projects were absolutely pure as driven snow, but what they are supposed to be doing WITH RON is within the confines of the project. On THAT they may agree.

Ron doesn't feel he in any way endorses any ideas that don't come out of his mouth. That is simply how he takes life, and it opens him up to 'associational' attacks, but he considers it part of tolerance to appreciate parts of people he likes and not judge parts that don't concern him.

Sorry, but that is pure bullshit.

Is Ron going to have Don Black on his advisory board because maybe they agree on certain things?

No, and for good reason, aside from just the "optics" of it.

I realize that Ron Paul is a great great man and everything, but IF this dude really is an apologist for genocide, then having him on as an advisor is just plain shitty.

I'm not saying that I am going to stop supporting Ron Paul and his institute, but I'm not going to sit here like a lobotomized idiot and pretend that everything is perfectly kosher either.

[sailingaway]

Sorry, but that is pure bullshit.

Is Ron going to have Don Black on his advisory board because maybe they agree on certain things?

No, and for good reason, aside from just the "optics" of it.

I realize that Ron Paul is a great great man and everything, but IF this dude really is an apologist for genocide, then having him on as an advisor is just plain shitty.

I'm not saying that I am going to stop supporting Ron Paul and his institute, but I'm not going to sit here like a lobotomized idiot and pretend that everything is perfectly kosher either.

I hope he doesn't have someone like that, because I want him to be successful, but I'm not going to feed into attacks for something that doesn't even relate to what Ron or his own project are involved in.

And this is a choreographed attack on multiple media fronts, there is effort and time in this, and one of the people leading the effort was the one who in 2008 dragged up the 1990s newsletter smear against him and is always the source quoted, that original article, even though YEARS BEFORE that article was written people knew Ron hadn't written them, and media always starts as if it is something fresh. These guys are known character assassins so I am not going to take a thing they say as true about anyone. We know that the newsletter implication was incredibly false as regards Ron's character, not just wrong, but completely inside out. For all I know these smears are equally bunk.

[Petar]

I hope he doesn't have someone like that, because I want him to be successful, but I'm not going to feed into attacks for something that don't even relate to what Ron or his own project are involved in.

If the allegation is true, then the reason that it relates to Ron Paul and his institute is because the guy is apparently sitting on the advisory committee.

And honestly, if it is true, it's not like it's going to destroy Ron or his institute.

Basically it would just be a small error that perhaps warrants fixing, that's all.

[sailingaway]

I think we play into their hands if anything bad that can be found on anyone associated with anything Ron does requires emergency action.

I'm not even trusting these sources enough to have more likely belief these people did what they said.

because I have no idea about this person charged. But I do know these sources attacking are not remotely credible.

[randpaul2016]

what the heck is going on here...found the guys twitter account

(wont post what I tweeted him) lol

[Petar]

Well, I've been reading a bit about John Laughland and also his book regarding the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

It seems that Laughland is mostly just an individual who is primarily concerned with national sovereignty, and keeping globalist internationalism at bay.

What I've read about his work concerning Milosevic's trial does raise a lot of really valid concerns regarding how Milosevic was pretty much railroaded by the international community.

I'm not going to say that Milosevic was innocent, but maybe he wasn't quite "as guilty" as the world was led to believe.

I guess he was just a tyrant who was ultimately done in by bigger tyrants.

I guess John Laughland isn't so bad like I was saying.

Sorry.