01.07
Hotair.com did their obligatory post-incident hit piece on Ron Paul last week. It’s getting old. Every post they do on Dr. Paul claims he is an “isolationist” and implies heavily that he is a complete wacko who just doesn’t understand how badly America needs to have military bases in over 50 countries. While bases are constantly getting closed state-side, we are building new ones all over the globe:
Here’s the exchange that Hot Air is referring to:
And, here’s what atheist super-blogger Allahpundit wrote about Paul’s comments:
I’ve already written about how his isolationist garbage leads inexorably to nonsense like this, so let me just add two points. First, and most obviously, there is no U.S. occupation of Yemen or Nigeria. The only way the airline plot is a reaction to U.S. “occupation” is if you accept the jihadist premise that there are no Arab/Muslim nation-states but rather only one Islamic caliphate waiting to be born. Only in that way does the U.S. occupation of Iraq warrant a reprisal from, say, a Pakistani or Yemeni. And yet, needless to say, if Britain was attacked tomorrow and Obama pledged U.S. forces to assist in the reprisal, Paul would be the first guy to scream that we should scrupulously observe national boundaries and not go fighting another country’s battles for it.
Second, as usual, his facts are wrong. He uncritically accepts Abdulmutallab’s assertion that the bomb plot was retaliation for the U.S. airstrike on jihadi camps in Yemen. Not so: As Jake Tapper explained yesterday, this turd had already been mobilized and had even bought his Northwest ticket before we struck. Purely and simply, America’s Greatest Patriot is parroting propaganda cooked up by jihadist pieces of sh*t because it happens to fit his insane foreign policy agenda. Support him and his disciples at your peril.
I have a question. Why is it wrong to “uncritically accepts Abdulmutallab’s assertion that the bomb plot was retaliation for the U.S. airstrike on jihadi camps in Yemen?” Think about the logic here. If someone is willing to blow themselves to pieces for a belief, why would they lie about the reason? It’s not like he’s claiming innocence. No, he’s saying he intended to blow up the plane. How does lying protect him in any way? What other reason could their possibly be that could be worth hiding? No, the most logical conclusion is that he is telling the truth.
And, for the millionth time, non-intervention is not the same thing as isolation. For example, Mexico hasn’t been involved in a war with an outside enemy since 1848(Spanish-American War), yet nobody claims Mexico is “isolationist.” They just don’t get involved in other people’s affairs. It’s their right to do so. They had the opportunity to ally with Germany in WWI, but refused:
On January 19, 1917, a telegram was forwarded from Germany to Mexico proposing military action should the United States enter World War I by declaring war against Germany. The offer included material aid to Mexico to assist in the reclamation of territory lost during the Mexican-American War, specifically the American states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Carranza formally declined Zimmermann’s proposals on April 14, by which time the U.S. had declared war on Germany.
