Ron Paul, Joseph Farah And The Qualified Man

by: Admin
Total views: 1209
Word Count: 1397

In a commentary posted on WorldNetDaily today June 15 2007, Joseph Farah sought to inform us why he thought Ron Paul was disqualified to lead this nation as its President. Despite admitting had he been in Congress himself, his record of voting would virtually match that of Congressman Paul. He goes on to accuse him of blaming America for the attacks of September 11 2001.

To start, I would like to point out that Ron Paul has said numerous times that he does not blame America for the attacks on the World Trade Center. What he does blame is bad policy, but not as an end all reason. His exact words during the Presidential debate on FoxNews was that our policy was a "major contributing factor". He never said I blame America. To recognize the motive of why Al qaeda attacked us is not blaming America, any more than investigating the motive of why someone was murdered is blaming the victim.

Mr. Farah states that Ron Paul is "clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism". Clueless? Hardly. To call a man clueless, who has studied and written as much about American foreign policy as Dr. Paul is just plain silly.

That the Islamic Fundementalists hate us is clearly seen by all. But the reason they attacked us seems to escape most. The current mantra by the neo-cons is that they attacked us because of our freedom, because we let women drive, or because they hate the immorality that goes on in this country.

Those are reasons they don't like our culture, not reasons they have attacked us. If those were in fact the reasons they attacked us why did they not blow up the Liberty Bell, or the Motor Vehicles Department? If they hate our immorality then why didn't they blow up a movie studio in Hollywood or a red light district? When you sit down and actually start to think about the current arguments being given for why they attacked us you find that they just don't make any sense.

When Ron Paul explains his philosophy of nonintervention, he always cites history to show us the consequences of intervening in another nations internal affairs. The Congressman never fails to point out that it was a policy of nonintervention that was advocated by the founders of this great nation. His knowledge and command of the subject is obvious to all who will listen and is only dissmissed by those who actively choose to ignore him. When he gave Rudy Giulliani a reading assignment of books on the topic of "blowback" and the consequenses of a policy of foreign intervention he did so because they were written by men who are experts in their field and because they supported and expanded on the core of his argument. Does Mr. Farah believe them to be clueless as well?

Michael Scheuer, who is the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit and author of the book "Imperial Hubris", endorsed Dr.Paul's view of foreign policy at the "Educating Rudy" press conference that was held after the FoxNews debate. Michael Scheuer is a man that has dedicated years to studying and tracking Bin Laden and Al qaeda . Is he clueless as well? Does he not know better than both Mr.Farah and Dr. Paul the reasons why Al qaeda attacked us?

Congressman Paul has a column on his House website called "Texas Straight Talk" where anybody who cares to can see his position on foreign policy going back ten years. He was saying the same things ten years ago that he is saying today. Dr. Paul is also the author of several books, his latest being "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". Here is a quote from the introduction written by Lew Rockwell

"Recently, you might have heard Ron condemning foreign aid, the Iraq War, our vast and needlessly growing military budgets, bombings of this country and that, troops in most all countries in the world, and all the other meddlesome activities of the US empire. This foreign policy, Congressman Paul has pointed out, is contrary to American ideals, diminishes American liberty, and ends up making worse the very problems it seeks to alleviate.

But did you know that Ron has been delivering this message through thick and thin from his first day in Congress in 1976 until the present day? That's 31 years of prophetic warnings, 31 years of courageous stands against the tide, 31 years of being proven right by subsequent events. There are no flip-flops, backpeddles, regrets, or coverups. He has told the truth again and again, no matter what it cost him."

Mr. Farah also tried to dismiss Dr. Paul by complaining he courts the conspiracy theorist crowd. This was an attempt to marginalize congressman Paul for going on the Alex Jones show and others like it. But WorldNetDaily did not hesitate to report on Alex jones and his partner as a "member of the press" in this article and sent him out as a correspondent for another. A quote from the latter article states

"WorldNetDaily sent Alex Jones, an Austin talk show host, to Kingsville to inspect the damage caused to two buildings used in the dramatic attack. He reported finding brass shells from spent .308 ammunition, used shotgun shells marked "HATTON Pattern Solid," extensive blast damage from grenades, multiple fires in different parts of the building, bullet holes in the floor and walls and all the windows of the building blown out completely."

Granted this was before September 11 2001, but was not Alex Jones a Conspiracy theorist back then as well, or does everybody run around the state of Texas chasing black helicopters?

I would ask Mr. Farah what about the people that report for WorldNetDaily, including yourself, that believe that Vince Foster was murdered and that Ron Brown was killed to hide some secret that Bill Clinton did not want to get out? Are those not Conspiracy theories? Or do you Mr. Farah let your dislike of the Clintons allow you to accept those conspiracy theories?

And to put to rest any question of wether Ron Paul believes that 9/11 was an inside job, here is a quote from an interview of Dr. Paul by Reason Magazine.

"Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me."

I don't write this article as an adversary of Joseph Farah. On the contrary, he has been someone I have respected for a few years now. I have enjoyed and agreed with many of the commentaries he has written in the past. In fact WND is one of the first websites that I visit every morning.

I think that to disagree with Paul on the issues is fine, but to attempt to smear him through guilt by association is a pretty jive thing to do. Especially since WND has given legitimacy to some of the very people that Mr. Farah claims Paul has been flirting with.

As a nation we have to get past the smear tactics and name calling directed at those challenging our current foreign policy. We have to move past using the image of 9/11 as an emotional appeal for more war. If we can't even discuss issues rationally with out being shouted down or ridiculed, how will we ever solve any of the pressing issues of our time?

About the Author

Raymond Kish is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps., a man who loves America and wants to see it restored to its constitutional principles.

Comments

Add Comment