"Human Events" smears Dr. Paul, presents misleading information

[LibertyEagle]

There was an article in Human Events 2 days ago, by no less than the EDITOR, that completely trashed Dr. Paul's performance in the last debate. Human Events used to be known as a very traditionally conservative newspaper. Someone better than I needs to respond to this in a professional, reasoned, fact-based manner. Hopefully in a way that Dr. Paul would be proud.

This newspaper at least used to say they were for the following:

"It looks at events through eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, private enterprise and individual freedom. These were the principles that inspired the Founding Fathers. We think that today the same principles will preserve freedom America."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21005


"Ron Paul repeated his desire to cut and run, and the other Republicans didn’t buy it."

"When asked to identify George Bush’s greatest error none of the candidates, except for Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, were willing to attack the president. Paul renounced “pre-emptive war”, saying that we've abandoned the "just war" theory of Christianity. Paul is apparently willing to accept another terrorist strike rather than save American lives by taking out an imminent threat. Paul -- looking at the others -- condemned the idea of nuking Iran, which he said has done nothing to harm us and is no threat. The Iranian war against America, which began in 1979, can best be explained to Mr. Paul in two words: shut up."


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

*** Please read forum guidelines before posting ***
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=658

[Bryan]

Mr. Babbin uses the term "cut and run" when charactering Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war, 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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_and_run

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
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm

Mr. Babbin continued to explain that "The Iranian war against America, which began in 1979" but fails to mention how the CIA engineered the coup against the elected Iranian government in 1953 which directly lead to the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, a fact that Dr. Paul brought up in the second GOP debate. PBS reported on this as shown in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

[kdlee1776]

ron paul is very relevant. The one true conservative with a 20 year congressional voting record to prove it. romney, mccain, guilliana big time liberals. jed babbin and human events- big time losers.

[Bradley in DC]

I have to think that there were some readers unfamiliar with Dr. Paul and his views that might not agree with the arguments made and are now Googling "Ron Paul" (silver lining)

[jon_perez]

I don't find it hard to believe nor do I think anyone else would, that, like the neocons and others of a similar mindset assert, there are hardcore Islamic extremists who hate America for its own sake, "for its freedoms" as Bush says. I think those who assert such are sincere and have seen evidence that backs this up. One doesn't have to look too far to find loonies in one's own backyard and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are just as many loonies on the other side. ;)

The real question though, is how many actually Muslims hold such extreme beliefs and how powerful can they get?

I am of the opinion that, tragically and ironically, neocon-driven foreign policy actually creates a sulf-fulfilling prophecy and gives those who hold this extreme ideology more justification and recruits than otherwise. Yes, these ideas are dangerous and there are those who hold such, but you cannot kill ideas and heavy handed attempts to do so just end up strengthening them. Intelligence agencies have their place in identifying and thwarting terrorists with their plans, but invading Iraq was going overboard and can be likened to a nightmarish scifi scenario of using the wrong method to destroy some nameless blob, giving it more power and making it grow instead of destroying it.

I don't believe we can legitimately ask people to stop believing that extremist muslims don't exist. The debate should instead center on what the proper response to that should be.

[CJLauderdale4]

- jon_perez
Nice synopsis!

I've said it before: neocons now treat foreign policy in the same manner as liberals treat domestic policy - as long as our intent is good, then accountability and results/consequences doesn't matter.

Just think how hard it would've been for nations living in a 7th Century mindset for the past 50 years to convince its populace that the US is the Great Satan, IF the US wasn't even in the region to show its face.

We must take the good with the bad, logically weighing our options with each action we take. To blindly say that due to the good intent, the results are no concern is simply reckless and irresponsible.

[lbadragan]

Babbin is a certifiable moron. In his book on China he asserts that because of shortage of women in China, they are more likely to go to war with us because of their unment desires. The idiot forgets that the political elites have no problem getting women. I can't believe this bird brain has such a voice.

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

The first time I heard of Ron Paul was in the 80s when I subscribed to Human Events. From what I recall, they always had glowing words for his sticking to Constitutional principles.

They have changed, Ron Paul has not.

[beerista]

Babbin is a certifiable moron. In his book on China he asserts that because of shortage of women in China, they are more likely to go to war with us because of their unment desires. The idiot forgets that the political elites have no problem getting women. I can't believe this bird brain has such a voice.

Hmmm, then I wonder what to make of his glowing assessment of nine men standing on stage calling for nuclear war... ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Oh, he probably applauds them. Everything has gotten so turned around in this country. Reminds me a lot of what this man was talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqd-x0omd_o&mode=related&search=

[Douglass Bartley]

I have written them twice with no response. See http://rxpaul.townhall.com

[Bryan]

I have written them twice with no response. See http://rxpaul.townhall.com
Most excellent. I really liked your piece here:
http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/0dfc9d55-63fc-47eb-9493-b2891d27279f

This kind of analysis is exactly what this Media Matters sub-forum is about. Please keep us posted on any future write-ups, I really think this is important to help educate news readers to understand the real nature of bias and the mechanics of how it works. Nothing wrong with opposing views so long as it is done responsibly, something we're not seeing much with Dr. Paul.

Thanks again.

[austinphish]

Brilliant

[LibertyBelle]

Hmmm, then I wonder what to make of his glowing assessment of nine men standing on stage calling for nuclear war... ;)


Crack me up! Wonder what that means about Trudy.

Funny, seems the Human Events editor believes Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Wonder who is feeding money to these people....they have done an about face. When you value anything more than freedom.....

[Douglass Bartley]

To Bryan: Thank you.