Funny, I just posted the video over at my blog with a little bit of commentary...

What’s disturbing about Paul's foreign policy proposals is that he advocates “non-interventionist” policies (you can see an example in the above video). While he’s certainly right that the US never should have gone into Iraq, it’s obvious that a non-interventionist policy can be just as catastrophic as the type of interventionist one that Bush has instated (despite originally campaigning against in 2000). Neither extreme is healthy.

If Paul were president in 1994, would he have pursued Clinton’s disastrous non-interventionist policy of ignoring what everyone could plainly see was happening in Rwanda? Hundreds of thousands of Hutus killed Tutsi and Tutsis killed Hutus while Clinton’s Administration ignored the situation because he was in the middle of his first term and he didn’t want another situation like that which happened in Somalia in 1993 (which the movie and book “Black Hawk Down” is based on).

The same disastrous non-interventionist path is even now being followed in Darfur, where a void of US troops (they’re all in Iraq) has crippled the UN’s capability to intervene in what almost everyone agrees has been yet another terrible genocide. Did Paul applaud Clinton’s non-interventionist stance with regard to Rwanda? Does Paul applaud Bush’s non-interventionist stance in with regard to Darfur? These are questions that he needs to be asked over and over again.

Concurred, Arlen. And such a debate would be extremely healthy for our democracy. Ironically enough, however, as discussed in the video clip, various folks in the Republican party have actually made efforts to keep Paul out of further Republican debates!

While you may find points you agree or disagree about in Paul's position --- or wish to learn more about --- I'm sure you join me in my astonishment that some feel he should not even be allowed to discuss such issues as part of a Presidential nomination campaign.

I'm sure you join me in my astonishment that some feel he should not even be allowed to discuss such issues as part of a Presidential nomination campaign.

I agree with you 100%. The attempts that some of the GOPers (Giuliani in particular) have made to try and marginalize Paul and keep him out of their discourse border on sheer absurdity.

OT
May 26, 2007 at 02:31:03

White House Agency Takes Aim at Paper Ballots

"Last week, this advisory group for the commissioners of the count, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), was putting the final touches on their draft for the next version of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG II). Once the work of the TGDC is completed, the EAC Commissioners, four white house appointees, will have the final say over these standards for the e-voting equipment to be used in America's elections."

mick

Brad, the statement "he absolutely killed" as a compliment illustrates our worship of war and violence on this weekend that worships the god of war.

I see miles and miles of crosses where "warriors" are buried. No other civilized nation calls them that. They are dead human beings who died for the White What House. Thats all.

And I would not trust any republican presidential candidate, after observing this republican president do his thing. Nor trust 98% of republican congress members after watching the 109th republican led congress for a decade do the bushie thang.

I don't even trust dems who took a weak stance on the war by voting for it some 4-5 years ago, and/or who voted again for it last week. Trust must be earned.

It is no longer what they say, it is what trail do they leave by their votes that I look to. Words are sicko cheap these daze.

And speaking of SICKO, I revealed that about half a million people are killed by "friendly fire" in the US "health" system each year in this Bradblog post a while back.

And the "turristssss" kill only a few americans each year, compared to "friendly fire" where americans end the life of other americans. Eat your hearts out "turrists".

Arlen, I think Ron Paul made it clear, that he meant a non-interventionist policy as far as nation-building...NOT as far as humanitarian efforts like Darfur! There is a BIG difference! He means non-interventionist policy as far as attacking other countries for our "supposed nationional interests"...LIKE OIL! NOT for humanitarian reasons.

Big Dan #6 "LIKE OIL"

If you worked for Halliburton, of course:

Halliburton will shift some 70 percent of its capital investment over the next five years to the Eastern Hemisphere, which includes oil and gas zones in the Middle East, Russia, Africa, the North Sea and East Asia, the company's chief said Tuesday from his new headquarters in Dubai.

(Halliburton Cuts And Runs, emphasis added). Perhaps they had to do that to work the end against the middle (east)?

Iran and Iraq signed a deal for an oil pipline from Iraq to Iran:

Iraq oil minister Hussein Al Shahristani and Hasan Kazemi Qomi, the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, struck the deal, according to a top ministry spokesman.

(Iran - Iraq Oil Pipeline). Does anyone think Cheney was over there threatening Iran for no reason? Was this oil pipeline deal a cause for war ... the false flag being the nuclear issue?

Blackwater ... don't lay any "warriors" off at this juncture ... more booty in sight perhaps?

I think for us to have a true debate on the subject of Ron Paul's beliefs, we should probably find out what they are. It might make it easier to see the pros and cons of his intentions when you see the voting record and speeches he has made to Congress:

Ron Paul speaks to Congress about History of the: Neo-Cons, Why they hate us, Federal Reserve, US monetary system, Liberty v. Security:

Ron Paul's Voting Record.

my personal opinion is that Ron Paul is inarguably correct regarding both American foreign and domestic policy, to quote another headline:"How can BUSH possibly bring freedom to the middle east when he's clearly bringing fascism to US at home?" there are times when we may need to help another country BUT..
(and Ron Paul hasnt mentioned this) how in the hell is scattering tons and tons of depleted uranium munitions particles (with half life of 1/2 billion years) HELPING?! - this is HELP ?!! NO NO NO !!! it is scorched earth genocidal policy and a MAJOR crime against humanity that needs to be addressed and punished !! if this "WAR" is about HAVING OIL.. do YOU want to glow in the dark and DIE for radiation poisioning for being on an oil rig crew ? this "WAR" is about OIL yes, more about keeping it in the ground forever to keep prices UP gouging us all. this is part why HALLIBURTON CORPORATION (who dick cheney was CEO of) has BLACKWATER MERCENARIES over there fighting too, doing things OUR military is NOT ALLOWED TO DO to the people that live there! no bid government contract given to halliburton too, go figger !! Ron Paul didnt mention these things, I sure as hell DO.. We The People ARE paying for this in more ways than JUST "reputation" or "global opinion" of the US.

It is a matter of trust. Who trusts republicans after this presidency and the 109th republican congress?

Here is the respect the neoCons should get when they show up for applause:

Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's former Chief of Staff, was showered with a chorus of boos and catcalls from students and faculty of the University of Massachusetts while receiving an honorary degree Friday. Protesters, who caught the embarrassing scene on video, attached anti-Card signs to their robes and drowned out Provost Charlena Seymour's remarks about Card's "public service." Even faculty sitting on stage joined in on the action, screaming their disapproval while holding signs that read "Card: No Honor, No Degree."

(Raw Story, emphasis added).

#1 Arlen: I believe your post represents an inherent issue in this country regarding the inability to look below surface level. Black Hawk Down was an emotionally charged movie that accurately depicted a specific moment in time and the failures of not seeing the bigger picture when it came to limited military intervention.

But we have been conducting covert operations throughout the world for at least 50 years. We do this for various purposes:

Africa - sale of small arms weapons, testing grounds for new drugs and vaccines, control over natural resources, other nefarious things (I can elaborate if you would like-just do not think it is appropriate here).

South America - same but not as much medical testing.

Middle East - I hope this is now obvious.

Also, Clinton's supposed non-interventionist policy led to the bombing of Iraq from the day he took office until he left office. Also, let us not forget the intervention in Kosovo.

We need to understand more about the economic hit men, the black ops, discriminating policy toward sanctioning countries, expedited military activity, UN activities, NATO, etc.

I am still trying to understand the specifics of Ron Paul's non-intervention policy. But from what I can see so far, not a single candidate Democrat or Republican is anywhere close to this.

On a general note, talking about the death af a handful of brave servicemen and comparing it to the death of over 4,000 Americans (including contractors) and over 600,000 innocent iraqis might be a bit difficult to understand.

What is the good of intervening if you make things worse? A CBS video I saw shows that Rudolph Giuliani still doesn't understand even when terrorists clearly explain their motives, but Ron Paul does.

Hey Arlen, Ron Paul is the most critical out of all the Republican candidates concerning butthead Bill's oversees record!

He thinks Bill is a damn traitor to the constitution and our founders, just like chimp boy!

Clinton = Bush = Clinton = Bush

Reality Check #8

Paul has voted sensibly on Iraq war issues, but his record on some issues could be troubling:

"pro-life" voting record ... mixed civil rights voting record ... mixed business voting record ... mixed votes on rehabilitation ... mixed record on public education ... Supports ... school prayer ... Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling ... in ANWR ... Voted NO on ... Kyoto Protocol ... anti-environment votes ... Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition ... pro-free trade voting record ... Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money ... Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads ... supports Unlimited campaign contributions ... pro-gun rights ... mixed record on public health issues ... mixed record on military issues ... a voting record restricting immigration ... mixed record on union issues ... anti-senior voting record

(Link, emphasis mine).

I'm a Liberal but I support gun rights. I'm a Conservative but, I'm as much pro-life as I am pro-choice (depends on the situation). Don't hate homosexuals and I strongly believe illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be faced.

Where do I neatly fit in? A moderate who has no real party. Moderation is the enemy of both Parties.

I'm voting for Ron Paul as a write-in if he isn't on the ballot. If Ron Paul makes sense to you, do the same. Face it, neither party is listening. Ron Paul makes sense running as a Republican because he follows the definition of true conservative ideals, not the NeoCons who co-opted it. We need to vote do-nothing incumbents out of office (Lieberman, Clinton, Spector and the like). We need to get rid of Rovian caging tactics and BS electronic voting.

I think Ron Paul's current popularity is mostly a reaction to the abuse and over use of government by the Bushies.

It's a natural reaction to consider any candidate who is talking about less government in this situation.

As a Democrat I don't see that as an automatic winner.

To me the sane thing to do is simply return to electing great leaders who will do the right thing.

To that end I've been hoping for Al Gore, but will go with John Edwards, Bill Richardson, possibly Chris Dodd or whomever the Dem candidate is.

I see this as a step back from fascism and incompetence, but not to the other end of the spectrum where there is chaos.

Call me a moderate, in this current atmosphere, but I like good government. Vote for Gore or Edwards.

Reason #15, you said:

"I'm a Liberal ... I'm a Conservative ... I'm as much pro-life as I am pro-choice"

Then you should vote for the transvestite wannabe?

As far as I am concerned, the most favorable aspect of the Ron Paul republican candidacy for president is the aspect that Brad pointed out:

The other republican candidates running for president do not want him in the remainder of the debates.

That in and of itself is enough to qualify him for my consideration, and to totally disqualify the others.

However, my pecking order at this time is Gore, Richardson, Obama, Dodd, and then Ron Paul.

In that order.

If what Ron Paul said is true, about peace candidates always winning, do you think this administration wants to drag the war on until the 08 elections so that they can all claim to be peace candidates - republicans especially included?

I've been reading Ron Paul for YEARS...he's a regular columnist for the American Free Press, which I've been posting for years, is a REAL conservative newspaper. They hate Bushco and all the neo-cons worse than WE do, and Ron Paul has written a column for years in this weekly newspaper.

I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with him WAY MORE than all other candidates except Kucinich and Gravel. I like Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel, and everyone else STINKS...ON ICE!!!

I've posted about Ron Paul years ago, before it was "trendy"...he's a REAL conservative, not the 99% "self-proclaimed" conservatives like 99% of the Republican Party, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Kristol, etc...all of those people, Ron Paul is against...he knows they are "self-proclaimed" conservatives, and have taken over the GOP.

Kucinich and Gravel are in the same boat in the Democratic Party...the same exact boat, except replace "conservative" with "liberal".

REAL liberals and REAL conservatives actually have a lot in common!!! These other people in the GOP and Dem Party? What exactly are they???

Dredd #14

Paul has voted sensibly on Iraq war issues, but his record on some issues could be troubling:

OK-So we are of "non-intervention" and foreign policy. Cool, because I think that foreign policy is the most troubling issue this country faces at the moment.

I think the second greatest issue is runaway government spending using the federal reserve. I think his view on this is consistent, follows the constitution, and will allow for a logical way to avoid the depression that has been calculated to hit this country within the next 15 years (due to social security, medicare, borrowed money from other countries-we are $10 trillion in debt on the books).

As far as the other issues, I believe Ron Paul believes in local rather than national powers.

"pro-life" voting record - he is against abortion this is clear. He is also against the federal government regulating anything to do with abortion. His belief in diminishing the powers of the executive branch (he talks extensively about this and is consistent in his voting on it) means that although he personally is staunchly against abortion, he also recognizes that the executive branch has no authority to write or interpret the law. So therefore I trust him more than the rest. In my opinion, the rest might use abortion as a negotiating tool to get some other power to the executive (this has been going on for decades). These type of executive/legislative deals is also something that Ron Paul has never engaged in.

mixed civil rights voting record-this may be misleading, you are quoting the ACLU. I think he actually has the most positive civil rights record out of every other candidate. He consistently votes to not accept the patriot act (the most anti-patriotic piece of legislation ever). He voted against the military commissions act, he voted against any invasion of human rights/civil rights. Again because he is against federal control, he is giving an equal opportunity and removing restrictions that have consistently corrupted the opportunities that most minorities seek. Read or listed to Malcolm X - ballots or bullets, it will shed light on the ACLU, "supposed" black leaders and politicians that talk a big game but have left minorities in this country (specifically african americans) way in the dust. The more the federal government controls, the less likely natural forces will allow race to disappear. The #1 reason for african americans in this country to live under institutionalized hardship is the federal government (see COINTELPRO).

mixed business voting record-this is true for companies that receive unspeakable corporate welfare, as for the United States building back the small company base and removing barriers to entry in many industries...no one can hold a candle to Ron Paul.

I can go through all of the others if you would like, but in general I request that you and every voter look behind the superficial layer of good/bad and see if a candidate has integrity, if they are cansistent with what they say and how they vote, if they are easy to corrupt/blackmail, if they can relate to lower/middle/sub-elite classes of Americans, if they believe in the sovereignty of the US and the rest of the world, if they have more loyalty to an NGO or a secret society than to the american people, if they speak with a depth of knowledge and not just talking points.

Again many of these polls that say "we give him a 45% on X" or "we give him a mixed result on y" are done by organizations that have led us to the situation we are now in. I fear greatly for this country. This country has given me everything I have, everything I know. I will no longer let other people interpret the raw information. I watch the interviews with the candidates myself. I interpret the debates myself. I review the voting record myself, sometimes reading the bill (when most of conress do not-except of course for ron paul, he will never sign a bill that he does not have a chance to read).

So again, let me know if there is anything else to clarify, but I am sure you can drill deeper yourself.

Reality Check #20

You said "I think that foreign policy is the most troubling issue this country faces at the moment".

Agreed (not forgetting electronic voting problems).

You make a good case in the remainder of your post.

Dredd, you are correct. Sorry I left it out. Without voting integrity all else is kind of moot. I will look into Ron's stand on this compared to the other candidates and get back to you on it. Happy polling