Could Ron Paul’s Iowa surge finally open up political debate on Israel and Iran attack?

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

Ron Paul is apparently coming on in Iowa, second in two Republican polls, a potential frontrunner. The media blackout may finally be ending. But the Wall Street Journal says Ron Paul’s Iowa race “faces hurdle”:

The problem: Mr. Paul’s anti-interventionist views on foreign policy. “‘That’s probably the hardest part,’ said Mr. Luethje [a volunteer for the Paul campaign], whose regular job is making eyeglasses. ‘A lot of Republicans are of this Christian mind-set that we need to defend Israel.'”

I finally caught up with the attack that mild Bob Schieffer of CBS launched on Ron Paul uncharacteristically on his Sunday morning political show last week, for violating the creed of the new establishment on terrorism and Iran. This is nuts.

Schieffer says angrily that Paul believes that 9/11 happened because of actions the United States took. And Schieffer tells Paul he’s wrong, that no report says that it is the case.

“That’s exactly what the 911 commission said…. our policies definitely had an influence,” Paul says. Then he states, beautifully, the case that they want to do us harm “because we’re free and prosperous” is a dangerous idea.

Schieffer scoffs at the idea that we should “be nicer to Iran’s leaders.”

Paul: “we have 12,000 diplomats. I’m suggesting we ought to use some of them…” The Cuban missile crisis was resolved diplomatically. “We didn’t say we’re going to attack [Soviet Union over Cuba]… the greatest danger for us now is to overreact… Iran doesn’t have a bomb, there’s no proof…”

Schieffer again contradicts Paul, says that no one in our gov’t is threatening military action. “May I correct you. The United States government is not going to attack Iran.”

Paul’s triumph: “But they say, Nothing is off the table.” That means military action. 

Glenn Greenwald was on this a week ago, in typical steel-trap fashion:

In this 7-minute clip, Schieffer repeatedly mocks, scoffs at, and displays his obvious contempt for, two claims of Paul’s which virtually no prominent politician of either party would dare express: (1) American interference and aggression in the Muslim world fuels anti-American sentiment and was thus part of the motivation for the 9/11 attack; and (2) American hostility and aggression toward Iran (in the form of sanctions and covert attacks) are more likely to exacerbate problems and lead to war than lead to peaceful resolution, which only dialogue with the Iranians can bring about…

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think this is why the powers that be are now building up Gingrich, and at the same time trying to destroy Herman Cain’s campaign. They want to consolidate the religious right vote for one candidate (Gingrich) that they find reliable and that they hope can beat Paul in Iowa,… Read more »

You should see Greenwald’s latest Richard Cohen. Glennzilla is the MAN. I love that dude. Ron Paul is the most important national political figure we have right now. There, I said it. Don’t get me wrong, I think alot of what he says is bat shit insane, but one does… Read more »

Yeah,the last American patriot has gone from unelectable to racist,gullible anti progressive(whatever that is)in the blink of CBS’s eye. The wacko racist Zionist monsters that control US fear his election,when they really should see that his election will bring peace to their chosen nation by making them choose sanity instead… Read more »

One big battle for the 99% is that we (the 99%) live IN the environment — we breathe polluted air, drink the polluted water, live on the polluted land — and the 1% believe (with Paul, I suppose) that we have no right (No right at all, sir!) to limit… Read more »

Paul is going to win serious backing the day after the NYT has its first Op-ed by Ismail Haniyeh. Control tower to pigs . Takeoff !