Skip to main content

The ad is brutally effective in fixing many of our misconceptions about the current so called war on terror. And I think it absolutely needs to go viral. It needs to be posted on forums, political blogs (both republican and democratic blogs alike) and Facebook pages everywhere. This is not about getting Ron Paul elected, because republicans absolutely hate him and will never give him the nomination. This is about opening as many eyes to the truth of what we're doing, as possible before 2012.

In reply to the comments below, I want to reiterate, this is about the message, not the messenger. The message in the ad resonates and just because this message comes from someone we disagree with on several issues, doesn't make it any less valid or any less important to get out there.

Ignoring this ad just because you disagree with the messenger on other issues, would be akin to ignoring Barack Obama's message on the plight of the middle class just because you disagree with his stance on marijuana.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (208+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FreedMan, Nulwee, J M F, AnnieR, Kentucky Kid, Pluto, artisan, phillies, bronxcharlie, Mr Robert, afox, majcmb1, lunachickie, jacey, nuclear winter solstice, ready for change, Cartoon Peril, allenjo, Ray Pensador, Setsuna Mudo, peacestpete, blueoasis, CharlieHipHop, pixxer, supercereal, bloomer 101, magnetics, salmo, mithra, WisePiper, Jim P, yawnimawke, MJ via Chicago, tle, geebeebee, Mother Mags, Sagebrush Bob, psnyder, elwior, duha, importer, maybeeso in michigan, jakebob, claude, deepsouthdoug, DSWright, chidmf, arlene, ConcernedCitizenYouBet, Marihilda, Bluesee, Preston S, esquimaux, hangingchad, jimstaro, JonBarleycorn, nirbama, timewarp, rage, whenwego, SwedishJewfish, Tyto Alba, temptxan, just want to comment, Alice Venturi, Shockwave, Bule Betawi, bnasley, dear occupant, david mizner, owlbear1, Winston Sm1th, banjolele, notrouble, stevenwag, Catesby, poorbuster, taonow, white blitz, DavidMS, GayHillbilly, Knucklehead, liberalconservative, robertlewiws, unclejohn, poligirl, priceman, psychodrew, greenpunx, mrsgoo, Executive Odor, eXtina, Funkygal, Bluehawk, strangedemocracy, Hayate Yagami, greeseyparrot, Ellinorianne, Hound Dog, adrianrf, Ginny in CO, fhcec, Jahiz, peachcreek, Therapy, muddy boots, elengul, kyril, Lujane, DBunn, DemSign, bluicebank, rmx2630, Situational Lefty, drawingporno, Debby, Knarfc, GeeBee, lotlizard, Simian, Klaus, eztempo, mofembot, DiegoUK, Vetwife, run around, MrJayTee, HeartlandLiberal, letsgetreal, sb, Steve in the Library, DefendOurConstitution, HootieMcBoob, rogereaton, Stripe, dkmich, tbirchard, vacantlook, pioneer111, blunami, farbuska, Chi, Otteray Scribe, Its a New Day, roonie, 4Freedom, bookwoman, bythesea, Supavash, native, interguru, Anne was here, Gustogirl, historys mysteries, paxpdx, IndieGuy, lineatus, sherlyle, jdmorg, jomi, drdana, quiet in NC, RagingGurrl, dalfireplug, joe shikspack, ashowboat, Moonwood, marleycat, AnnCetera, glitterscale, middleagedhousewife, Wreck Smurfy, SandersRavilyn, lcrp, WI Deadhead, martini, 313to212, hkorens, dsteffen, camlbacker, Sychotic1, shaharazade, trinityfly, ratzo, fayea, Themistoclea, No one gets out alive, NM Ray, Tunk, RichterScale, Matilda, fiddlingnero, bula, Laconic Lib, reef the dog, gulfgal98, WattleBreakfast, shypuffadder, Kingsmeg, Temmoku, SteelerGrrl, Tom Stokland, qofdisks, beka, rhp, kurt, demomoke, Lepanto
  •  Viral. (17+ / 0-)

    Like rabies? Or perhaps ebola?

    "...even amnesia, if prolonged, can become as dreary as one's old life." - Walker Percy

    by turnover on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:45:42 PM PST

  •  Hmm.. don't think this will (43+ / 0-)

    go over very well here. But, you make a point and I'll tip you for it.

    In fact, I agree with RP on foreign policy and have for a very long time.

    Too bad, this add didn't come from a Democrat.. but, it explains why RP does garner some support from the left.

  •  Recd because we're too busy worrying about Newt (13+ / 0-)

    To realize that if Ron Paul sticks around long enough he can win the primary and when he does he is going right for the heart of Obama's youth vote.

    This ad targets every person ever accused of having ODS.

    You all tell me I'm crazy when I say Paul is the guy who can beat Obama.  He's absolutely targeting the disillusioned anti-war voter.

  •  Good ad (12+ / 0-)

    but in the reference to Obama, we are coming home from Iraq and he didn't promise to bring troops home from Afghanistan during the campaign. I missing something.

    Good ad but that doesn't mean that Paul isn't a complete fucking nut job.

    •  Obama murdered Americans (7+ / 0-)

      invaded Libya, upped air strikes, and more.  If your issues are war and civil liberties Obama has proven that there is no difference between left or right.

      This isn't 2008.  In 2008 Obama pretended to be an anti war Democrat and an advocate for the middle class following the economic collapse.  Since then he has proven to be anything but.

      "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

      by overclocking on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:41:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Invaded Libya? (11+ / 0-)

        I guess I missed all the video of American tanks rolling into Tripoli.

        "...even amnesia, if prolonged, can become as dreary as one's old life." - Walker Percy

        by turnover on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:43:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Libya was just a "kinetic military action" - (10+ / 0-)

          using tons of bombs and rockets followed by a few dozen "peace" drones and thousands of strike "sorties". It wasn't an "invasion" because the boots were a few thousand feet in the air.

          Touchdown: B-2 stealth jets return after epic 11,500 mile journey to bomb Libyan aircraft shelters

          After the first wave of more than 110 Tomahawk missiles launched from allied warships in the Mediterranean, they struck yesterday morning on 'a variety of strategic targets over Libya', according to the US Air Force.

          They dropped a total of 45 one-tonne satellite guided missiles on Libyan aircraft shelters before making the 5,709 mile journey back to the Missouri. The B-2 stealth bombers were first used in the Kosovo and Serbian war and have been used more recently in Afghanistan.

          Read more:

          •  In any event, (5+ / 0-)

            i fail to see how removing Qadaffi in a multilateral fashion with zero American casualties is supposed to be a negative on Obama.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:42:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's all about American casualties isn't it? (7+ / 0-)

              It's a "good" war if no Americans die. All other deaths are just collateral damage.

              With Obama's "over-the-horizon, full spectrum military dominance" there will be no end to America's wars now.

              Give the Libyan people a few years to see how they will like their new overlords.

              •  Fine, how about libyan casualties (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                averted by preventing the slaughter of Benghazi and letting the libyans themselves turn the tide?  Just because America does something doesnt mean it's bad in conception or execution.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:32:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes... how about Libyan casualties (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Knucklehead, greeseyparrot, lotlizard
                  Here’s the Key Question in the Libyan War

                  These days the humanitarian warriors are riding high, thanks to their proclaimed victory in Libya.  The world’s only superpower, with moral, military and mercenary support from the democracy-loving emirate of Qatar and the historic imperialist powers, Britain and France, was unsurprisingly able to smash the existing government of a sparsely populated North African state in a mere seven months.  The country has been violently “liberated” and left up for grabs. Who gets what pieces of it, among the armed militia, tribes and Islamist jihadists, will be of no more interest to Western media and humanitarians than was the real life of Libya before Qatar’s television channel Al Jazeera aroused their crusading zeal back in February with undocumented reports of imminent atrocities.
                  The poignant “key question” as to how to answer “a group of people about to be massacred” is a rhetorical trick to shift the problem out of the realm of contradictory reality into the pure sphere of moralistic fiction. It implies that “we” in the West, including the most passive television spectator, possess knowledge and moral authority to judge and act on every conceivable event anywhere in the world.  We do not.  And the problem is that the intermediary institutions, which should possess the requisite knowledge and moral authority, have been and are being weakened and subverted by the United States in its insatiable pursuit to bite off more than it can chew.  Because the United States has military power, it promotes military power as the solution to all problems.  Diplomacy and mediation are increasingly neglected and despised.  This is not even a deliberate, thought-out policy, but the automatic result of sixty years of military buildup.

                  •  Not convincing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    as it rests largely on projection, nor is imminent massacre merely a "rhetorical trick," but the key question is, isnt doing nothing also a choice "we in the west" could have made but didnt?  The author makes plain the Libyan people are props to advance a critique of the U.S., and Obama's the imperialust? Fwiw, BP and Berlusconi had no problem cutting deals with ol' Moamar, and McCain wanted to sell him weapons.  It's an argument that humanitarian intervention is no different from any other, and i reject it whether Ron Paul says it folksy styke or some lady ive never heard of writes it on antisemite Alexander Cockburn's website in quasi-academic jargon

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:59:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's documentation for you (4+ / 0-)

                      The following shows that the "humanitarian" war on Libya was based on lies.

                      Here's some information on oil companies doing business in Libya. I'll be interested in the new PSA's that are going to be signed in Libya. Gadaffi had got them done to 12% of production from previous 50% at end of sanctions. I'm betting they will get 50% again, leaving less for the Libyans.

                      Cables show NATO’s intervention in Libya is all about oil

                      The scramble by dozens of international oil and gas companies to cash in on the lifting of sanctions, however, soon produced the problems, in the words of a November 2007 cable, of the “Libyan resource nationalism” — policies designed to increase the Libyan government’s “control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources.”

                      Qaddafi’s policy forced oil majors to renegotiate their contracts under the latest iteration of Libya’s Exploration and Productions Sharing Agreement (EPSA IV). Between 2007 and 2008, major companies such as ExxonMobil, Petro-Canada, Repsol (Spain), Total (France), ENI (Italy), and Occidental (US) were compelled to sign new deals-on significantly less favorable terms than they had previously enjoyed-and were collectively made to pay $5.4 billion in upfront “bonus” payments.

                      A June 2008 cable says that the Oasis Group — including US firms ConocoPhillips, Marathon and Hess — was reportedly “next on the block,” despite having already paid $1.8 billion in 2005. The cable questions whether Libya could be trusted to honor the new EPSA IV contracts, or would again “seek a larger cut.”

                      Tension was definitely brewing!
                      Most significantly from a US strategic perspective, Qaddafi apparently “voiced his satisfaction that Russia’s increased strength can serve as a necessary counterbalance to US power, echoing the Libyan leader’s frequent support for a more multi-polar international system.”

                      In this context, the US cultivated relations with certain figures in Qaddafi’s regime, and secretly discussed the benefits of Qaddafi’s removal from the scene. A July 2008 cable relates how Ibrahim El-Meyet, a “close friend” of Ghanem (and a source to “strictly protect”) told the US Embassy that he and Ghanem “concluded that there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until Qaddafi passes from the political scene,” and this “will not occur while Qaddafi is alive.”

                      •  Opinion is not fact (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Fogiv, happymisanthropy

                        and i dispute the relevance of cables from 2007 and 2008.  Oh, and until Bush tried to make nice with him, the U.S. Has wanted Q gone for a whie, as he was a sponsor of terrorists.  But you are ignoring the bigger point which is that even if it were "about oil" -- it's not -- that only excludes the notion that it can also be humanitarian if you take the view (as choice of news source indicates) that America is incapable of doing anything good.

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:18:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You didn't watch the video did you? (4+ / 0-)

                          The cables were wikileaks cables. The problems the oil companies were having with Gadaffi can all be documented independently.  I have dozens from pre 2010 where western oil companies were very concerned -  4 US/UK oil companies backed out completely in 2010.

                          Here's a sample:

                          Muammar Gaddafi looks ready to launch a new round of energy-sector nationalism.
                          Christopher Helman, 01.22.09

                          Is Libya about to take the lead of its friends in Venezuela and Russia and launch a new round of energy-sector nationalism? The thought sends a shiver through the collective spines of ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum , Amerada Hess  and Royal Dutch Shell.
                          The three strongmen are proven comrades. Gaddafi has hosted Venezuelan President Chavez in Libya at least four times in recent years and in 2004 bestowed on Chavez his human rights award for "fighting imperialism," (i.e., George W. Bush and ExxonMobil , among others). Putin, last April, made a state visit to Tripoli accompanied by Gazprom execs and a group from Italian energy company ENI. Putin forgave Gaddafi several billion dollars in Soviet era debt in exchange for Gaddafi agreeing to buy many more billions of weapons from Russia. Gazprom soon swapped ENI's stake in Libya's 100,000 bpd Elephant field for some arctic assets.
                          There's little reason to believe that Gaddafi wouldn't selectively target U.S. oil company assets for partial nationalization.
                          It's enchanting, almost, that Gaddafi hasn't softened with age, that his revolutionary zeal is alive and well....
                          U.S. oil companies should brace themselves to leave Libya yet again.

                          It's not only about oil. There are many more reasons that the NATO countries wanted to take out Gadaffi. They just needed an excuse.

                          - banking based on gold dinar
                          - the creation of an African investment bank, an African monetary fund and an African central bank.
                          - African phone satellites w/ VERY cheap rates for Africans
                          - Man Made River
                          - oil sold off petrodollar
                          - currency swaps away from US$ as reserve
                          - Saudi Arabia (Doha summit: To King - You Were Created By Britain And Are Protected By The US.)
                          - refusal to join WTO see map to view countries Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Cuba not members.
                          - refusal to join Africom

                          NATO is the defacto police force of the World Bank, IMF and WTO.

                          More Americans sponsored the IRA with funds than Gadaffi. The Lockerby incident is very questionable at this time as is the Berlin discotheque bombing. Gadaffi did not admit to any of these. He just agreed to pay the money to get the sanctions lifted.

                          Gadaffi had a warrant for Bin Laden's arrest in 1998.

                          •  it was 20 fucking minutes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            of course i didn't watch it.

                            the wikileaks cables were also, as i mentioned, before the Obama administration.  If the U.S. were going to overthrow Q over oil, they could have done it in 1986 and been justified in doing so.  This information dump completely ignores the effect of the Arab spring, the fact that Qadaffi was about to slaughter innocent people in the second largest city.  

                            You think there's some dispute about the Lockerbie bombing?  The wrong way to deal with Qadaffi it seems is what the British did -- release the actual, convicted bomber to get a contract for BP in the first place.  I don't know where the Qadaffi apologia you end with is coming from, but he was a bad guy.  There's a case to be made that it wasn't the U.S.'s place to assist the Libyan people in opposing him, but he was a bad guy.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:07:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The video documents the fallacy of (0+ / 0-)
                            "the fact that Qadaffi was about to slaughter innocent people in the second largest city."
                            All the so called evidence was bullshit engineered by members of the NTC.
                            If the U.S. were going to overthrow Q over oil, they could have done it in 1986 and been justified in doing so.

                            "Could have done it"???? They certainly tried and failed. "Justified"??? On what grounds?

                            TARGET QADDAFI
                            By Seymour M. Hersh
                            Published: February 22, 1987

                            EIGHTEEN AMERICAN WARPLANES SET out from Lakenheath Air Base in England last April 14 to begin a 14-hour, 5,400-mile round-trip flight to Tripoli, Libya. It is now clear that nine of those Air Force F-111's had an unprecedented peacetime mission. Their targets: Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his family.

                            The mission, authorized by the White House, was to be the culmination of a five-year clandestine effort by the Reagan Administration to eliminate Qaddafi, who had been described a few days earlier by the President as the ''mad dog of the Middle East.''
                            * Much of the secret planning for the Iran and Libyan operations took place simultaneously, so that the Administration was pursuing the elimination of one Middle East source of terrorism while it was trading arms with another. The two missions involved the same people, including John M. Poindexter, then the national security adviser, and Oliver L. North, the N.S.C.'s deputy director for political-military affairs.

                            * There was widespread concern and anger inside the National Security Agency over the Administration's handling of the Libyan messages intercepted immediately after the April 5 terrorist bombing of a West Berlin discotheque. The White House's reliance on these messages as ''irrefutable'' evidence that Libya was behind that bombing was immediately challenged by some allies, most notably West Germany. Some N.S.A. experts now express similar doubts because the normal intelligence channels for translating and interpreting such messages were purposely bypassed. As of this month, the N.S.A.'s North African specialists had still not been shown these intercepts.

                            You think there's some dispute about the Lockerbie bombing?
                            Scottish legal expert says Lockerbie verdict was flawed
                            THe Sunday Times
                            Sunday, May 10, 2009

                            At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".

                            Prof. Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."

                            He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".

                            "The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."

                            Gadaffi was no angel. But neither was he the demon the western MSM has depicted. The US government has killed millions of innocent men, women and children in their overt and covert interventions around the world during the period Gadaffi was in power.

                          •  your first two links (0+ / 0-)

                            were opinion pieces using post-structuralist gibberish, so you lost your click-thru privileges with me.  And you've now done it again.  Seymour Hersh when he's right is important, but he's wrong a lot.  

                            Justified for discotheque bombing and well, financing a terrorist group that attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of Great Britain.  Justified for his reign of terror.  There would have been both causus belli and moral justification.  Read some of the New Yorker pieces about the fall of Libya.  

                            If the argument is that the Iraq war somehow made the Libyan intervention illegitimate, the current President opposed (and largely ended) the Iraq war, and it seemed quite clear that the anti-Qadaffi rebels didn't much care at that moment.  Young Arab kids flying American flags and not burning them.  That's something.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:47:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ALL the info I've posted can be independently (0+ / 0-)

                            verified from numerous sources. Opinions have been based on evidence. Of course you have no intention of looking...

                            Bob Woodward has written much the same as Hersch on these matters.

                            BTW, here's more on the 1986 Reagan fiasco and how the US used MSM as propaganda.


                            Secret Plot Hit Nerves Of Gadhafi U.s. Tried To Make Him Think He Was A Target
                            October 02, 1986|By Washington Post

                            ''One of the key elements'' of the new strategy, the Poindexter memo said, ''is that it combines real and illusionary events -- through a disinformation program -- with the basic goal of making Gadhafi think (word underlined in the original) that there is a high degree of internal opposition to him within Libya, that his key trusted aides are disloyal, that the U.S. is about to move against him militarily.''

                            It was an elaborate plan: ''a series of closely coordinated events involving covert, diplomatic, military and public actions,'' according to Poindexter's memo. Military officers expressed some reservations about the plan, and intelligence specialists were deeply divided about its potential efficacy.

                            The plan was the latest phase of the administration's policy, first adopted last year, to try to topple Gadhafi, a known instigator of terrorist acts targeted by the administration as a threat that has to be removed.

                            Beginning with an Aug. 25 report in The Wall Street Journal, the American news media -- including The Washington Post -- reported as fact much of the false information generated by the new plan. But U.S. intelligence officials had concluded in August that Gadhafi was ''quiescent'' on the terrorist front, according to the Poindexter memo.


                            October 04, 1986|By Los Angeles Times

                            WASHINGTON — A Reagan administration plan for disinformation to undermine Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has hurt the president's credibility and could hamper future U.S. attempts to organize allied action against Libya, experts said Friday.

                            Administration officials confirmed that a program approved in mid-August led to misleading news accounts suggesting U.S. military moves might be undertaken against Gadhafi. The purpose, the officials said, was to keep the volatile Libyan leader off balance and perhaps to encourage a coup against him.
                            As part of the disinformation program, government officials leaked misleading information showing an upswing of terrorist acts blamed on Libya. Officials concede that intelligence reports then showed Gadhafi was in a ''quiescent'' period.

                            Although some details are still in dispute, the administration has confirmed that a psychological warfare program against Gadhafi was launched in mid-August. Later that month, The Wall Street Journal published a story, based on information from unidentified administration officials, reporting increased U.S.-Libya tension and suggesting that military action against Gadhafi's government was under consideration.

                            The day after the Journal story was published, White House spokesman Larry Speakes described it as ''authoritative,'' in effect giving it the administration's stamp of approval and encouraging other publications to carry similar stories.

                            If the argument is that the Iraq war somehow made the Libyan intervention illegitimate,  

                            I said no such thing...

                            the current President opposed (and largely ended) the Iraq war,

                            Bush signed the SOFA with Iraq at the end of his term. Obama said he wanted to keep 30,000 troops after Dec 31, 2011 at that time.

                          •  The whole 1986 thing (0+ / 0-)

                            is a bit of a side issue, and you did in fact try to argue in defense of Qadaffi that us interventions have killed more people, which i would imagine subsumes iraq.  I dont however embrace an irrebuttable presumption against the United States' foreign policy.  Lockerbie seems to confirm such quiescence was faulty, and the New Yorker's reporting on the ground after his death confirms how awful he was.  Better than taking anonymous reagan admin officials at their word.  More recently, Qadaffi was something of Italy's Omar Bongo, so hardly an anticapitalist.  i had moments of hoping he did reform when Bush made overturesm but i have to conclude based on his actions in repressing his own people that he hadnt.  And this argument is unrebutted by claims that 25 years ago the U.S. may have engaged in psy-ops aginst him.  Had we not gone in, im sure certain precincts would have blamed the u.s. for that, too.  Just as i blame Clinton and the French for Rwanda.  (cue lengthy articles on how awful Paul Kagame is.  Save it.)

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:21:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The 1986 (as well as previous and more recent) (0+ / 0-)

                            events are relevant. Without a historical context it is impossible to understand current events.

                            I'm going to leave you with the following article. It covers in detail everything we have been discussing in our recent exchange. I believe it will be well worth your time to read.

                            Who said Gaddafi had to go?
                            Hugh Roberts

                            Hugh Roberts was the director of the International Crisis Group’s North Africa Project from 2002 to 2007 and from February to July 2011. He is about to take up the post of Edward Keller Professor of North African and Middle Eastern History at Tufts University.

                            So Gaddafi is dead and Nato has fought a war in North Africa for the first time since the FLN defeated France in 1962. The Arab world’s one and only State of the Masses, the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyya, has ended badly. In contrast to the bloodless coup of 1 September 1969 that overthrew King Idris and brought Gaddafi and his colleagues to power, the combined rebellion/civil war/ Nato bombing campaign to protect civilians has occasioned several thousand (5000? 10,000? 25,000?) deaths, many thousands of injured and hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, as well as massive damage to infrastructure. What if anything has Libya got in exchange for all the death and destruction that have been visited on it over the past seven and a half months?

                            The overthrow of Gaddafi & Co was far from being a straightforward revolution against tyranny, but the West’s latest military intervention can’t be debunked as being simply about oil. Presented by the National Transitional Council (NTC) and cheered on by the Western media as an integral part of the Arab Spring, and thus supposedly of a kind with the upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan drama is rather an addition to the list of Western or Western-backed wars against hostile, ‘defiant’, insufficiently ‘compliant’, or ‘rogue’ regimes:
                            At the same time, the story of Libya in 2011 gives rise to several different debates. The first of these, over the pros and cons of the military intervention, has tended to eclipse the others. But numerous states in Africa and Asia and no doubt Latin America as well (Cuba and Venezuela spring to mind) may wish to consider why the Jamahiriyya, despite mending its fences with Washington and London in 2003-4 and dealing reasonably with Paris and Rome, should have proved so vulnerable to their sudden hostility. And the Libyan war should also prompt us to examine what the actions of the Western powers in relation to Africa and Asia, and the Arab world in particular, are doing to democratic principles and the idea of the rule of law.

                          •  I assume you led with your strongest articles (0+ / 0-)

                            and recognizing history is relevant does not mean each example is precedential.  You werent arguing from analogy but suggestimg a direct link, all in the bizzare project of not just advocating noninterventionism but affirmatively defending Qadaffi as not so bad (or not the monster the western msm presented him as -- quite, nte NYer reporting indicates he was worse, especially after Bush rehabilitated him into a kindly eccentric).   Anyway, you're getting history wrong -- confirmstion bias.  Anything that suggests, however remote, OIL! is factual and the more immediate facts utterly discounted.  That last article is, again, complete opinion, and for the sake of Tufts University, i hope the first paragraph is meant to be ironic.  The third paragraph suggests otherwise.    

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:12:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are completely wrong about my motives (0+ / 0-)

                            and from your comments it is obvious you have not read Hugh Roberts' article. It is also obvious you haven't looked into how the UN made it's decisions. It is also obvious that you have very little understanding of the longstanding intrigues the west has played upon Libya since Qaddafi started nationalizing the oil companies in the early 70's.

                            I do not lament Qaddafi's demise. It was how it was done that disturbs me.

                            You remind me of those who supported the Iraq war based on American media. "There's none so blind as those who will not see."

                            I've yet to see a New Yorker article on Qaddafi that was not mostly opinion and fluff. They mostly dwell on his eccentricity.

                          •  i can only judge your motives (0+ / 0-)

                            based on what you say.  I read the paragraphs of Roberts's article that you quoted.  It made it very clear it was an opinion piece and i don't know why i should be interested in his based on those paragraphs.  I simply note that whatever "intrigues" there were -- and i don't dispute them -- it doesn't follow the uprising wasn't genuine, that Qadaffi wasn't about to commit genocide, that the U.S. didn't stop it, that he wasn't funding Berlusconi's slush fund in exchange for protection and cutting deals with multinational oil companies, and that Libya as a whole isn't better now, thanks in no small measure to those awful "colonialists."

                            "Eccentricity" is a nice way of downplaying reign of terror.  And I opposed the Iraq war, for precisely the ways it differed from Libya, but then again, you claim to know my motives not from what I didn't say.

                            There's a legitimate argument you could have made against intervention, but you chose instead the route of Qadaffi apologism.  Sleep well, asshole.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:46:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Name calling doesn't add anything to your (0+ / 0-)


                            There's a legitimate argument you could have made against intervention,

                            There were many arguments that could have been made against intervention. If you would have taken the trouble to actually read the links I supplied, you would be aware of them.

                            Who said Gaddafi had to go?
                            Hugh Roberts

                            ...A military intervention by the Western powers under the cloak of NATO and the authority of the United Nations happened instead.

                            How should we evaluate this fourth scenario in terms of the democratic principles that have been invoked to justify the military intervention? There is no doubt that many Libyans consider NATO their savior and that some of them genuinely aspire to a democratic future for their country. Even so I felt great alarm when intervention started to be suggested and remain opposed to it even now despite its apparent triumph, because I considered that the balance of democratic argument favoured an entirely different course of action.

                            Qadaffi apologism

                            That sounds just like "Saddam supporter" when attempting to reason with people like you in the run-up to the Iraq war.

                            "If you are not 100% with us, you are with the terrorists."

                            Good old American "deceptionalism."

                          •  no, name calling is the entirety (0+ / 0-)

                            of my argument, since i've moved past discussing Qadaffi.  

                            As I said, I read some of your links, and noted they reflected but confirmation bias at best, and conspirational thinking at worst.  (Apply the standard of  skepticism to claims by the government to claims in your articles, or vice versa, and see if your views change.  If not, they're, as I suspect, just Chomskiite.)  The LRB piece was quite long, and you haven't earned sufficient credibility to justify that type of investment.  These paragraphs too, as quoted, reflect nothing more than what Hugh Roberts (the Hugh Roberts?) considers "democratic" or "what it all means."  You don't get to claim that there are devastating facts in some article when you can't be bothered to link to anything but headnotes and opinion.  

                            I've clearly explained why i think Libya is different from Iraq and specifically noted that reasonable people can differ on military action.  You do not feel that way, on either score.  Perhaps Libya is more like Iraq, but thinking otherwise does not mean that i have been deceived, even if i don't give every contrary article more time than it's worth.  i didn't read or believe every pro-invasion point either!

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:19:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You continue to read into my comments what (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not stating.

                            I've clearly explained why i think Libya is different from Iraq

                            ???? Libya is very different from Iraq. The only comparison I've made is your attitude which is very similar to those who argued for the Iraq invasion in various blogs/newsgroups.

                            You have a lot of difficulty with nuance...

                          •  Well thats just in your head (0+ / 0-)

                            nuance?  After you try to bury arguments in voluminous articles you dont parse for anything and accuse opponents of bushism, you talk nuance?  Get over yourself.  Youre not brave, youre not a martyr, and its just as cheap to believe anything you read as long as its anti nato as it would be the opposite.  I take it back, i guess bush wasnt wrong as to all iraq war opponents being simply against us interventionism.  Not paul, certainly.  Btw, You havent earned the right to condescend to me, not with my degrees.  But if only i read this article, no the next one, no a third. Im not speaking from ignorance, dude, and its far, far more arrogant than anything ive said to suggest the opposite.  The intervention, based on available facts and reporting saved net lives at minimal cost.  And youve danced around that issue.  So in some cases, nuance, if a justification for inaction, isnt the highest virtue.  Then again,supported libya, opposed iraq.  Because of nuance.  So, I'd rather not have you, Bush, or Ron Paul in charge, but rather my ex law professors currently populating the west wing.  Nuance isnt seeing each distinction but recognizing which are important.  But then, its not my rhetoric that makes me a neocon, from what i can tell, but a lack of nuance -- its empire or isolation, right?  That was the view of one of the very important articles i was supposed to read, from the french lady.  I suspect you protest too much because you know, in your case, bush was right.  Not mine, as to iraq, and not as to libya war opponents wjho manage to make their case without listing his "accomplishments" or painting him as a martyr of te fight against american (bt not russian) oil interests.  For nuance, i agree with bush as to you but not for his reasons.  (he liked Q too.).  Given the immorality of your position, my attitude is the least of your problems.  Go chalk it up to being brainwashed by a u chicago eucation if you must, but k ow its nit true.  I am a jerk, but i never blamed a president for avoiding a massacre,  not here, not in kosovo.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:53:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Below is from the opening remarks (5+ / 0-)

          of the Nuremberg trials by Justice Jackson regarding aggression or Crimes Against Peace. The US embraced these principals at that time:

          I suggest that an "aggressor" is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

              (1) Declaration of war upon another state;

              (2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state;

              (3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; and

              (4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

          And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.

          So how does this jive with the US "humanitarian intervention" in Libya? How does it apply to our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and in Afghanistan. Droning Pakistan? Droning Somalia? Dropping cluster bombs in Yemen?

          Agressive war, if I understand correctly, is considered to be a war crime, is it not?

          Compare candidate Paul's views to those of his opponents and to the actions of the current administration.

          “Humankind can not bear very much reality.” - T.S. Eliot

          by truong son traveler on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:24:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're lucky you are in Thailand. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            After the new military appropriations bill goes through, it seems they will be able to just arrest and detain whoever they want, whenever they want.

            BTW, I lost your email--I had a major computer meltdown. So that is why I did not get back to you. I still would like to, if you could possibly email me again, I would appreciate it.

            Also, I just finished my dissertation defense!

            I am thinking about taking a job at a university in Mexico, I am sort of sick of it here.

            "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

            by ranger995 on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:32:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  fantastic, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv, BigDuck

        ron paul doesn't believe the federal reserve should (a) exist, or (b) have as part of its mandate full employment.  And Ron Paul would sign every entitlement cutting bill Obama's so far resisted.

        Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and in favor of increasing troops in Afghanistan and upping the ante on bin Laden.  Two for two.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:44:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe the federal reserve shouldn't exist. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Or at least it should be done differently. As it stands it is just a group of guys/gals who decides when to print money and who to give it to.

          They have created trillions of dollars and put it in the coffers of rich Bankers lately. I haven't seen this do much to improve lending, but I sure see a lot of huge banker bonuses.

          "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

          by ranger995 on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:36:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your arguing RP's presidency (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe wobblie

          this dairy is about this anti-war ad. This is a great ad too bad the Democrat's running our party and the government are neocon's and neoliberals. The War on Terra is a disgrace and were losing all our civil and human rights all based on this surreal nastiness.

          Also to use this administrations horrible civil/human rights rights support after they renewed the Patriot Act with added features that are secret is hardly a good argument against RP's anti-war stance.  At this time congress is meeting secretly to make indefinite detention anywhere. Pretty pathetic when all you can squeal about is already being done by a Democratic administration.

          RP is batshit crazy and it's also pathetic that you would fear a candidate that is this crazy but yet at least believes in some of the constitutional rights and principles. Too bad the Democrat's suck so bad that Ron Paul ends up looking kinda good. Too bad this isn't a Democratic ad.        

          •  i think an ad for ron paul (0+ / 0-)

            raises that issue.  his argument is an attempt to sell isolationism to the left, not just anti-war, and so far it's working.  that's why it's not a democratic ad.  the standard bearer of the party made it quite clear when I saw him speak at an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago when he was a long shot candidate for senate that he only opposes "dumb" wars.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:40:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Give Ron Paul control of SS and Medicare... (5+ / 0-)

        ...and we'll see hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens dying from passive/aggressive neglect each year.

        Paul is akin to a stopped/broken watch on Military Occupations and a couple of other issues. Otherwise he is a very toxic mix of Libertarian and Theocrat.

        Occupy Wall Street AND K Street!!!!

        by Egalitare on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:22:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, sviscusi, jiffypop, BigDuck

      This ad is shit. Paulite nonsense.

      It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

      by kitebro on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:25:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're coming home from Iraq (5+ / 0-)

      much later than candidate Obama promised and much earlier than President Obama actually wanted.

  •  I think Ron is optimistic (11+ / 0-)

    ....if he thinks once we go broke, we'll come home, rebuild America, and all will be forgiven.

    Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. Nationalize the bastards.

    by Pluto on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:02:53 PM PST

  •  Imagine that you have lost your mind... (28+ / 0-)

    ...and bought into this garbage sold to you as a political ad.

    Imagine that you didn't see the level of fear mongering this ad does.

    Imagine that you never heard of Ron Paul's racist, segregationist and white supremecist ties.

    Imagine that you didn't notice how this ad targets Obama by using his campaign meme, "change," by twisting it into something "evil" and "dangerous."

    Imagine that you don't see how this add with black, white, gray and blood red coloring and exploding chaos of words and repeating of loud words playing a psychological manipulation game on you.

    Imagine that you are a complete fool buying into this obvious fear mongering, bigoted ...

    ...FUCKED UP AD...

    which is nothing less than another GOP TROLL EFFORT.


    Now imagine that.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:15:04 PM PST

  •  Yeah besides all that sexism and homophobia. (17+ / 0-)

    He's a champ.

    A champion of an ideology that is the antithesis of progressive democracy, that is.

  •  Here is a question: (7+ / 0-)

    How many trolls can you fit on a pin head?

    Can you imagine that?

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:16:41 PM PST

  •  Red is Bad. Blue is Good. (0+ / 0-)

    Notice: This Comment © 2011 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:19:20 PM PST

  •  And PS (12+ / 0-)

    I have no interest in helping a Ron Paul screed go viral.


  •  Good ad but..... (19+ / 0-)

    he is not a progressive alternative

    In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization
    Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception
    Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion
    Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".
    In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions
    Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools
    Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom

    Lots of stuff about Paul should go viral

  •  Ron Paul is a clown (13+ / 0-)

    I'm supposed to be impressed because he sees a PART of the truth about the wars?  Wowza.  He strikes me as an overgrown twelve year old with a following of half-literate lunatics who compare him to Jefferson or Jesus depending on their mood.  

    Personally I hope he wins the Iowa caucuses so the GOP is forced to wrestle with some of their demons.  

    "I have known Herman a long time. He's a very attractive, very articulate person." -Newt

    by Sun dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:37:01 PM PST

    •  nobody's asking you to be impressed (3+ / 0-)

      with the messenger, just the message.

      It is time to #Occupy Media.

      by lunachickie on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:22:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But I'm not impressed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, shwing

        I don't need some goofy commercial to get me to imagine what the problems are of occupying a country from the other person's perspective.  I thought of that when Old Bush was president, let alone after all these years, crimes, and blunders.  It's an obnoxious commercial that points out some of what is blatantly obvious and includes bullshit jabs against Obama in favor of a douchebag who would be completely incapable of governing.  

        I mean, yay that they pointed out some of the obvious and it's f-ing pathetic that people don't think "well, golly why are people mad when we invade them?" but I don't see much to be so impressed about here.  

        "I have known Herman a long time. He's a very attractive, very articulate person." -Newt

        by Sun dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:26:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if even one person starts thinking this after watching a video:

          it's f-ing pathetic that people don't think "well, golly why are people mad when we invade them?"

          then why the fuck would it really matter whether you're impressed or not?

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:15:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're fighting a losing battle. (0+ / 0-)

            Many people cannot accept that Ron Paul both:

            a) is an extremist ideologue, racist and sexist and dangerous, who is a member of the other team, and
            b) is responsible for ad that takes a taboo anti-imperial stance farther to the left of any Very Serious member of our party, and frames it in a viscerally effective way for people who are perhaps not as wise and well-informed as we are.

            Those two things cannot be reconciled. How can you believe both? Not possible.

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 05:39:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  ron paul (10+ / 0-)

    is a very bad guy. he simply believes that the government never has any role in regulating anything or ever protecting or standing up for its citizens, ever. segregration is ok, instituionalized racism is ok, corporate neo-feudalism is ok.

    he is as much of a corporatist as any other republican. still a good ad since no one else talks about what foreign policy really means

    •  Hell. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Devsd, happymisanthropy

      He's more of a corporatist than any other Republican.

      "...even amnesia, if prolonged, can become as dreary as one's old life." - Walker Percy

      by turnover on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:46:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  probably true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        turnover, happymisanthropy


      •  Au conraire! While Ron Paul is many things (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Knucklehead, greeseyparrot, native

        (and Libertarian is not one them), he is not a crony capitalist.  

        Corporations are not inherently evil.   Without corporations, this country would have never been founded (the Virginia Company was a corporation).   Crony capitalism is the problem, and regulatory agencies are vectors for crony capitalism.  Does anyone not see the irony of appointing the former CEO of Goldman Sachs to be the head of the government department in which the Securities and Exchange Commission resides?  

        Regulatory agencies also create other unintended problems.  No one would argue that the FDA provides a valuable service.   However, the cost of getting a drug through the FDA limits competition in the pharmaceutical industry.   It pretty much assures that small players have to sell their soles to a Merck or an AstraZeneca in order to get through approval process.   Big Pharma owns the FDA, and it uses that power to extract of all of its profits from Americans.

        Finally, do not get me started on the DoD.  The level of crony capitalism that occurs in the DoD is appalling.  No flag/general officer should be able to accept an executive position with a defense contractor immediately after retiring from the military.  

        Disclaimer: I am a socially left-leaning card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party.

        by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:58:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you. That is how I have felt for years and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that is why I will be voting for Ron Paul in the NH Republican primary, although I am otherwise a confirmed independent.

    If the Democrats won't post a genuine anti-war candidiate, what else am I supposed to do?

  •  The key thing is it's not an official Ron Paul ad. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    J M F, martini

    I don't know if he would put it quite this way.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:47:54 PM PST

    •  So this is not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ron Paul's Eye-Opening Ad on our Wars

      This is an ad somebody did on their own about Ron Paul?

      •  Did you notice, at the end, ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizenx, FreedMan, martini

        ...that the hired voice work's text coincides with a recording of Ron Paul. Clever: The intention is to drive home that this is Paul's message, not some operative's.

        However: If I recall correctly, the voice talent/Paul sync kicks in when the "foreign soil"/Texas analogy is finished and more general foreign policy positioning begins.

        Isn't it a good feeling when you see the paper in the morning, it says 'Axe Slayer Kills 19' and you say, "They can't pin that one on me!" - Jean Shepherd

        by razajac on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:59:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't have any problem with Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If I were President, I'd make him my Defense Secretary.  

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:49:16 PM PST

  •  Powerful ad. (5+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:52:06 PM PST

  •  Obama changed his mind? (14+ / 0-)

    That's complete bullshit. Almost out of Iraq now and a drawdown will (finally) begin in Afghanistan.

    That's what candidate Obama said he would do and that's what President Obama did do.

    The racist 19th century nutcase Ron Paul can go fuck himself.

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

    by Inventor on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:02:52 PM PST

  •  Good Ad, so rec'ed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FreedMan, Doctor Locrian

    Even if Ron Paul is our mortal enemy, it doesn't mean we shouldn't promote this. It's our message as well as his. Still, I assume this means we're going to have to sit through another round of Democrats trashing Obama and praising Paul... gah, ignorant people get on my nerves, somehow I feel like I might have to end up doing my own version of the powerful "Ron Paul Hates You" diary which was posted here back during the '08 primaries (and became such an internet phenomenon) to remind people why they Ron Paul as much as Gingrich, because I see waaaaayyy too many liberals fawning over Paul, I mean... come on... at least do a LITTLE research into the other political positions of the guy you're obsessed with letting become President...

    Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

    by Setsuna Mudo on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:11:41 PM PST

  •  I like all this talk about RP (5+ / 0-)
  •  Seriously? (11+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul hasn't been right about anything since 1841.

  •  another well-poisoning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George Hier, Knucklehead

    of a great idea, brought to you by just another corporate fucktard.

    One day, we'll have our government back. Long as we can stop our stupid, egotistical pissing all over good messages simply because of who is vomiting them up.

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 03:24:25 PM PST

  •  The ad says Obama changed his mind (11+ / 0-)

    But he didn't. He promised to have combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. That was done. He promised to have the rest of the troops out by the end of 2011. In a few weeks, that will be done also.

    •  Obama wanted to continue a US military (3+ / 0-)

      presence in Iraq after the Dec 31, 2011 deadline.

      Iraqis fail to agree on whether to ask for some U.S. troops to stay beyond deadline
      Administration officials said that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been telling some of his own officials that President Obama wants to leave as many as 30,000 troops in Iraq, a figure the White House dismisses as wildly high.

      “Any post-2011 troop presence is going to be significantly smaller than what we have there now,” an administration official said.
      But the longer the decision takes, the less time Obama has to explain to the American public the importance of preserving a presence, and the more he risks clouding an election-year message that he has overseen the end of the Iraq war.

    •  Latest info: (4+ / 0-)
      Some facts from the Pentagon on the U.S. drawdown of troops:

      - In 2007 the U.S. occupied 505 bases; today the U.S. occupies five bases.

      - Over the past 18 months, U.S. military drivers have clocked more than 16 million miles to carry people and equipment out of the country – that is 482 times around the earth.

      - The U.S. has fewer than 1,000 truckloads of equipment left to take out of the country.

      -  The U.S. currently has about 8,000 troops left in Iraq, and about 5,000 U.S. contractors. That is down from a high of approximately 300,000 uniformed U.S. military and U.S. contractors in that country in 2007.

      Impressive ending to a huge fail.

      Obama drug his feet  and many died unnecessarily  inasmuch as he did not end the war as soon as he led people to believe he would during the campaign.

      In addition, we have no idea how big the State Department Mercenary Army will end up being, how many CIA will still be there (ask Petraeus?)....

      •  Better lat than Never? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, Knucklehead


        Never.. And Never Again..

        How many "mercenaries"? How many more dead?
        How many Americans?

        Can we get their lives back?  Can we get our treasure back..

        As much chance of that as Canute can turn back the Tides..

        Oh, And Afghanistan/Pakistan/Korea/Germany/.. How many others?

        I seem to remember a map showing how many bases we have surrounding Iran, and They're the threat?

        Or, Are they just Next

      •  Here's some additional info (5+ / 0-)
        In Iraq, U.S. Shifts to a Large, New Footprint

        U.S. troops are on track to leave Iraq before the end of December, but the U.S. involvement there is anything but over—meaning local resistance to Americans, and the security challenges that come with it, will continue.

        In place of the military, the State Department will assume a new role of unprecedented scale, overseeing a massive diplomatic mission through a network of fortified, self-sufficient installations. After the troops have left, the U.S. presence in Iraq—which peaked at 170,000—will number between 15,000 and 16,000, including federal employees and private contractors.
        The State Department will command four major diplomatic centers and seven other facilities, a total of 11 sites around the country. The tab will be around $3.8 billion for the first year, far above the operating cost of any other U.S. diplomatic mission—but far lower than the more than $40 billion in U.S. spending budgeted for fiscal 2011 in Iraq.

  •  Ron Paul is NOT anti-war (10+ / 0-)

    He is just anti-any-war-that doesn't put money in HIS pocket. Like say, a war on women and gays. He'd be all over THAT war.

  •  Great message, but it's a chore to look at! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    The world does not need billionaires.

    by targetdemographic on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:28:29 PM PST

  •  Holy shit! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That is intense.  

    To all the commenters who are slamming Ron Paul for his other positions, I can only say that it's a matter of priorities.  Are wars of empire an important enough issue to override other approaches that Paul would take?  It's your choice.  An absolutely shitty choice, but a choice nevertheless.

    In any case, I think it's extremely important to get better people in Congress,  to implement some sane policies, over the head of whoever is in the White House if necessary.  If there was a Congress with a majority of people like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Grijalva, etc., the country would be a hell of a lot better off than with a president, of any party, who faces a batshit crazy Congress.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 04:29:02 PM PST

  •  So, Right on War, Legalization, (0+ / 0-)

    How is he on OWS?  Financial system (Fed/TBTF?)

    If he does the standard Libertarian position, he would want Gov't out of marriage, therefore Not personally Pro-LGBT, but is he against, or just No Gov't involvement?

    LP is split on Abortion, so if he follows his old party platform, who knows..

  •  Yeah, a stunner - but don't fall for it (10+ / 0-)

    Yes it is a sad comment on the state of progressive politics that this ad is coming from Ron Paul, a candidate for the nomination of the Repub Party, and not from a Democrat or Liberal or Progressive. But don't fall for it. Ron Paul is trying to pick up people from across the spectrum frustrated with the official manufactured bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. The bait is a rare chunk of truth and you won't easily find elsewhere in establishment politics. Problem is with the bait you swallow the hook of a political agenda that will remove all checks and regulations on those corporations who have been fueling and cheer-leading the march to all those wars Ron Paul is shedding his crocodile tears over. Nice bit of Obama bashing thrown in for good measure, natch.  

    •  There really isn't anything to fall for (9+ / 0-)

      The Democratic leadership are doing more than enough to drive people into the hands of the libertarians.

      At 31 I'm "fairly" young.  A lot of younger voters came to the Democrats for sex, drugs, and rock and roll.  Social conservativism drives people from the Republican party.  The libertarian platform isn't socially conservative at all, and is more sex drugs and rock and roll than the Democrats are.

      Furthermore the Democratic leadership hasn't done much to put daylight between it and the Republican party on wars, torture, the police state, the drug war, spying on Americans, killing Americans.  True there are some slight differences, but it's still coke vs pepsi at the end of the day.

      If you keep economics out of it, the Libertarians are flat out the better choice by leaps and bounds than the Democratic party currently is.

      The economic arguing is also starting to get muddied as well.  The Democratic leadership is in bed with Wall Street, and they aren't defending the Democrats signature programs of Social Security and Medicare.  They're constantly running around screaming that they are failing and in need of saving and talking about cutting them.  And let's keep in mind that Clinton and Obama both favor free trade and have bashed government as well.

      This is a Democratic party fail of epic proportions.  The party should be advocating for liberal positions on the drug war, rolling back the police state, cutting down on wars, legalizing pot, and beating the libertarians there.  But they aren't, they are seemingly trying to be the Republicans on out conservativing them here.  They should also be taxing the crap out of people and making social security stronger and using that as their key item, not running around screaming of shared sacrifice for the sake of Wall Street.

      I'd call it strategic malpractice, but libertarians keep doing better and better among younger voters.

      I'd love to see Democrats be proud to be Democrats, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

      "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

      by overclocking on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:49:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have enough faith in our generation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that nobosy is confused on democrats and libertarians over financial regulation.  Paul does offer simpe-sounding solutions, which can be initially attractive, but someone who doesnt think positions tru has only himself to blame, and perhaps most Paulites are just selfish.  Obama won the youth vote campaigning as the mainstream democrat as which he's governed.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:46:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That doesn't matter (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, Chi, J M F, native, Sparhawk

          Democrats are officially Wall Street lovers, police state lovers, American citizen killers, drug warriors, and bank enablers.  All reprehensible positions and the exact items which can sum up why I am not a Republican.   Those are also all things Paul is not.

          Now, of course all Democrats are not, but there are enough of the leadership in both the senate and the house, along with the White House, that are.  This should not be the case.  Yes, the Democrats as a whole are less "bad" than the Republicans, but the leadership is rotten though the core and progressives are dismissed so often that it doesn't matter.

          Obama won the youth vote on a mix of being against the war (lol how that turned into a 180) an economic crisis (which he is now the face of) and the thrill factor of voting for the first back president (that's been done now).  None of these factors exist now.  And many of those who voted for him, like me, now realize the depth of our mistake.

          For those of us who spent most of our voting age under the horror of Bush only to be lectured it would be better if we voted in a Democrat, only to have the same nonsense continue the lesson has been learned, having a D next to your name does not make you automatically better.

          "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

          by overclocking on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:52:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "officially" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            you are a degree granting body?  You list many positions and say Paul doesn't have them -- and yet he's a republican.  Go figure.

            as far as the campaign goes, Obama campaigned against the Iraq war, which he ended, and in favor of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan.  He mentioned this several times in the debates.  As far as the economy goes, Obama was able to find a bottom to the GDP contraction and unemployment has been steadily shrinking since he took office.  To the extent he was able thru congress, he passed Wall St. regulation and econ stimulus.  He's even embraced some more populist rhetoric of late, and shown just how different the parties are on job creation, tax cuts for the middle class, and medicare.  

            If your notion of correcting a mistake consists either of sitting out or voting for Ron Paul, by your stated issues, you're making a bigger one.  And you know it, but i guess it matters more just to attack Obama in cliches.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:00:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

              Obama desperately kicked the economic can down the road. He solved nothing, and it is economic illiteracy to suggest otherwise. He temporarily blunted the housing meltdown by running truly massive deficits, bigger than anything Bush ever did. As such, he just traded the housing bubble for another even bigger government debt bubble.

              Look across the pond to see what will happen here when the debt bubble eventually implodes. It won't be pretty. I hope Obama wins in 2012 just so he'll be forced to own the implosion.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:39:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  read some krugman, look at bond yields, (0+ / 0-)

                and then we can discuss economic literacy.  what's happening in Europe is (a) a lack of fiscal stimulus made possible by (b) too constrictive monetary policy.  The U.S. can print its own money; Italy can't.  Italy's problems could be largely addressed if the ECB would commit to buying Italian debt as a matter of last resort, but they have chosen not to.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:42:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bond yields? (0+ / 0-)

                  Greek bonds were yielding 4% in November 2009. It always looks fine right up until it doesn't. And the 'print money' solution will not and can not work. It'll be the same austerity based recession as it would be without printing, it will just take another form. Also, keep in mind that money printing benefits people with first access to money and credit, e.g. the rich.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:53:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    "It'll be the same austerity based recession as it would be without printing, it will just take another form."

                    That's not actual literacy, let alone economic.  You're also conflating structural deficits with cyclical ones.  Obama's at least tried to address the long term driver, health costs, Bush tax cuts, and deficit spending that promotes growth can actually pay for itself.  (Keynes.)  Even Italy wouldn't have a deficit problem if the cost of financing its own debt were out of the equation -- a case for a bailout if ever one was, especially now that Qadaffi's buddy Berlusconi is out.

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:58:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

        The Obama administration is now defending sweet loans to the megabanks while they overrule the FDA on plan B. There's nothing left to defend about Obama.

        "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

        by jfern on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:49:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He's a nut on other issues (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, lotlizard, Chi, J M F

      but he got this one right.  I don't think it is a ploy to pick off progressives though because he has had this stance for years.  He's been saying this about the wars for years.

      He's good on the wars and the banks and those are two key issues, huge actually, but the rest of his ideology is batshit.

      •  The choice of issues to emphasize (0+ / 0-)

        can be deliberate.  He tellingly doesnt mention that anti-war is the first half of general isolationism.  It's a ploy by selective omission.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:49:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  clocks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pacifist, doroma

    Every broken clock points to the correct time twice a day.

  •  I lost a high school friend in (4+ / 0-)

    Afghanistan.  love this ad.

    I like Michelle more than Barack.

    by duha on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:02:15 PM PST

  •  I live in Texas. Ron Paul is a Conservative (13+ / 0-)

    Libertarian to the core who would dismantle the federal government if he could.  He appeals to folks b/c he is honest and means what he says.  He appeals to younger voters b/c they only hear what Paul wants them to hear.

    He ran his anti-war ad b/c the government can and will declare war.  If one does not believe in govenment at all, of course one would run an ad about an evil doing government running wars abroad.  Government is the root of all evil in RP's view.

    I have to hand it to him, though.  He has appealled to the peace loving individuals in our Party.  The catch is they have to forget his other ideologies that are hardly grounded in democratic principles.

    The Libertarian youth, by the way, have no business co-opting OWS with RP's wacko beliefs.  Just a heads up folks.

  •  rec list? (6+ / 0-)

    the guy is the ultimate corporatist who would eliminate our already weak social safety net/laws and regulations meant to help ordainary americans. we already knew that he has spoken out against US foreign policy, but what does he plan to do to stop the corporations that got us into this mess in the first place? nothing- he wants to make corporate neo-feudalism even easier to implement.

    •  Agree. Ron Paul is a total nut and kook and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barath, Devsd

      happens to be on the right side of one issue  for the wrong reason.  Why is Ron Paul against the war?  Because he is an ultra-isolationist which is pretty consistent with his libertarian, neo-confederate philosophy.

      Also, something at the end of the diary reeks of false equivalence.  Am I to be accepting of Ron Paul who is wrong 99% of the time because I support President Obama who is right 99% of the time?  Seriously?  o_O ?

      Finally, when the messenger is Ron Paul, it is all about the messenger -- especially when that messenger is carrying a million other messages that are against pretty much everything we stand for.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:31:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ron paul is a fucking nut n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "Life is a bitch, and then you die. And then you come back." Old Buddhist proverb

    by RubDMC on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:21:41 PM PST

  •  Given that. . . (0+ / 0-)

    It's effective as a perspective against our occupation of Afghanistan (I'm guessing that with us pulling out of Iraq this is all a reference to Afghanistan), but it doesn't really address the "War on Terror" in a satisfying manner for me.

    Much of the WoT is taking place in the United States, and that's what I disapprove of more than anything else. How much are we spending on Homeland Security, in addition to our military efforts?

    In short, I don't like the ad, even were I normally disposed to promoting an ad for Ron Paul.

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:28:36 PM PST

  •  That Simple Commonsense (8+ / 0-)

    on America's pathological militarism has to be enunciated by a Republican candidate is ample evidence of how morally unhinged the present day mainstream Democratic Party has become.  That that commonsense policy message is attacked here on cynically partisan grounds is further evidence.

    Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

    by Kurt Sperry on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:32:43 PM PST

    •  I'm surprised (5+ / 0-)

      that he sticks with the Republican party and has not gone Independent. He really doesn't fit in there.  Then again, a lot of Democrats don't fit in the Democratic party either.

      •  Yep! Status Quo Washington-Money- (0+ / 0-)

        -And-Business-As-Usual Democrats should get out of the Democratic party, and form their own lunatic fringe splinter group.

        A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

        by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:04:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  True. None of the big donors & wingnut think-tanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J M F

        … and media infrastructure that support the rest of the Republicans are available to him.

        On the contrary, they wish he would go away, if they're not actively trying to sabotage him. That's because he doesn't support the neoconservative plan for permanent war and occupation of Central Asia and the Middle East.

        Of course, running as a Republican in the primaries means his views air to a nationwide audience in the debates. Aside from that it's hard to see exactly what he still gains from being a Republican.

        48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

        by lotlizard on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:49:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's done a great job getting us out of these (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, howarddream, Fogiv


    This isn't an episode of Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie.

    Obama is doing fine.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:57:19 PM PST

    •  Out of Iraq (3+ / 0-)

      Bomb Libya, bomb Yemmen, bomb Pakistan, up with the dictators we can still support.

      Yep, fantastic.

      "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

      by overclocking on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:10:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, a heckuva job! (7+ / 0-)

      He's increased drone attacks in Pakistan by a factor of FIVE (at least) over Bush, and so now we have even more civilians, including children, being killed on a regular basis in our name.  

      I didn't realize illegal military actions (we are not at war with Pakistan after all) and the routine killing of civilians (something that is factored in-literally-to the use of drones) were now a part of the Progressive platform.  Good to know.

      •  The solution is not simple. No matter which way (0+ / 0-)

        it went it will be bad for a while.  You are saying your action would result in less death.  Maybe you are right, maybe not.  I am happy with the way the President is handling the situation and believe he is taking the path of least death even if you don't.

        It's not as simple as a 30 minute TV show.  

        It is a very complicated situation and the solution is not as simple as you want it to be.

        . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

        by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:25:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Path of least death!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Marching our troops into a lake of fire is not the way to do this.

          If you want something destroyed, absolutely, positively overnight, then by all means give the job to the Army, Marines and Air Force.  They're trained to do that, and do it quite well.

          Who would take these folks and try to make them into International Constables and Social Workers?  

          The purpose of our Armed Forces, according to the Preamble, is to "provide for the common defense" of the United States, and nowhere is it mentioned that their role is to force illiterate, tribal peoples, in a 5th century culture, 8000 miles away, to get along with each other at the point of a gun.

          What are YOU doing, kathy, to pay the price and bear the burden?  How do you feel the sting of this war?  I'm sick of it, myself.

          A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

          by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:13:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They were already there, the trick is to get them (0+ / 0-)

            out.  I think Obama is doing that the smartest and best way possible.

            Of course we are all sick of it.  That doesn't mean Obama isn't getting out the best way possible.  I think he is.  You may think it should be faster and more magical.  I'm just saying I don't think there is a magical way.

            Of course we shouldn't be there.  The sad reality is that we are there and getting out is a whole different pickle from not going there in the first place.

            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:00:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What is it about the way he is (0+ / 0-)

              supposedly "getting us out" that makes it the best possible way?

              The troops should come home in a manner that is safe for them and orderly.  This could be accomplished within a year, certainly.  There is no justification for keeping our troops mired in this bizarre experiment.

              A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

              by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:19:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the solution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Claudius Bombarnac

          to stopping drones from bombing villages IS simple: stop having drones drop hellfire missiles on villages.

          If you're saying it's not a simple question whether this is OK, I just have to disagree with you. To me, there is no simpler question.

          •  Who can argue with dead children. You are (0+ / 0-)

            all over the map.  Sure world peace is the answer.  Getting there is the question.

            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:13:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And drones are not the answer. (0+ / 0-)

              Not sure why you view the children killed by our drones as irrelevant to this discussion, but I find that more than a bit odd.

              •  Children are always killed in war. We are still (0+ / 0-)

                the only country that ever used the h-bomb.  Would less or more people have died if we hadn't used the h-bomb?

                If it was my decision I would choose world peace.  But you know it's not.

                Are the drones going to keep going?  Of course they are.  Did h-bombs stop?  No.

                It would be so great if we could stop flinging stuff at each other.  When will that happen?  

                If we can't have a disagreement of words without thinking the 'other' is a war monger, then the flinging is not in any danger of stopping.

                . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:59:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Great job getting us out??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BradyB, vacantlook

      Beg pardon, do you ever visit the IGTNT diaries on this site?

      A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

      by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:05:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are missing the point. You can review my (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        recommends if you need to know how often I visit that wall.

        I am saying that leaving is trickier than not going in the first place.  I am saying that Obama is doing a great job of getting us out.  And make no mistake we are getting out.  It just isn't as fast or as magical as saying, 'we don't want to play that anymore'.

        Yes our troops are not in a strategically good spot.  No Obama didn't put them there and Obama isn't doing some crack minded surge to make things even worse.  I believe he is getting them out the best way possible.  You might not.  That's your opinion.

        . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

        by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:06:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Obama DID put them there. (3+ / 0-)

          He's escalated twice.  He more than doubled the number of our troops there.  He did so based on the most specious of reasoning.

          Why are our troops there, then?  What's the reasoning?

          A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

          by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:14:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In Iraq? (0+ / 0-)

            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:20:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, Afghanistan, which is the (4+ / 0-)

              subject of this diary.

              A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

              by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:21:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Once again, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Situational Lefty
              Why are our troops there, then?  What's the reasoning?

              A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

              by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:23:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can't debate that with you because I don't have (0+ / 0-)

                a clue.  All I am saying is that I believe Obama does and he is doing the right thing.  It's not perfect, but it is better than anyone else on earth could do, and I believe that.  

                You don't and I get the feeling you think I am a war monger because I support Obama.  That is crack minded war like thinking that doesn't go anywhere.  Anyone handling the situation would meet with the same from you because you think that the solution is magical.  But every solution stinks.  That is what is so creepy about Afghanistan.

                I like what that fellow from Florida said, "Afghanistan is a place on a map. --  We think it is a country, but it is not even close to what we think."

                You think it is as simple as stopping.  I don't think that once the events have been set in motion that were set in motion a decade ago, maybe even longer, that it was ever that simple.  I seriously doubt anyone else could even come close to a better solution.

                That is how I feel.  You don't feel that way and don't hesitate to call me a war monger because I feel the way I do.

                . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:45:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your reasoning seems to be (0+ / 0-)

                  "whatever Obama wants".  

                  I'm not willing to shut my brain off like this.  Our troops are dying, and being physically and emotionally mangled.  Justification is absent.

                  Perhaps you've heard of the Merkley amendment to the NDAA.  This was adopted by the Senate in a voice vote.  In this amendment, Sen. Merkley and all those co-sponsors identified the reasoning for accelerating and expediting the redeployment from Afghanistan.

                  They are not saying, "Mr. President, you're doing fine.  Just take your time."

                  They are clearly telling the president to get moving on the redeployment, and, more importantly, they are giving the reasons for doing this.

                  That's a good place for you to start to understand the reasoning for making this redeployment happen faster instead of slower.

                  You don't have to take it from me.  Look at the reasoning the senators gave.  There is quite a bit more than this, of course.  

                  Obama has said himself repeatedly that he doesn't want people to shut off their brains and just trust him or someone else.

                  A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                  by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:04:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  See what you are saying. I see what I see and (0+ / 0-)

                    you say I am shutting off my brain.  

                    I am saying that I am happy with the way he is handling the situation.  Because I am happy with the way he is handling it, my brain is shut off and I am a war monger.  I don't see it that way.

                    I am saying that Afghanistan is not a simple place.  And every solution sucks.  I am saying that Obama is getting the job done.  I am saying that it is taking longer than you think it should.  And I am saying that you're opinion of how long it 'should' take might, just possibly, might, be wrong.  

                    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                    by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:11:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You tell me you don't have (0+ / 0-)

                      a clue why our troops are there, but you're sure Obama is doing everything the right way.  And you're accusing me of magical thinking?

                      If you want to understand some of the reasoning why I (and some Dem and Repub senators) think the President can and SHOULD accelerate this redeployment, well, I've laid it in front of you in the link to the Merkley amendment.

                      If you don't want to know, then you don't want to know.  Wow.

                      A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                      by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:21:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No I am saying that I am not an arm chair general. (0+ / 0-)

                        There I called you a name.  I am sure Obama is doing his level best.  

                        The Merkley Amendment is a good thing.  

                        I think both those things.   Obama is doing a good job and the Senators need to get behind him.

                        You think Obama wants to stay in Afghanistan.   I don't think so.

                        . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                        by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:28:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If you think Obama is doing a good (0+ / 0-)

                          job, then you ought to be able to say why.

                          So far, you've given no clue.  He's doing a good job because you think he's doing a good job because you think he's doing a good job.

                          What is good about the reasoning given in the Merkley amendment?

                          A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                          by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:32:15 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Because he got Bin Laden, because Khadafy (0+ / 0-)

                            is dead (I was amazed we went to Iraq and not Libya looking for terrorists all those years ago.)  Because the bad guys are taking a serious beating.

                            The good in the Merkley amendment is the plan to get out and the Senators lined up with Obama so Obama isn't the only one wanting to get out.  You seem to think Obama is happy to stay.  I don't.  

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:39:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bin Laden (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            was in Pakistan, m'dear.  NOT in Afghanistan.

                            He was taken out by intelligence and a small, focused counter-terrorist operation in Pakistan.

                            Why in gawdsname do we have a HUGE military footprint in Afghanistan?  That did NOTHING in getting OBL.

                            Kadafy has nothing to do with 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

                            The Senators in the Merkely amendment are telling Obama to SPEED IT UP.  Do you know what their reasoning is for speeding it up?

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:47:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Afghanistan is a place on a map we drew. (0+ / 0-)

                            We have no idea what it is really.

                            Just off the top of my head because having 30,000 there for 10 years fucked the area bad enough that it will take a bunch a while to get it stable enough to leave.

                            Do you think Obama is going slow on purpose or maybe he could use a few Senators on his side to speed up leaving?  That wouldn't be cynical though.

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:51:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Define "stable enough (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vacantlook, sunny skies

                            to leave."

                            Are you aware of how tribal it is in Afghanistan?

                            How villages and valleys and tribes are constantly feuding with each other?

                            Know about the low literacy rate there?

                            Are you aware that problems there have been centuries in the making and involve hundreds of years of invasions by different outsiders?

                            Are you going to blame these problems on the USA?

                            Do you think we're going to fix these problems at the point of a gun?

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:58:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is what I am saying to you. (0+ / 0-)

                            Afghanistan isn't a country but a place on a map we drew.  The USA has been there for many decades.  

                            And who knows how to fix it.  I think Obama will do the best of any person on earth.  That is what I think.

                            And does he need the help of the Senators to leave.  Yes, I think that too.

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:02:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When you don't (0+ / 0-)

                            know what to say, you say Afghanistan isn't a country but a place on a map we drew.

                            Obama isn't going to fix it.

                            So, why are our troops there?

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:18:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Small seems small when you only see the top of (0+ / 0-)

                            the ice berg.

                            The details remain foggy, but Osama bin Laden’s death early Monday local time began with a fleet of four helicopters slicing through the night skies over Pakistan from a U.S. base in northern Afghanistan. Source

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:57:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Small is VERY small (0+ / 0-)

                            when you compare the number of boots on the ground in the operation which got bin laden, compared to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

                            And it proves that 100,000 troops in Afghanistan are NOT  what keeps us safer, but is a misuse and abuse of our armed forces.  Maybe you don't care if they are misused and abused.  I do.

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:04:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You think you know how many boots on the (0+ / 0-)

                            ground it takes to pull off a raid to kill Bin Laden?  

                            I think you are kidding yourself.  You are saying work backwards from the trigger man and stop at oh maybe 50 or 150, but you are saying it couldn't possibly take 100,000.  

                            Well maybe it did.  And maybe no one else was able to figure that out for these long years.

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:08:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, connect those dots for me, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Situational Lefty


                            !00,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Connect those to a small focused counter-terrorist operation that got OBL in Pakistan!  Please do that arithmetic for me!!!

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:10:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh the delusions of hindsight and arm chairs. (0+ / 0-)

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:12:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can't connect the (0+ / 0-)

                            dots, and now you won't admit it.


                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:13:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You won't answer my question and I am not (0+ / 0-)

                            clairvoyant.  Now I guess you are just going to call me names and be mean.  Happy Saturday Night.

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:31:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stompin' off in a huff (0+ / 0-)

                            might be the best exit you have, here.

                            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                            by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:36:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You knew that clear back on the left margin though (0+ / 0-)

                            didn't you.  Must always be the same here over on the right margin for you.  You will get your g's back some day.

                            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                            by 88kathy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:38:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gadaffi had an arrest warrant for Bin Laden (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            in 1998 with Interpol. Gadaffi had hundreds of terrorists in jail since 1996. He was dealing harshly with terrorists far sooner than the US.

                •  Why reasonable people stopped arguing (0+ / 0-)

                  w/ Obama supporters:

                  All I am saying is that I believe Obama does and he is doing the right thing.  It's not perfect, but it is better than anyone else on earth could do, and I believe that.  

                  -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                  by Situational Lefty on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:51:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Error on my part. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Situational Lefty

              Obama has more than TRIPLED the number of our troops in Afghanistan.

              There were approximately 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office.  He escalated twice, bringing the total US troops presence to approximately 100,000.

              A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

              by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:37:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  We're not done yet. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, sunny skies

      My husband can still deploy.

      Thousands of our troops are still in Afghanistan.

      We're out of Iraq, for the most part, because we couldn't live with the rules they set for us. We would still be there if they would have agreed to our Status of Forces Agreement.

      Obama isn't as strong on this issue as he could be. During an election against your average Repbubican, he can still speak of downsizing wars and it will be positive. Against Ron Paul, the entire debate changes. If Paul decides to run as an Independent, it could be a very interesting set of debates on a lot of security and military issues.

  •  Wanna see Ron Paul and the GOP in action? (0+ / 0-)

    check out the GOP debate tonight on

  •  the ad kicks ass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    'ceptin, of course, for its unfortunate and undoubtedly pre-meditated overuse of "occupy".
    Equally unfortunate, the man responsible for it is an ass.

  •  Read the "Blowback Trilogy" ... (12+ / 0-)

    ... by the late Chalmers Johnson. He said everything that Paul is saying here. We have military facilities in more than 130 countries, and those are the ones we know about--many more are secret. Americans are almost completely ignorant of this, but the people in those countries know and that's why Americans are hated throughout the world. Oh, and don't forget that the only reason we're leaving Iraq is because they won't give immunity to American troops who commit crimes against Iraqis. That's standard procedure in the Status of Forces agreements that we dictate to other countries--they aren't remotely negotiated. Paul is an absolute Neanderthal on domestic policy, but clip his name off the end of this ad and I'm in complete agreement.

  •  Sad it didn't come from a progressive (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turthlover, gila, SwedishJewfish, shwing, Chi

    But interesting how he seems to care more about the citizens in the countries we have a presence in than those he has unequivocally said he would let die in our own - for the high crime of not coughing over money to private industry.

    I like the sentiment, but as others have noted, the premeditated use of the term "occupy" is disgusting. And if everything mentioned wasn't enough, see his stance on gay Americans, or abortion, or financial or corporate policy. The guy is a nut bag.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:42:59 PM PST

    •  Gosh, I must have missed this: (0+ / 0-)
      "... he has unequivocally said he would let die in our own - for the high crime of not coughing over money to private industry."

      But then I miss a lot of things politicians say.

      •  Perhaps you do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks --" before being cut off by loud cheers by Tea Party supporters. 

        Everything else he said after that doesn't square with that statement. I shouldn't have used "unequivocal," but this is more than good enough for me to understand where the man is truly coming from. He'll pass on your tax dollars to the corporations subsidized to develop the overpriced medicine you can't have, and leave you to the crap shoot of, at best, a collection plate. This guy is a wacky hyper-libertarian bigot.

        Slap happy is a platform.

        by averageyoungman on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:50:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You clearly don't know much about Paul (0+ / 0-)

          You can legitimately criticize him by saying he would do nothing to stop corporations from forming a monopoly/cartel, gouging you for their services, and using unfair tactics to crush competitors.  But you cannot attack him for supposedly wanting to give tax dollars to corporations.  He's against the government giving tax dollars to either private citizens (i.e. social programs) or corporations (i.e. corporate welfare).

  •  An unserious ad for unserious people (5+ / 0-)

    Aside from the fact that there's nothing factually or metaphorically innacurate or dishonest about this ad, what kind of nutjob would actually believe in such reality-based truth? I mean, seriously, this is America we're talking about. And we don't do reality here. What next, there's no Santa Claus? Tax cuts really don't pay for themselves? Men actually landed on the moon? There really is global warming?

    Puhleeze. Whoever said that the truth shall set you free clearly never worked in advertising or PR. Reality is what the media says it is and you can't make me.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:44:21 PM PST

  •  It's incredible propaganda art - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taonow, Praxical, Chi

    the visual is beyond anything I've seen in American politics since the anti-Goldwater LBJ ad of 1964. I would watch it several times to figure  out the messaging but its seems anti-imperialist and anti-Patriot Act.

  •  The US has nearly 750 military bases overseas (5+ / 0-)

    By Chalmers Johnson's count. That doesn't include other installations run by various intelligence and defense intelligence agencies.

    That's why this ad will resonate beyond Paul's libertarian base. That's why even though I'd never vote for Paul, I like this ad very much and would love to see it spread widely.

    I like Obama, but he is clearly a member of what Howard Zinn and Gore Vidal have called the War Party.

    "Humanity won't be happy until the last capitalist is hung with the guts of the last bureaucrat." - Paris, 1968

    by turthlover on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:11:11 PM PST

  •  My husband and I (11+ / 0-)

    had this exact discussion at the start of the Iraq war and continued to discuss this during the war.  My husband and I decided we would be insurgents if this came to our soil and felt compassion and empathy for the Iraqi people, who never asked for, nor deserved our occupation.  This message is real.  If my husband and I, normal everyday people, thought of this eight years ago, others have too.  Forget that it's Ron Paul. He is just voicing what many have already discussed.  We need to think of this happening to us unless we put a stop to the control of the corporations and the slow demise of our democracy.

    love the fetus, hate the child

    by Raggedy Ann on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:23:10 PM PST

  •  Ad Quality (4+ / 0-)

    Heck of a lot better ad than Perry's "Strong"" or Cain's "Smoking"".

    Extremely well done ad ... if a bit too long.  Of course Paul is right on this issue. The American military adventure is bankrupting the country, making enemies of America overseas, and making millionaires in the MIC.

    Remember to focus on the message, not the messenger. There are enough things that Obama  has done that have really pissed me off, just as there are things that Paul says that piss me off. That does not mean that I ignore Obama or Paul.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - JFK

    by taonow on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:36:29 PM PST

  •  Incredible ad, progressives should be ashamed (8+ / 0-)

    it's not coming from one of ours.

    Ron Paul is a kook on many issues.  But on the issue of our murderous imperialism, an issue of supreme importance that continues to cost countless lives worldwide and goes to the heart of who we are as a nation, he is 100% spot on.

    The system of invasion, occupation, theft and murder for economic gain is our system.

    How do you wash the blood off?  You can do what's right.  You just don't want to.  Because it's too hard.  It's easier to claim "pragmatism".

    "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

    by gila on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:15:03 PM PST

  •  Paul is absolutely right with this ad. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Claudius Bombarnac, GeeBee, lotlizard, Chi

    I don't believe that Ron Paul expects to win the nomination or the presidency. Getting his message out has always seemed to me to be his principal objective.

    I came home for lunch one day in 2002 and turned on c-span. There he was, railing against the march to war. I had never heard of him until that day.

    What's most amazing to me are the lengths both parties and the media have gone to sideline him and his message. I'm glad he's still hammering away.

  •  I'm not going to waste my time trying to (4+ / 0-)

    convince anyone that this ad has no place on DKos. If it were a Democrat or Bernie Sanders then yes it has a place....

    ...that being said:

    Fuck Ron Paul .

    Obama 2012

    by jiffypop on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 08:46:33 PM PST

    •  Hence the problem with the Democratic Party... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Are you willing to stand up for something like being against our wars of aggression or are you only here to back your party heroes?

      At least someone is behaving as anti-war as he campaigned.  Ron Paul should be applauded for at least doing that.

      -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

      by Situational Lefty on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:13:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One person voted against the original Afghanistan (10+ / 0-)

    Barbara Lee

    Ron Paul voted yes.

    In 2007, the House voted to 218 to 212 to Set Date for Iraq Pullout.

    House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

    Ron Paul voted no.

    In 2007, Ron Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007

    Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for any planned similar acts or acts of war against the United States in the future.

    States that no letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued without the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President determines sufficient to ensure the letter's execution.

    Of course when he introduced it in 2001, it was "for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator"

    When he introduced it in 2001, it was "for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator"

    September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (PDF)


    (b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.


  •  Well, Ron Paul isn't for the police state (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greeseyparrot, itsbenj, hangingchad

    unlike Obama, but it sucks that I have to choose between letting this country turn into a police state, or Somalia. (Punk, Technology, politics-my blog)

    by greenpunx on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 09:07:33 PM PST

  •  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty, Chi, Sychotic1, catwho

    I agree, this video should go viral.

    •  And that is his danger!!!! The man is a sociopath (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shwing, Plantsmantx

      in most ways, and too many on our side are being seduced by this one issue of his. Otherwise, the man is the acme of self-centered "I-got-mine-fuck-you" ism.

      WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

      by IARXPHD on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 09:45:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, I wish Democrats would get a clue with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    ads like that

    "You don't have the right facts!"~My Tea Party Neighbor

    by Therapy on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:19:30 PM PST

  •  comment thread makes me sad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunny skies

    So many people here (unsurprisingly) are as guilty as Republicans when it comes to favoring their political party of choice over the truth.

    It's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority of the people on this site don't agree with Ron Paul on a wide array of social and economic issues, but is it so hard for many of you to at least admit that he has some very valid points with regards to foreign policy? Especially the ones made in this ad?
    Dog whistle my ass. People saying that sound more like desperate party over policy people trying to make the rest of the crowd look the other way. There's no need for most of us to do that, though.

    The Democratic party is not infallible and, if you're going by their stated platform, rarely even deserve our support and votes. Which isn't to say Ron Paul does but at least SOMEONE besides Kucinich and Sanders are saying these things... and arguably in a far more effective manner, too.
    Shit, I've used this exact argument with people myself. The country and location might have been different, but that's irrespective to the point.

    And don't worry, party-over-policy folks – Ron Paul would NOT be a good President. He is horrifically wrong about far too many social and economic issues, and has some VERY ugly skeletons in his closet that would horrify most of those otherwise overwhelmingly liberal youth voters. I know this because I'm ONE of the under-30 crowd. You DON'T have to worry about him beating Obama and, as a result, DON'T have to worry about showing one of his exceptionally effective and right-on-the-money ads.

    I'll even go as far to say that I wouldn't be displeased if he were given a spot in Obama's (or any Democratic President's) cabinet, though.  

    At the very least, be intellectually honest enough to admit that the ad is effective and states with crystal clarity what many of us on the progressive left feel to be true.

    My style is impetuous.
    My defense is impregnable.

    by samfish on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:55:48 PM PST

  •  UnNoticed About A lot of Libitarians (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is that they want the federal government out of everything, but yet are satisfied if the state or local governments restrict your rights.  

    I don't want any government (local, state, federal, international)

    spying on me,
    molesting me at the airport,
    telling me I can't smoke marijuana or do drugs
    telling me I can't go to that casino,
    gamble on the Internet,
    drive without a seatbelt, or
    ride a motorcycle without a helmet.  

    •  Dec. 23, 2007: (0+ / 0-)

      MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.  And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.  Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

      REP. PAUL:  Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military.  Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.  But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like.  So it's a property rights issue.  And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong.  So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control.  If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

      Yes, he would be satisfied if state and local governments restricted your rights.

    •  The theory is that (0+ / 0-)

      The more local a government is, the more responsive it will be to its citizens.  You'll probably have a far easier time getting the ear of your town councilman than your federal congressman/woman.  The other part of the theory is that it sort of makes a market for government.  If you don't like the way one locality is doing things, you can go to another one where people want to build the same kind of society you do.

  •  WOW! That is powerful. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    Kinda refreshing to see a political ad that actually had some substance. Yes, yes and yes. Great message. He's a loon but at least he's got the right conviction about the murder and occupation being perpetrated by our troops.

  •  I like the video, but I have a few questions. (0+ / 0-)

    Is Texas part of the Union? Are Ron Paul supporters allowed to vote in Texas?

    How much longer? (That's a more generic question which may be applied to any of the issues raised or discussed in this diary, including the two I raised.)

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 11:25:47 PM PST

  •  Surely people here recall (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, robertlewiws

    General Wesley Clark's remarks about the neocon plan to invade and accoplish regime changes in 7 countries in five years.

    Gen. Clark first heard this in 1991 from Paul Wolfowitz and then again 10 days after 9-11. The countries on the list were:

    Iraq - check, Libya - check, Lebanon - fail, Syria - on going, Somalia - on going, Sudan - possibly on hold due to partition, and the big prize, Iran - currently in the demonization process.

    Coincidence? Obviously not.

    Behind schedule but the objectives are basically the same. The latest bogeyman du jour is "terrorism" which is so convenient to use to justify our actions.

    Both parties now support apparently support the program. The only odd man out is Ron Paul.

    Here is Wesley Clark from September 2006.

    “Humankind can not bear very much reality.” - T.S. Eliot

    by truong son traveler on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58:45 AM PST

  •  When will Ron Paul just come out ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jiffypop, Plantsmantx

    as the white supremacist he really is. At least, his BFF David Duke didn't pretend to be what he wasn't. Stop the charade! This frightening secessionist will say anything to get elected. His racist newsletters foretold what his method of operation would be. To lure young people by pretending to support issues like marijuana legalization, or to end all wars, for example...

    Check out this heated debate on a major white supremacy forum
    Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists


    I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

    Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

    I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

    For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

    I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

    Bill White, Commander
    American National Socialist Workers Party"

    Ron Paul's Newsletters

  •  Ron Paul the Secessionist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  David Duke - Ron Paul's BFF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What Ron Paul Must Do to Win - David Duke

    "What must Paul do to have any real chance of winning or making a bigger impact? I think he should do exactly what I did in Louisiana, and for Ron Paul to follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others, take up my campaign issues with passion and purpose."

  •  Excellent video. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's a piece of propaganda art.  It's also a point that I agree with, and it takes the unusual step of leading people through a process of empathic thinking they may not be familiar with.

    It's a pity that libertarians as badly or more than the Republicans on social welfare and economic issues.

    •  But in politics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it is not unusual to use the arguments of one candidate to direct the attention of another candidate. Open debate is supposed to be one thing that makes an informed populace and makes a better democracy. Certainly I will vote for Obama and would never vote for Ron Paul, but if it is Ron Paul who is willing to put out there an ad that explains the issue of aggressive acts on foreign soil for extended periods that involve killing people by "accident" then I agree with making it viral. Unfortunately the people who need to see and think about the ad are not the ones reading Daily Kos.

  •  The Video is as outrageous propaganda (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missLotus, jiffypop, Plantsmantx

    More from David Duke:

    Perhaps the key to his getting more support is contained in Paul’s own writing as shown by his old newsletters.

    Recently, James Kirchick published an article in the far-leftist New Republic called, Angry White Man, The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul (posted January 8, 2008) kirchick points out that Paul had this to say about me in 1990 shortly after my race for the U.S. Senate. It should be noted that I have never tried to increase my status, by previously publishing or remarking about the positive things that Paul wrote about me and and my campaign issues. The New Republic has published this now however, and since it is now known by all in the media I will quote it now. Here it is:

    David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate Primary race in Louisiana 60 percent of the white vote, and 9 percent of the black vote! This totalled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.

    Duke lost the election but he scared the blazes out the Establishment. If the official Republican wouldn’t have been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.

    Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing…

    To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, the voters were willing to overlook that. If he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

    …David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: ‘No one wants to talk about race publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative action programs.”

    Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such a taint?

    Ron Paul learned from David Duke's failed campaign exactly what to do to advance the white supremacist agenda. The perfect subterfuge!

  •  If *all* someone wants to do is win elections, (0+ / 0-)

    … they don't care why you vote for their party.

    If they can bully you, cajole you, fool you, scare you, hypnotize you, or peer-pressure you into voting for their party, they will.

    They don't care which method ends up working.

    They don't care what words they have to say to get you to do what they want.

    All they care about is that you do end up doing what they want.

    My guess is that this diary is only on the rec list because enough people don't like this situation.

    They figure they vote against things like war and torture in order to actually put a stop to those things. Not just to have one party label instead of another party label.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 02:41:44 AM PST

  •  let's see (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper, citizenx, sviscusi, jiffypop

    the video does not mention that Afghanistan supported and knowingly abetted al Qaeda in planning and executing 9-11 attacks on the US

    the video says that President Obama promised to end the wars.  He has drawn down substantially in Iraq, which he said he would.  He has supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning.

    the video does not mention that Pakistan aided and abetted al-Qaeda in their attacks on us. They did.

    In other words the entire ad is based on lies and deliberate distortions.

  •  I'd rather see Obama's messages become (0+ / 0-)

    actions than listen to more 'sweet nothings' from anyone.

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 06:16:09 AM PST

  •  You can't find (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whimsical, Plantsmantx

    a better way to oppose the war than to promote Paul's message? You might notice that he lies about Obama's stance on Afghanistan.

    Republicans and Democrats both think Paul is a fringe kook, living in a fantasy land. There's a reason for that.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:01:09 AM PST

  •  IMAGINE! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Imagine if the person who promised to pull those troops out changed his mind...

    Except he didn't. Iraq will have no military presence as of very soon, and Afghanistan (which he never once promised to end until the job was done) will soon follow.

    It's a good argument that contains a false smear against our current President.

  •  I wish someone would do a serious diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on Ron Paul. A serious diary and not just another hit piece.

    That someone would have to understand and be able to explain the pervasiveness of the MIC on our society, its culture and economy. They would also have to understand something of the Catholic faith and its generally held position on abortion and execution.They would have to understand economics, specifically the Austrian school. They would have to understand the function of the FED, the Patriot Act, the pros and cons of legalizing contraband drugs. They would have to have a pretty fair understanding of the Medicare and Social Security programs, as well as the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy.

    Paul has been serving in the U.S. congress since the seventies. He has been as critical of the Republicans as he has of the Democrats. He is reviled by his own party and perhaps even more so (if that's possible) by the Democratic party.

    But the most puzzling thing, at least to me, is how Paul has been sandbagged by the corporate media. It is actually terrified of his message I believe. That alone is worth giving Paul a fair hearing.

    •  Not only does a white supremacist trickster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      deserve to be sandbagged, but his ridiculous ad should also not be promoted on a progressive blog. Why doesn't he mention his vote for the first foray into Afghanistan?

      Sadly, the Ron Paul effect is worse than crack on some people on the right and left. That is more frightening than the man himself.

      •  Operation Enduring Freedom (0+ / 0-)

        from Wiki:

        The aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it.

        I'm responding with this quote not to answer your question "Why doesn't he mention his vote...." but to put his vote in some context.

        As for why, I would say that it doesn't have a place in an ad that is fundamentally arguing against illegal wars and occupations. I doubt that if Paul had had the foresight to know O.E.F. was to last more than ten years he would have voted for it. But then I don't know his mind.

        I don't think the ad is ridiculous and I am glad to see it promoted here at a liberal site. In fact, I would like to see more ads like this one produced to counter the constant propaganda from the M.I.C.

  •  I'm not asking you to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "ignore" Paul's video, but if you're an honest progressive, and you want to promote anything from the Ron Paul campaign, it's really your responsibility to INCLUDE something about Paul's abhorrent pathetic racist views, expressed in his newsletters, in the 1990s, not the 1950s. in case you thought, oh well, he's old, people were racist back then. For your own good, too: You wouldn't want people to think you were a white supremacist anti-Semitic  fool, would you?

    There's been some comments in this thread on Paul's racist screeds, but I don't see any links or examples. I think many don't really understand how abhorrent the stuff he put out in his for-profit newsletters was.

    Here's one link with copies of the newsletter:

    and another link

    As a reporter for The New Republic who researched Paul's newletters wrote:'

    "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

    subscription wall link:

    Yes, those ugly traditions in American politics can have an attractive populist or isolationist theme, but progressives can find anti-war anti-Empire views to support that do NOT come with know-nothing opportunistic racism.

    •  I've posted several examples and links n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennifer poole
    •  newsletters unlike other views (0+ / 0-)

      As many here point out, folks on all sides of the political spectrum portray his views on some issues  as extreme and beyond the pale. Yet he has continued to espouse and defend them with little change for decades with no apparent concern for who was offended.

      If he truly believed the items in question, why is not doing the same  with them.  Why deny them?

      Whatever anyone thinks of his ideas, it is very hard to claim he is afraid to say what he believes.

      •  again it's not true (0+ / 0-)

        that he has continued to defend the views and that he is "not afraid" to say what he believes.

        At different times, Paul has said he had "no knowledge" about the horrific newsletters, at other times he has said what's the big deal, and sometimes he has said I didn't write them,  somebody else did. Which to me is the worst argument of all.

        But even if it were true that Paul was "not afraid to say what he believes" -- which of course is not true because he has not discussed the abhorrent things he has written about black men, gays and Jewish people on the national stage during this 2011 campaign at all -- you really want to defend abhorrent views on that grounds? You think that adds moral stature? Bah humbug to that argument.

        My guess is you are arguing in the abstract, you have not actually read the newsletters. because they are indefensible, as well as utterly pathetic and stupid, as well, written by a very small and frightened person. Read them. and weep. Or else, maybe you really don't agree the views are abhorrent at all.

  •  Ron Paul gets it right on this one. (0+ / 0-)

    And on auditing the Fed. Hmmm.

    Why does wingnut sauce taste like victory?

    It is not certain that everything is uncertain. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

    by BusyinCA on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:35:09 AM PST

  •  Not an effective ad. (0+ / 0-)

    Hyperbolic narrator is so over the top as to make the reaction amusement, rather than pondering the points contained within. Completely undermines the purpose of the ad.

    And while I agree with Ron Paul's stance on the war, Id rather have someone in office who would expand the wars by a factor of 1000 then Paul.  His domestic policy ideas are, in a word, insane.

    And if, by some miracle, he becomes the nominee, expect his insane domestic policy ideas to sink him in the general and Obama to cruise to a re-election of Reagan-esque proportions.

    There aren't as many single-issue voters as people think out there.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:58:33 AM PST

    •  Our wars are alreayd criminal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      & you want to increase them by a thousand fold.

      I want my SS and Medicare & would fight Paul every step of the way on those issues, but he is 100% right on our criminal foreign policy and is the only candidate with the possible exception of Huntsman who wants to change things.

      And if Paul becomes the GOP nominee expect Obama to be rightfully shamed in ad after ad for having continued criminal policies and failure to preserve, protect and defned the most basic civil rights & liberties enshrined in our Constitution.

      •  I don't want to, no. (0+ / 0-)

        But better that than having Paul as president.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 01:49:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  in no way is it better (0+ / 0-)
          •  We disagree. (0+ / 0-)

            I feel the disinitegration of our country that would occur during a Paul presidency is far worse than the wars; to the point where if those are my only two choices I will vote for the one that will expand the wars. I will work as hard as I can to ensure that those are NOT my chocies, however.

            You don't feel that way. And you're entitled to feel that.

            I suggest we leave it at that.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:04:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  If there's a more important issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    than the one addressed in this ad I'd like to know what it is.

    Congrats to Ron Paul & I hope he does open millions of eyes.

  •  A lot of heat upstream. Several facts seem to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    stand out.  It's a brilliant statement, on its own.  But there's risk in promoting it because its author is a certified loon (with apologies to actual loons).   But the elephant in the room is, why hasn't Obama been "running" this ad?  Seems that, more than anything, this is a huge embarrassment to our party.  

  •  Ha, ha, ha! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shwing, Plantsmantx

    You actually seriously think this hysterical, over-the-top, melodramatic piece of alliterative nonsense (this ad uses the word "imagine" more times than John Lennon sang it) should be taken seriously?


    The topics discussed in it are certainly open for candid discussion, as are a number of other topics, but it still strikes at the point that this is an ad for Ron Paul. No mistaking it. Period. So don't come to me with, "but you're putting party over policy" bull.

    Look at his voting record. Ron Paul falls in line with the GOP. Stop fooling yourselves.

    No, Obama is not perfect, but that's why people should go join the 99% in the streets. Make him and Congress support policies that help the 99%. You can start by working on the two amendments being pushed out there: one to kill corporate personhood and the other to get money out of political campaigns.

    Stop thinking Ron Paul is an "alternative." He's not. He's the best shill corporations could ever have.

    •  What? (0+ / 0-)

      Ron Paul is personally liked by both Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, who have each worked with him on many issues. Yes, they consider him crazy on some stuff. But the also view him as someone with great integrity.

      You don't know him personally. Bernie and Peter do. They vouch for him. Your shrill "shill" accusation rings hollow. We need better Democrats, and how. But we also need better Republicans. Ron Paul is one, however much we will resolutely oppose his stance on abortion, and don't want to return to the gold standard &c. Nobody here will vote for him; but if we can encourage people who are going to vote one sort of Republican or another to vote for him, the world will be a slightly better place.

  •  Nothing like stating the obvious (0+ / 0-)

    But I rejoice that a Republican did just that.

  •  A racist white supremacist seccesionist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    who voted for the first Afghanistan war has no place making an antiwar ad. It's sorta like the pro life lunatics who kill to show that abortion is wrong.

    Ron Paul has a plan and it isn't to stop wars, it is to start race wars. He is following the plan that was written in his newsletter as well as advice from the like of David Duke - to use issues like the war and marijuana legislation to appeal to young voters and liberals. At this point it looks like Charles Manson could have made the ad and some folks would want it to "go viral" because it's against war and Barack Obama the great satan.


  •  Ron Paul's Paleo Movement is at work here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    From "Reason" a libertarian destination
    - emphasis, mine.
    Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?

    ...The newsletters' obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic "paleolibertarian" movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new "paleo" coalition.

    Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

    The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."

  •  Voted Against The Patriot Act.. (0+ / 0-)

    Voted against sending troops to Iraq.
    Speaks truth to power every day.
    Otherwise reviled as a nutcase on Dkos.

    •  I think the nutcase thing (0+ / 0-)

      probably has to do with the teensy part where Ron Paul would bring about an apocalyptic Randian nightmare that would literally destroy enlightenment civilization and replace it with feudalism.

      But he mouths the right things on the drug war and the Partriot act so I guess he's ok, huh?

      •  This Is How I See It... (0+ / 0-)

        We didn't burn all that money and bankrupted the country on Iraq, a lot of what Paul says about local government would be irrelevant.

        Occupy, Wikileaks, and other assorted movements are slowly, but surely uncovering what a patently corrupt country...hell, world we are.

        I feel like I can work with him, because unlike 99.9% of pols, he's intellectually honest. It's his human qualities, not necessarily his policy, would cause me to vote for him.

  •  No it doesn't. Ron Paul is not a progressive (0+ / 0-)

    politician by any stretch of the imagination.

    206 tips for a politician that would give us air we can't breathe, water we can't drink, and food we can't eat.

    Yeah, real progressive guy.

    "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

    by JNEREBEL on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 10:53:22 AM PST

  •  2 Mehs and a big Feh (0+ / 0-)

    Watched this to the end and found that I wouldn't like that ad, even if the Democrats came up with it! Using two "traditional enemies" as examples of occupiers was a bad tactic from the start and frankly the ad never got any better with its gradual escalation of yelling and threat.  There was an attempt at some insight, but the ad was definitely not 'great', nor does it deserve to go viral.  If the Dems had created the ad, I would be incensed at how badly the information was handled and manipulated; but it's just Ron Paul, who is just a mildly more sophisticated Republican sheep, in goats' clothing!  

claude, Thumb, Chi, grollen, Sparhawk, roonie, glitterscale, native, importer, wytcld, Shockwave, Heimyankel, Wintermute, brendan1963, HootieMcBoob, WI Deadhead, Gareth, Gustogirl, afox, magnetics, rhp, whenwego, phillies, rabel, farmerhunt, pedrito, interguru, recontext, Ryvr, hangingchad, ManhattanMan, DeadB0y, bula, Bluehawk, Calidrissp, lcrp, 313to212, ScienceMom, Mosquito Pilot, Emmy, vacantlook, rmx2630, sb, averageyoungman, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, salmo, tle, qofdisks, unclejohn, Alice Venturi, run around, truong son traveler, chidmf, trinityfly, Lepanto, owlbear1, majcmb1, jimstaro, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, RichterScale, Tunk, Rydra Wrong, WisePiper, laviolet, Ginny in CO, dsteffen, quiet in NC, Cory Bantic, bookwoman, peacestpete, SocioSam, Arsenic, Jim P, martini, third Party please, Knucklehead, golfervet, sherlyle, Malachite, Cartoon Peril, liberalconservative, rhetoricus, arlene, blueoasis, philipmerrill, 4Freedom, demomoke, mithra, joe shikspack, Sagebrush Bob, Preston S, middleagedhousewife, Pilgrim X, Nancy Hartley, Stripe, shaharazade, Mr Horrible, bstotts, duha, Temmoku, timewarp, bluicebank, Positronicus, psychodrew, tbirchard, david mizner, jeanette0605, HeartlandLiberal, deepeco, Strabo, bnasley, letsgetreal, Bridge Master, pioneer111, Wreck Smurfy, cececville, Radhika, Jahiz, Vinnie Vegas, djsands, adrianrf, gundyj, hkorens, poligirl, prettyobvious, bythesea, elwior, jakebob, Therapy, Lujane, Wek, mofembot, ashowboat, paleo101, Executive Odor, priceman, slathe, Ellinorianne, Mike Taylor, greenpunx, squarewheel, fayea, Fiddlegirl, Hound Dog, DemSign, hannahlk, divineorder, Scott Wooledge, The Dead Man, banjolele, notrouble, Nailbanger, DefendOurConstitution, geebeebee, jomi, dalfireplug, stevenwag, Knarfc, strangedemocracy, jpmassar, bronxcharlie, pyegar, eXtina, GeeBee, freeport beach PA, sunny skies, Klaus, Nurse Jeckell, pixxer, DiegoUK, WattleBreakfast, Funkygal, nirbama, farbuska, elengul, Otteray Scribe, USHomeopath, Its a New Day, allenjo, tosimmonds, poorbuster, dabug, Situational Lefty, Flea, mrsgoo, marleycat, Claudius Bombarnac, muddy boots, Coastrange, Marihilda, Hayate Yagami, SteelerGrrl, MikeBoyScout, BoulderStevo, drawingporno, No one gets out alive, Take a Hard Left, ready for change, IowaBiologist, peacemongrel, jacey, roosterpoot, gnostradamus, wheatstraw, drhifive, IndieGuy, just want to comment, FreeSpeaker, dog in va, peachcreek, Tyler R, Pilkington, Karelin, geojumper, BusyinCA, Rizzo, Vote4Obamain2012, DSWright, Kayjay, mumtaznepal, NeuronFlash, deconite, CalBearMom, TheLawnRanger, Rosedale, Ray Pensador, nuclear winter solstice, Dancun74, Tom Stokland, FreedMan, delilah 52, Setsuna Mudo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site