Read these two statements about terrorism.
Ron Paul: “They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”
Osama Bin Laden: “Contrary to what Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom — let him tell us then: why did we not attack Sweden?”
And this one from Alan Greenspan about the Iraq War: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
These three statements come from three bizarre quarters. One, a presidential candidate who doesn’t have a hope in hell of becoming president. Two, the biggest bastard on the planet. Three, a man who had the power to do something about our debt crisis, but didn’t lift a finger.
Yet these three statements have one thing in common: they speak the plainest common sense.
As such, they stand out like lonely buoys on an ocean of BS about terrorism and the Iraq War. Which raises the question: why is this? Why are we, as a nation, still suckers for Bush’s rhetoric about “the war on terror”? Why do we buy his BS about the Iraq War? Why are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suckers for it as well, since neither of them want our soldiers to get the hell out of Iraq? Why do we fall for blowhards like Bush and Giuliani, instead of absorbing the common sense of Ron Paul? What the hell is going on here? Are we Americans terminally stupid?
For those of you unfamiliar with Ron Paul’s views, here are three key statements from him:
1. “They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East for years. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting?”
2. “I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”
3. Back in November 19, 1997, in a letter to President Bill Clinton: "Policy toward Iraq is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the U.S. taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel. "
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave
Whilst your commands are valid, they're delivered in a divisive manner. "Nation of Suckers / Terminally Stupid"? If these are people you're trying to reach out to, perhaps not starting with insults would be a good place to start...
Just a thought.
2 - Steve
I understand why this article may seem divisive, however Paul has not been readily accepted by the MSM or the Republican party in general - because in my opinion, there are huge interests that would be adversely affected should Dr. Paul become President of the United States.
Practically everyone in Paul's campaign has experienced the negativity in some fashion or another. The author is no doubt aware of these
issues.
3 - Adam Ash
Dave:
Maybe you can be calm about it, but I'm exasperated. It drives me crazy that we're spending all that money in ANOTHER COUNTRY, on killing people, when it could be spent in OUR COUNTRY, on helping people. It's insane.
Prof. Stiglitz says the Iraq War is costing a TRILLION DOLLARS. There are people who say it will go as high as THREE TRILLION.
Why are we wasting our money on some asshole place in the Middle East when we could be spending it here?
We could make ourselves totally oil-independent if we spent a trillion dollars on here, and still have money over to improve public education and start repairing our infra-structure and give everyone a free college education.
Doesn't it drive you crazy? I was actually pulling my punches, and only towards the end lapsed into a screed.
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH US?
Future historians will look back and shake their heads in befuddlement. They'll say the US was in the grip of a psychosis. It's your and my TAX DOLLARS that are being wasted. This is what they're doing with MY MONEY.
I'm so exasperated I could eat a car. And Hillary and Obama say we should stay in Iraq. They've drunk the Kool-Aid, too. What's the matter with them? Have they dropped their brains somewhere in Washington?
Consider the cost, that's what I'm saying. I don't want another cent of my money going to Iraq. I want it spent HERE, in MY country, in MY state, in MY city, in MY neighborhood, on MY people.
AAAAAARGH!!!!!!
Adam Ash
4 - Rolland
Man speaks the truth. Way to tell it like it is.
5 - Mike in Boston
AMEN AMEN AMEN
Congratulations. You have eloquently put into words a maddening frustration I have been feeling for years.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I am sick and tired of being embarrassed to be an American citizen. We need to take some pride in ourselves and our country. We need to have some real courage. End the war. Bring our brave soldiers home. Stop picking on little guys like a global schoolyard bully. And take care of OUR country.
6 - ostrova
If it makes you feel any better, we probably wouldn't spend that money on schools anyway. In this country? When was the last time our government spent money on kids?
7 - john
it falls on deaf ears. too many people are polarized. you have the age old christian vs muslim stuff...islamic demonization etc etc. then you have special interests having a good time with gov bank roll. then you have american jews who seem to care more about israel then united states...OUR country.
we gonna go to war with iran despite bush being caught with his pants down by the intelligence report. we going to build a bases in every middle eastern country we will not be satisfied obviously to secure the oil just incase china or russia or even europe decide to challenge us.
we americans are not bothered about all of this still..the vast majority is still happy. one day out of the blue more tragedy will strike maybe not here on our shores but to our people and soldiers off shore...BTW last time i checked those people fighting wars and being stationed in other countries are ALSO AMERICANS!!! to say that well we will limit the battle to them is RETARDED. so its better to keep the war going..(War on terror..is a never ending war and cannot ever end). then to listen to our fore fathers. oh well, we have the coalition of the willing in iraq. hahah what a joke. the brits are leaving in 08. the 100k+ american soldiers + another 150-200+ capitalistic money loven contractors who undermine our very soldiers.
yes we should stay the course! yes we should get the dollar devalued cuz hey we get to export our goods and thats the only effect that will happen!! yay!!
viva america!
8 - saint martha
I'm a fifty four year old mother and grandmother. I take no offense whatsoever to the way this article is written; in fact, it's one of the best I've read. Sometimes being slapped in the face with the horrific truth about what the hell is wrong with us can waken people from their psychotic slumber. I only wish Adam Ash could hijack everyone's home page tomorrow morning . . .
9 - john a
Dr. Ron Paul is running on Bush's policy from 2000 - namely to not do nation building. Dr. Paul is the only conservative republican in the race.
10 - Tim
Ron Paul will win.
11 - Angelina
Good article. I'm glad to see someone feels the same frustration as I do. Although, I see you blame the Right more than the Left for Iraq when really they should equally share the blame. It's like a big American soap opera in congress. The Right pretends to be tough on terror and the Left threatens to defund the troops. What the American sheepeople need to understand is that all the drama going on is a big distraction from what they are really up to. A Homegrown terrorism bill HR1955 just passed in the House and I now believe it is soon to be up for vote in the Senate as S 1959. Like the Patriot act this legislation violates the Bill of Rights and further strips American's of more their freedom. check it out on the gov't website it's scary.
12 - Jeremy,OH
Loved the article. You hit the nail on the head! It all starts with the corporate owned media pigs. We need a new media an outlet for real people about real issues. No more cnn,msnbc,nbc,abc,fox. We need a news channel owned by the people for the people. No more bias news, no more breaking stories about Paris Hilton, Britney, etc. that shit belongs on E entertainment it is not news worthy. Please America WAKE UP!
13 - David
You want your money spent here? Spend it here. Stop buying gasoline. Shop at local markets. Turn off the television. Don't buy any products that weren't made in America. It's really easy to bitch about where your tax dollars are being spent while at the same time spending the money you do have on goods that were made in a foreign country.
14 - Robert Moore
This was the right tone to take. There are many of us that are "Mad as Hell" and a rant like this puts fire in our belly!
15 - Julian
"One, a presidential candidate who doesn't have a hope in hell of becoming president."
Frankly I believe this attitude is one of the most visible, obvious, and unfortunate aspects of Americans being "suckered"- which I'd like to commend you for noting in this article.
Really though, one of the most pathetic parts of Americans being so completely suckered as you point out is this popular attitude that the media and POLLS (yes POLLS, inaccurate, biased, and ultimately- reflective of OTHER people's opinions and not yours) will tell you who to vote for and no one seems to care or see anything silly about that trend.
I have spoken to people who literally have said they wont vote for Ron Paul (noting that he IS their "favorite candidate...stands for everything I believe in...never seen a politician reflect my views so well, etc") because "HE'S NOT DOING WELL IN THE POLLS."
Its pathetic. First off, eschewing your true personal beliefs and honest opinions for what "the polls" say are someone else's is about as opposite to the idea of patriotism I have ever heard. Second, does it truly make sense to you from an ethical basis to support a candidate you dont agree with...simply because you have been told they have a better chance of winning than your true choice?
I have refused to vote in the past two elections, saying that neither candidate had truly earned my vote and my true support- and each time I ws told that I was "wasting my vote" or "allowing (this guy or the other) to WIN by not voting for the other guy!!" Like I said...PATHETIC. I have always personally believed that the only way you can "waste" your vote is if it does not truly reflect who you truly agree with the most.
Last, everyone seems to be ignoring some very relevant information about "the polls" they keep referring to when grasping for hard information they think will disprove Paul's support:
- USA Today reported in 2004 that there had been a RECORD LOW turnout of Republicans voting for Bush against Kerry (these are the people being called by polling agencies)...to the tune of only 6.6% of registered Republicans. In other words, Ron Paul's "scientific poll numbers" are extrapolated data representing the likely percentage of REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH IN THE LAST ELECTION who would vote for him. Those numbers are low? Go figure.
- Ron Paul is drawing support from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Greens, and even unregistered voters or those who have simply refused to vote in the past two elections (like myself). To argue that all these people are being represented in these polls (which I just explained above) is frankly beyond ridiculous. Perhaps the more accurate "poll" was the recent blind Zogby poll which polled a sample of 1,000 registered voters regardless of their party affiliation- Ron Paul ran away with it getting over 30%.
Yes, the American people are being suckered. But it is your choice whether or not to vote like one of them, or like you have a mind and an opinion of your own.
16 - Clavos
What if someone says they're not voting for him because they LIKE another candidate better?
Is there room in the political scene for those people?
Liberals, for instance?
Atheists?
17 - Tannim
I think this expresses a frustration that a lot of us Paulunteers have. My only bone of contention is the claim that Dr. Paul won't win. The People are wkaing up and getting pissed, and right on time for this election. Prepare to be surprised.
18 - nzer
Great piece. "Get Bin laden already" thats for sure...
19 - Klutometis
Why would you try to downplay the man who's raised more funds than Giuliani or Romney, won more straw polls, and clearly has more grass-roots support?
It smacks of godless hubris.
20 - Dave
Adam,
I'm actually not American so I don't feel about it as strongly you do. And in the end, what I think doesn't really count...
It's just that I arrived here from Google News when searching about Ron Paul and this article was on the front page of results. And in the battle for hearts and minds, which is what elections are all about, it would be a shame to start off on the wrong foot with those you're trying to reach.
"Greetings, Nation of Suckers!" - Comes across quite elitist.
21 - Clavos
"It smacks of godless hubris."
Hubris under any guise is not a good thing.
There is nothing wrong with godlessness.
22 - Vincent G
Maybe if we turned the topic to fear verses fear it might change it.
Which is worse:
To worry about terror attacks from abroad or
The complete collapse of the US dollar.
Regan was very successful with one ad he ran.
Where he showed that if you stack dollars one on top of the other it would reach x miles high.
This was a wakeup type of ad.
If Paul zeros in on this - lets say what if the paper of your $100 bill is worth more than the bill itself type of ad I think it will be much more effective.
This is what we are facing down the road.
And this will hit home.
You have the leading candidates again boxed in.
First because they can't change direction on the War.
And now a second time because they all said they will not raise taxes.
With their current platform they will have no choice but to double the tax.
People just don't know how bad things are.
And it's got to be pretty bad when your top accountant is running all over the place claiming the sky is falling.
There is no way the country can go forward on a status quo without a huge tax increase.
If Ron Paul wins and manages to get the changes he has outlined this maybe averted.
Change the fear to the fear of being pennyless verses the fear of being attacked by a terrorist.
Then you will win
23 - Scott
I hope this article gets picked up so more people can read it. Nicely done and crystallizes my frustration about what I feel about the war, the spending, plus the lack of attention, marginalization, and smear attempts at Ron Paul. I truly hope he wins.
The people I'm talking to are not even paying attention to the elections yet. Wake up everyone you know! Let them know about this candidate.
Lastly, Americans have overreacted like this before to their shame and detriment later. After Pearl Harbor, we interned over 100,000 Japanese-Americans in makeshift camps in the middle of nowhere. But only on the West coast. How's that for stupid? Welcome back to 1941--except this time it wasn't a military bombing. It was some rag-tag pirates that snuck one past us on 9/11. The argument, "we're fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here" is the biggest line of BS ever propagated. You're right, Adam, that history will definitely frown on the War on Terror.
24 - mary ellen
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
25 - Adam Ash
BTW,
Being a liberal, it really sticks in my craw that the only presidential candidate who speaks common sense about terrorism, is on the other side.
I really wish the Dems had a Ron Paul; I'd vote for him. Even Kusinich doesn't put it together like Ron Paul does.
It's a little off my point, but I'll probably go for Hillary because she's sensible -- God, we need one of those -- and she's a woman who cares about regular folks (witness her popularity among struggling women), and she's got the strongest leader personality of all the candidates, Rep or Dem.
Except I REALLY REALLY HATE that she's out-to-lunch on Iraq like everyone else, except for Paul, Kusinich and Richardson. Only Paul really nails the sham that this "war on terror" is. A centrist like Hillary who was a little less calculating and who had Paul's views on the "war on terror" would be my ideal candidate.
As a New Yorker, Rudy scares the hell out of me. New Yorkers just don't get why the country has fallen for this madman. He was great on crime, and heroic during 9/11, but a month later he tried to get New Yorkers to let him stay on as Mayor beyond his expired term limit -- exactly like Chavez just tried to do in Venezuela. Rudy could be worse than Bush. He's nuts, he's a despot, he's rude, and he likes to surround himself with yes-men and crooks, exactly like Bush. Not that the arch-panderer Mitt Romney (tell me what you want and I'll change into that in front of your eyes) or the affable evangelist Huckabee who doesn't believe in evolution (what!?) is any better. The GOP is really scraping the barrel. Ron Paul is the only one with a brain.
Anyway, that's my run-down on the candidates.
Back to the rant. I state here and now, that historians will say that in the early part of the 21st century, Americans lost their minds. Like lemmings they followed a fool over the cliff. We're living in a novel by Joseph Heller. It's Catch-22 time, folks. Remember the last eight years for the rest of your lives, my fellow-Americans -- because that's when America was, for the very first time, ruled by an utter fool. A failed businessman made it to the top on his daddy's name. Let's hope it's the last time we vote for a fool.
Adam Ash