Those who equate Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan with Code Pink could not be further from the truth.
Everyone seems to agree that we as a nation have become increasingly polarized. Any semblance of meaningful dialogue on virtually any issue, has seemingly faded into a distant memory. Nowhere is this more evident than the cacophony of conflicting opinions over Iraq.
Why is it so difficult for Americans to discuss Iraq? The simple answer is that it is an emotionally charged issue, but what is unique about the political dynamics of Iraq is that the usual delineation between “conservatives” and “liberals” doesn’t necessarily apply. The fact is that there are a large number of conservatives who either oppose the war, or at the very least harbor reservations about aspects of its prosecution – albeit for very different reasons than most liberals.
For those of us on the Right who believe the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says, every “war” fought since the conclusion of World War II has been unconstitutional. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and of course Iraq were never “declared” as spelled out by our nation’s founders. President Bush is just the latest president to involve us in what amounts to a police action, or in this case, a “pre-emptive” war.
There are those of us on the Right who questioned the timing of going into Iraq. Considering the fact that there were other potential threats to peace in the region such as Syria and Iran, was this the right war at the right time? We were also still trying to stabilize Afghanistan after routing the Taliban, not to mention continuing our search for Osama bin Laden (remember him?). To this day we still haven’t captured or killed bin Laden and the Taliban have gradually reacquired a strong foothold in Afghanistan, so one is forced to at least consider the possibility that we should have remained focused there, rather than expanding into Iraq. It also raises the specter of our military being spread too thin at a precarious time in our nation’s history.
There are those of us who questioned the wisdom of allowing a civilian like Donald Rumsfeld to determine our Iraq strategy, rather than listening to those in the military. Rumsfeld’s belief that 130,000 ground troops would be of sufficient strength to secure Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein has proven to be a mistake of horrendous proportions. Was the former Secretary of State really this naïve concerning Iraq? As despicable as Saddam was, he was the only thing keeping radical Islam and all of the other rival factions in check within his borders. Deposing a tyrant leaves a void that must be filled with something of at least equal strength if one intends to achieve any sort of stability. We did not possess adequate troop strength, nor did we assert the kind of control needed to stabilize Iraq after taking Baghdad. The Bush Administration finally reached that conclusion as well, as evidenced by their decision this year to implement the “surge.” The problem of course is that the surge should have taken place when we invaded Iraq in the first place, not four years later. Unfortunately, the “surge” window of opportunity may have passed long ago, given the mixed reports of its effectiveness.
Finally, many of us believe that our troops have been hampered by a very unhealthy dose of political correctness. In the course of our operations in Iraq, we have become far too concerned with how we are perceived by others as opposed to getting actual results. We have forgotten that the military’s job is to blow up things and kill the enemy, not to engage in nation building – something that George W. Bush said he was adamantly opposed to when he campaigned for his first term as president. Nation building is a concept he has since seemingly embraced, along with “spreading democracy” throughout the region – despite the fact that most of its people are politically stuck in about the seventh century, and about as ready for “democracy” as Mike Tyson is for nuclear physics.
The point I’m making here is that there are many valid reasons from a conservative perspective, to question our involvement in Iraq. The problem is that there are some conservatives who have knee-jerk reactions to any questioning of Iraq policy, even when coming from their fellow travelers on the Right. This is quite evident with some of the recent attacks I have seen on Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Yes, it’s true that he is more “libertarian” than most conservatives, but the Texas congressman is really more of a “constitutionalist.” He certainly parts company with the “Big L” libertarians with his pro-life and anti-illegal immigration stances. The fact is that Ron Paul sees the constitution as the basis from which our government should operate, and despite the claims of some, he has consistently voted down more unconstitutional spending than perhaps any other member of Congress. I don’t always agree with his interpretations, but I can’t help but admire his principles.
So why the knee-jerk reactions from some on the Right? Much of it, I think, has to do with the loony Left in this country. The fact is that there are many on the Left who truly do loathe our military and possess a virulent hatred of America. People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, organizations like Code Pink and others of their ilk consistently say such vile, stupid things that it becomes easy to fall into the trap of dismissing all those with reservations about Iraq as being like them. I know that I personally feel my blood boil when some Hollyweird moron like Tim Robbins claims that our troops have killed over 400,000 Iraqi citizens (absolutely false), as he did recently on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Dolts like Robbins, along with other “entertainers” such as Rosie O’Donnell (who wouldn’t recognize a fact if it bit her on her gargantuan derriere), understandably incite anger in patriotic Americans. Unfortunately, as a result, some feel the need to try to cut off intelligent discussion over Iraq policy, by lumping all opposing viewpoints together. Those who equate Ron Paul, or other “anti-war” thinkers like Pat Buchanan with Code Pink could not be further from the truth.
Conservatives of all stripes (and for that matter, the more reasonable of liberals) have nothing but respect for our troops and our nation. Despite what some may claim, it is possible to support our troops, and at the same time not believe invading Iraq was in our best interest. I urge those who support “staying the course” at all costs, to consider at least listening to other conservatives who don’t share that belief. They just may re-discover their conservative roots.
Ron Paul is the target of Conservative ire because, like those on the extreme left, he blames America for the global jihad being waged against it. This is an odious (and false) charge which legitimizes their attacks on us and the killing of Americans. He is a disgrace.
While this is a relatively good, principled libertarian argument, particularly regarding the necessity of a declaration of war, the so-called antiwar libertarians have not done enough to differentiate themselves from the Left. In doing so, they have become de facto allies of the Left and thus neither libertarian nor conservative. Of course, President Bush and his so-called neocons are in reality Great Society liberals, but heaping opprobrium on them does nothing to help libertarianism or conservativism. The most likely outcome will be the presidency of America’s foremost leftist, Hillary. When the sixties radicals destroyed Lyndon Johnson’s presidency they would up with Nixon in the White House.
By failing to mention Saddam’s refusal to abide by the treaty he signed with us to end the Gulf War and Saddam’s refusal to obey UN resolutions, Mr. McLean borrows the leftist propaganda, which he amplifies by claiming that there will be no negative consequences to our country if we abandon Iraq to the enemy. The truth is that there will be a huge negative impact on both the people of Iraq and America’s ability to protect itself from the terrorists. If it walks like a sixties radical and talks like a sixties radical it shouldn’t complain about being mistaken for a sixties radical. Even if it bathes regularly.
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
- Ron Paul
“Bush lied, kids died. We were lied into an illegal war. The war is expensive and the world is less safe for us attacking Iraq.” Sounds like a milder form of Code Pink’s rhetoric…coming out of Ron Paul.
Comparing the two is not unfair, as they sound identical, and Ron Paul loves to covort with the Truther nuts.
By throwing out the same tired accusations, Paul is no better than the liberals. The war WAS given the OK by Congress (Declaration to use force), and WMDs weren’t the only reason we invaded (outting Saddam for human rights abuses, violating UN resolutions and funding terrorist groups were always listed as reasons).
Paul is entitled to his own opinion-he is not entitled to his own facts. By distorting the very simple facts on Iraq, he is further muddying the waters, and is no better than the Truthers he so loves to court.
WolvenBear has hit the nail on the head I think. The reason some conservatives do not agree with Ron Paul and the “Paleoconservative” crowd is because they use the exact same logic to justify their position as the leftists do. If they opposed the war on reasonable, conservative grounds they would find more sympathy. When they utter the same rhetoric as crazy leftists, not surprisingly, they get branded as crazy leftists. Saying Bush’s foreign policy was responsible, via the “blowback” effect, for 9/11 (apparently he did quite a bit of middle east meddling in those 8 months in office. And, of course, 9/11 happened as a result of U.S. imperialism – not because of fanatical Muslim terrorists. Every rational person realizes this), rationalizing it and justifying it, and chanting cliched slogans of the far left does little to differentiate you from the far left. You say that Ron Paul, et al, have valid conservative reasons for opposing the war, and that narrow minded neocons are preventing a real debate from taking place, but that’s really not the case. When Ron Paul presents his argument and it consists of “Bush lied, people died; No blood for oil” he can expect to be taken every bit as seriously as the loons on the far left who spout the exact same thing!
Wasn’t Don Rumsfeld SecDef? Not Secretary of State?
SHHHHH.
You’re letting facts and details get in the way of a really great story.
I have a few responses to some of the comments.
1) Ron Paul doesn’t “blame America” for the attacks on 9/11; he is citing reasons that our enemy himself has stated, reasons that the 9/11 Report affirms, reasons that CIA analysts have supported, reasons (“blowback”) that history, not to mention common sense, supports as well. I think these reasons combined with the incompatibility of genuine Islam and western cultural distinctives [free speech etc.] have created the hornets nest we’re in now. Yes, I think there is a degree to which “they hate us because we’re free”…i.e. not under Shariya (sp?) law which in every honest muslim culture is the ideal. But, if I’m hearing Dr. Paul correctly, he’s saying that you add our foreign policy over the last 50 years (no, not just the Bush adminstration before 9/11) to this already anti-western culture and their insane willingness to go on suicide terrorist missions, and it was a recipe for disaster. [i.e. It WAS suicidal muslim terrorists + anti-western motives + our antagonizing foreign policy = USA as target of attacks] Do we actually believe that we and our leaders and policies are capable of doing no wrong in the world? Is it impossible that we could have misunderstood the complexities of other cultures and assigned to them values and priorities found primarily in the West? I’m not sure a conservative would have to answer “yes” to those questions.
I’ve seen alot of you misrepresenting his position. I agree with Dr. Paul that we need to follow the wise advice of our founders and stay out of foreign entanglements. We’re just not smart enough and moral enough to manipulate the world without it crashing down on our heads. I have agreed with Dr. Paul before I even knew about him…back in the 2004 election season when I couldn’t hold my nose and vote for Bush who had proven to me at that point that his administration was not conservative. [I read Defeating Jihad by Sergei Trivkovic and thought it was excellent. I think he's honest about the nature of Islam and Jihad as well as the effectiveness of the west trying to reform the middle east into democracy...or waging all out war against it for that matter to establish democracy. I would not consider him a liberal, and I would never consider myself a liberal!]
2) The war/our foreign policy IS costing a heck of a lot of money!!! We live on a budget in our home. We don’t have any debt. If we don’t have the money, we don’t spend it. We think that’s the most responsible way to live. I don’t see why that wouldn’t hold true for our gov’t as well, and how that is not a conservative position.
3) Mr. Mulligan, I’m curious. What would be “reasonable, conservative grounds” for opposing the war in your opinion? Do we always have to be polarized from the left? Could it be that maybe even they could grasp a sliver of truth every now and then? I am not a liberal, so far be it from me to defend their paradigm, but I think its only fair to understand that “liberals” are also capable of being rational human beings at times. They are our neighbors, co-workers, and friends sometimes, and though we obviously don’t agree about everything, its not fair to write them off as a whole.
4) A point about 9/11 “Truth”: I have not been able to nail down any instance where Dr. Paul has been overtly “courting” or lending affirmation to the “inside job” conspiracy theorists. I know he has said that he’s always somewhat critical of government investigations, just ’cause he knows what kind of monkey business can go on in the gov’t realm and would probably support a reinvestigation at some point in time.
I think that’s fair, and I could see how that would attract those who don’t believe that the 9/11 Commission’s report was adequate or even truthful.
That said, a few nights ago, I kept hearing everybody talking about those evil 9/11 “truther nuts”, so I thought, “okay, I’m going to see what they actually are thinking”. [Fair enough, eh? I thought it would be irresponsible to tar and feather someone without even knowing why they think what they do.] I got on to one of their main sites and read through some of the statements supposedly by 9/11 survivors about their experiences that day, and how they were allegedly ignored by the 9/11 commission. There are a lot of alleged testimonies about explosions in the basement of the WTC as well as repeated explosions from the lower parts of the towers just before they came down. I don’t know how to confirm that these testimonies are in fact authentic, but if they are, I would be interested in seeing the official explanation/refutation for such phenomenon. I just ordered a full copy of the 9/11 commission report, since I’ve only read a summary, and it did not address the issue of the explosions that I recall. I was also struck by the superior credentials of some of the people who are questioning if we are getting the full story of what happened that day.
5) I find that name-calling and labeling people “radical”, “crazy”, “extreme” et al. rarely serves any constructive purpose. I think its actually just lazy.
“Mr. Mulligan, I’m curious. What would be “reasonable, conservative grounds” for opposing the war in your opinion?”
Grounds that reflected reason and conservative ideology. For example, opposing the sissified, politically correct “limited war” we’ve been fighting instead of using massive force to devastate the enemy and produce a tangible victory. Opposing nation-building exercises in a country whose ideology is fundamentally at odds with democratic, secular government. Opposing using military personnel for policing and peace-keeping activities when they’re trained for war. Opposing the exorbitant spending to execute said limited war. Instead, Ron Paul, like any good leftist, worships political correctness in dealing with Islamic nutcases, and opposes fighting “terrorism” at all, on any front, anywhere on the globe, outside of the United States (and even then he’d exercise good PC judgement. He said in the presidential debate last night that he would not support the torture of terrorists, even during the execution of an attack on the United States). He accuses the administration of lying to Congress (I guess those rallying political speeches from both sides of the aisle in support of ousting Saddam Hussein as early as 1998 were sold to Congress by the adminstration too), has described the war as “illegal”, and believes that we are somehow looting and ransacking Iraq of its natural resources (makes sense that we’d conduct a 500 billion dollar war so we can pay the same price for oil on the global commodities market, after all). He spews the same ignorant, fanatical, conspiratorial rhetoric that the left does. As WolvenBear pointed out, his speeches on the matter are completely indistinguishable from the far left loons. When your foreign policy ideals match up well with Neville Chamberlain, you may be fairly sure of two things: Your thinking is fanatically leftists, and you haven’t learned much from history.
It would be handy if the world could be neatly divided into those people who are completely correct and those who are completely wrong. In reality most of us have some combination of truth and error.
There is a good conservative case to be made against the Iraq War, just as there is a good liberal case. For whatever reason, that case is not made very often. Instead we see Paul saying things such as “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information”, strongly suggesting a criminal conspiracy.
All the same, Paul and the other anti-war conservatives have more in common with pro-war conservatives than the latter do with pro-war liberals. That is a point not stressed often enough.
There are some pro-war conservatives who would jettison conservatism completely if they thought it would even slightly increase the odds of prevailing in Iraq. It’s not only the anti-war conservative faction which has its crazys, the pro-war faction has plenty also.
If you had to make a choice between a triumph for conservatism in America and defeat in Iraq, or triumph in Iraq and the shattering of conservatism in America, which would you choose?
On a PS to alison, those WTC conspiracy theories have been debunked repeatedly. I’m sure you could find out where if you wanted to.
Gentlemen – Thanks for your responses.
I did take the time to look up some sites debunking the 9/11 “truth” conspiracy theories. I just didn’t have time before since my husband is deployed. All I can say is that I think this is a topic that is over my head and beyond my resources in the time it would take to personally sort out! They appear to be adequately debunked, though the arguments are far from over, it appears. I just got my copy of the 9/11 Report in the mail today. That should occupy me for a while, as I run after my 2 toddlers.
“For example, opposing the sissified, politically correct “limited war” we’ve been fighting instead of using massive force to devastate the enemy and produce a tangible victory. Opposing nation-building exercises in a country whose ideology is fundamentally at odds with democratic, secular government. Opposing using military personnel for policing and peace-keeping activities when they’re trained for war. Opposing the exorbitant spending to execute said limited war.”
Dr. Paul has reiterated all of these! He urged the Congress that if we were going to go to war in Iraq (which he didn’t think was a good idea) that we should declare war, fight it hard with enough resources, win it and come home. Instead the congress, “conservatives” included, voted to fund the limited, sissified war you mentioned, and the war has been fumbled at every step along the way. I guess I still fail to see how Dr. Paul’s ideology matches that of the left. As for the PC charges, the reality is that it is political suicide to come out raving against Islam across the board. The issue of how to deal with Islam within our borders is a sticky one (knowing personally some muslims who seem content to work and prosper like the rest of us and also knowing the propensity of Muslim teachings toward violence and its inherent incompatibility with democracy); I won’t pretend to know the answer to that one. I think dealing with Islamic nations and cultures is a fairly simple one: leave them alone. If they want to blow each other up instead of just working through differences, its sad, but its on their own dime. If they want to come after us, let them, but we should have our borders secured, our defenses ready and they should have no claim that we were trampling on their holy land. The fact is that we can’t do whatever we want around the world and not expect consequences. We wouldn’t allow it in our country. On torture, its a tough moral issue, either way you cut it. I don’t know what we should do about it. On one hand, if we say torture anyone who might have information, we may gain some information or we may just be setting a dangerous precedent.
I think that Dr. Paul should come out more strongly on the threat of Islam in general to western culture and our form of government. I don’t agree with him on everything down the line, since he’s more libertarian that I am. However, I think he represents the best chance to get back to traditional conservatism: fiscal responsibility, small government, humble foreign policy, free markets, protection of human life and individual liberty – things I think today’s “conservative” politicians have in practice (but maybe not in rhetoric) left behind.
Oh I meant to say, that yes, Paul’s saying that the war was sold to us with false information could be interpreted as a conspiracy, but it could also be interpreted as “the main reasons we went to war and believed the threat to be real turned out to be wrong.” – which even the administration admits to be the case. Before the war, Paul emphasized our need for caution in approaching the call for military action where our nation had not been directly threatened but the UN was displeased with the regime’s non-compliance. I think if we had not been so hasty, we would have discovered the errors in the information. But that’s history eh?
oops, I typed a response before the one above…. guess it got lost. Nuts. O well, don’t have time to repeat it :)
The founding fathers warned us time and time again against intangling alliances. As well Ben Franklin’s warning “Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security don’t deserve either”.
Have we forgotten our forefathers who fought and died for these same liberties that are being stripped away under the propaganda of “fighting terrorism”?
Ron Paul is the ONLY true Conservative Constitutionalist candidate the GOP has left. And yes, the Neocons did sabotage our party, do a little research.
With over %70 of the population wanting out of this war, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can win this election for the GOP. Huckabee even conceeded this fact at that last debate. Are we throwing in the towel so Hitlery can gain the highest office of the land and swing it to the Dems side to do who knows what with this country!?
Also, Ron Paul just so happens to have more donations to his campaign than any other Presidential candidate, how’s that for supporting our troops? Stop the “bloodbath”, and bring our kids home, NOW!!
http://www.RonPaul2008.com
By the way, speaking of Constitutionality, Ron Paul sent a bill to congress before getting us into this war. The bill stated that congress should first Declare War (see the Constitution). How different things would be if they would have listened to Paul’s advice? Wouldn’t we have been a whole hell of a lot better off if we had Ron Paul in the White House???
Lets get some integrity back GOP. Join in the support for Ron Paul.
Here’s a link to Ron Paul related vids:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
Ron Paul is a effeminate pacifist buffoon under whose leadership the liberty we inherited from our Forefathers would not have survived the many challenges to it since the founding. He is unwilling and unable to defend this country from her enemies and his election would be as disastrous as that of Jimmy Carter.
In case you’ve forgotten let me remind you that the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Jefferson and Madison respectively, sent the U.S. military overseas to fight Islamic jihadists and their state sponsors in the early 18th century. They did this without a formal declaration of war. Are you accusing the Father of the Constitution of violating its requirements?
Our current war fulfills the requirements of Augustine’ s Just War Theory and was authorized by Congress; it is therefore morally and legally justified, your straw-man histrionics notwithstanding.
Explain to me exactly which liberty has been stripped away. What provision in the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from checking your shoes for explosives before boarding an airplane?
Allison,
If I say you “sold me something with false information”, I’m saying you lied to me. Pure and simple. Ron Paul knows that the WMD line was not a lie (how could it be when even Blix was parroting it in a watered down form). Furthermore, Paul lies himself when he says the jihadis hated Iraq…Saddam had close ties to Hamas, not to mention al Quida.
In short, he is a leftist buffoon, who trots out the same discredited arguments as the leftists.
Bob,
Ron Paul deliberately pretends that Congress didn’t authorize the war. Since he was in Congress when the Authorization to Use Force was passed (he voted against it), this is not a mistake. Furthermore, he has said recently in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, he has no problem with giving the Supreme Court the right to decide whether or not we stay in a war. That’s as far from “Constitutional” as one can get.
He is not electable, and if his supporters would pull their heads out from up their own behinds…they might get this fact.