People seem to be more upset about the cables leaks than the military leaks.

I think from Paul’s perspective and many other American’s probably line up behind him, is that the corruption of high ranking officials in our government knows no bounds. Perhaps that’s where he is coming from.

I doubt his motive is the destruction of America, rather the restoration of the America that is not loathed its allies and ridiculed by its enemies

I do agree that exposing items that may cause deaths is way out of bounds.

and, he wants all of our military bases closed around the world, and, to bring all of our military members home, he may actually support the destruction of our facilities by the terrorists. After all, we refuse to take his great advice, so let someone else do it. It’s beyond time to consider that Ron Paul is just being Ron Paul, he needs to be disciplined by the Republican leadership for his destructive statements. Joe Wilson was admonished for saying “you lie” which in fact was a true statement.

If the steering committee supports this lunatic to head any Committees in the next Congress, it will be further proof that the loonies have truly taken over the loony bins.

Redstate and its readers are more reasonable than this hype. Ron Paul’s larger point is that Washington’s interventionist foreign policy is creating a backlash.

“I doubt his motive is the destruction of America, rather the restoration of the America that is not loathed its allies and ridiculed by its enemies”

“Ron Paul’s larger point is that Washington’s interventionist foreign policy is creating a backlash.”

This is where I got off libertarianism years ago. There is among some adherents, the same strains of utopianianism and cultishness that afflicts the left and is thoroughly at odds with human nature and human experience.

This is of course the same (unattainable) goal posited by Obama in his campaign two years ago and while he deftly evaded specifics, we know what his followers expected-that the messiah’s mellifluous tones would calm and reassure the world and swords would be beaten into ploughshares.

Instead, while Obama bows and scrapes before foreign leaders and potentates, we still have soldiers deployed worldwide (funny how reality has a way of mugging even the most entrenched ideologue) and we still haven’t joined hands with the rest of the world to sing kumbaya. Worse, for Cindy Sheehan and the useful idiots of code pink, et al-here’s Obama, though clearly lacking those attributes that would make him at ease as commander-in-chief, still attempting the role.

Ron Paul needs to understand something. He swore an Oath. Its one think to wax philosophically about the undesireability of state secrets-its another to celebrate their disclosure. If aul wants to freebase isolationism, he needs to find another job-except he seems to like running for office, rather than return to the private sector.

He tends to think the government much more reflexively denies the people of rights in a situation like this, than thinks things through, and Lieberman’s suggestion that the antiquated Espionage Ac from Woodrow Wilson’s days be not only dusted off but expanded very likely alarmed him.. I know it alarmed me.

Ron Paul didn’t say the person who leaked the material shouldn’t be prosecuted, nor say Wikileaks shouldn’t be treated the same way the NY Times should be if it releases information improperly. This stuff, though, the NY Times is asking its readers to help them analyze more swiftly to get every possible scoop from it. And the material is being released through journalist companies specifically so they will help redact material that might be too sensitive. I understand (but I could be wrong) that wikileaks asked the government to help them redact material, but the government refused. (I read that on the internet a few places, and don’t know for sure if it’s true.)

However, I don’t like Assange, I just think we need a little more level headed approach to curtailing freedom of the press than Lieberman seems inclined to entertain. Ron Paul, I suspect, was trying to get people to stop and think. (And at the time it was being widely reported that people WERE calling for an Australian to be tried for treason….)

Remember that Wikileaks ALSO facilitated the release of the East Anglia Climategate emails, which I consider to have been a huge boon to the world. The NY Times refused to print THOSE, saying they had been stolen.

I sure won’t vouch for whatever wikileaks is leaking, I’m very wary of the fact that there is still so much to come, and the fact of that ‘insurance file’ bothers me considerably. I’m sure Ron Paul isn’t vouching for them, either. However, our government has been very cavalier about the rights of CITIZENS lately, and in the face of Lieberman’s rush to impose more restrictions on those rights, he spoke out. Is anyone else in government doing that?

There’s no way Ron Paul is al queda’s favorite member of congress. You have to go through at least a dozen or so Liberals who not only believe everything he does about foreign policy, but also think that Christianity is a fundamental evil that needs to be purged from the world.

In all serious though, this is embarrassingly bad for us. Why does his district keep electing him?

defending their guy. If Ron Paul boiled kittens on TV, they would find a way to defend this loon.

Remember this is the same guy that said, in a presidential debate, that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, from poking our noses in other countries business.

The espionage game is a dangerous one to say the least. U.S. Interest seems a relative term in my estimation and much too broad to go into for this post, so I won’t.

Endangering peoples lives that protect and defend our nation is not acceptable and a price should be paid by those willing to take such action. Who decides what price seems to be the debate at this writing.

I perceive International Policies that have evolved since the end of WWII as being counter productive to our National Interests (National interest as defined by myself since it is impossible to support what everyone in this nation and our leaders consider “National Interest”) and believe they have lead us down the wrong path.

Like Ron Paul and many Americans I believe the federal government needs to return to its Constitutional limits. It is clear that when our government can’t even manage qualifying its personnel for access to sensitive confidential information, it has grown to the point where its ability to sustain and protect our national interests (anyone’s definition of our national interests) have exceeded their effectiveness. Reducing it’s power so that a sustainable international policy that legitimately protects our national interests within the limits of our Constitution can be attained.

The war with radical Islam and western democratic culture will go on for the rest of human existence. Our collective futures in America have been forever altered by the acts of 9/11. If the International community and our supposed allies in the Gulf are not on board to fight this fight (and it’s clear that most are not), then we are on our own and we cannot depend on anyone but ourselves to wage a war that has changed the shape of war as we know it or have known it in America.

None of this means the our founding fathers didn’t understand the dangers of over reaching in International affairs. They were fighting the Muslim pirates on the barbary coast as the Constitution was being written (lots of books written on this subject. A very good history lesson for anyone willing to take the time to educate themselves on the subject).

I trust our Constitution and the American culture of individualism over collectivism. And in so doing, I must put the protection of our Constitution and the founding principles of this country above all things. Else we perish as a people and nation that has accomplished more in the cause against human suffering and ignorance than any single society in human history.

My two cents..

Should really learn to smile.

Sadly, at times, Ron Paul is his own worst enemy. So much potential, over such a long career, only to have it overshadowed by a character flaw of such a magnitude. In spite of what the Paulies think, he will never be elected President.

But he is clearly completely around the bend. Certifiably insane.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/hillarys_long_goodbye.html

It’s clear that the Won is in charge of our foreign policy, and the Pentagon where the leaked info came from, but, because Hillary has been the face of response to the leaks, as well as quoted in the leaks, and the Won has let her marinate in it, will this be her Waterloo? or Ding Dong? As bad as the leaks have been, could this be just a little bit of a silver lining?

the world would be living under Soviet communism today. Virtually every step we took – from the Marshall Plan, to the Japanese reconstruction, to NATO and SEATO, to maintaining bases in Europe and around the world, to maintaining the strongest Navy in the world, to intervening in foreign crises militarily, financially, and/or diplomatically – would have been diametrically opposed by Ron Paul and his idiot libertine pals.

He is no more a friend of freedom or America than he is an enemy of pork barrel spending – he merely pays lip service to both.

Paul and every single person who supports his radical nonsense is an idiot.

took the oath to defend the Constitution and America defending an attack on our national security is very disconcerting. Perhaps he should be investigated for a possible connection to the leaks? His remarks are inexcusable and dangerous. As an ex-intelligence analyst, I see these leaks as a nail in our coffin of national security. What is wrong with this man? I know many people who call themselves Libertarian and they would never agree with his comment or actions.

What Dr. Paul was showing is that the US Government has failed to guard secrets. This is because up to now, he has made the assertion, but we have demanded the proof before we take him seriously. So here is the proof. He was right; we were wrong.

This will show that the current administration cannot be trusted with important things such as national security, nor healthcare, nor the economy. Dr. Paul is an expert at these things; the current decision-makers in this administration is not. And neither are you, I don’t think.

I recall that the military brass received a cable from the experts in Washington on December 8, 1941, that a Japanese attack was imminent. Fortunately for them, they had the proof all too clearly.

Remember, there really are people out there who want to kill us. It’s not a game.

This is a fallacy. If Al Queda likes beautiful sunrises, does that make sunrises bad? No. If Al Queda likes Ron Paul, does that make Ron Paul bad? No.

You are doing what most of Washington does to us: You have made Ron Paul the enemy, instead of the real enemy: the people who would fly airliners into occupied buildings. If you do this out of ignorance, then I will accept your apology. If you do this intentionally, then I repeat what Bush said: if you are not with us, then you are against us.

Is that they believe the end justifies the means. Just because your goal is not the destruction of America, means it is alright to do so. For years I had honored Ron Paul as the only one in Congress who really stood for and protected our Constitution, after the Congressman I worked for, Larry McDonald, was murdered by the Russians in KAL 007. However, this is enough and over the top, and he will destroy the career of his own son, Rand, with his crazy ratings like this one. He should be tried for treason along with Assange.

It would be interesting to know how many of these stups actually saw the interview with Judge Napolitano.

Quote;
“What we need is more Wikileaks on the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine what it would be like if we have every conversation of the last 10 years with the Federal Reserve people and the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the other central bankers of the world, and every agreement and quid pro quo that they have? I mean, it would be massive. The people would be so outraged.”
“in a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.” He also called the desire to charge Assange for treason “wild,” given he is an Australian citizen, and questioned what difference in media there was between Wikileaks and the New York Times that prevented one of them from being prosecuted over the other.

You dummies are pounding the wrong nail when it comes to Ron Paul. In the first line, chang either word “Wikileaks” To “Transparency” and maybe it will soak to through some of these loons about what he is talking about.

His political career is full of bad judgment calls and questionable associations. Here’s a great piece from Reason on the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy, which is a great example of why would be a totally untrustworthy executive. Short version: Someone filled Dr. Paul’s old newsletter with racist nonsense, and Paul didn’t do much of anything about it. It was most likely Paul’s friend and advisor Lew Rockwell, who was pretty open about trying to foment racial tension (with Murray Rothbard) 15-20 years ago. Rand Paul isn’t as closely assocaited with Rockwell as his dad, but I always cringe a bit when Lew Rockwell is part of something at all. I hate that he is so closely associated with the legacy of Ludwig von Mises.

As far as treason goes, it’s ridiculous to suggest that we can try Assange for treason. Espionage, perhaps, but he’s Australian, and you can’t commit treason against a country if it’s not your country. Dr. Paul is guilty of being a buffoon, but that’s nothing new. PFC Bradley Manning, on the other hand, may well have committed treason. I can’t get over the fact that a Private could access all of this information…

may be a Constitutionalist, however when it comes to foreign policies, he still believes we are living in the agrarian post colonialist America of the18th century.

I can’t stand Ron Paul (and Pat Buchanan for the same reasons) for what he did to W regarding the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. He was not in the “decision” seat when action was needed to respond to the 9/11 attacks. George W Bush WAS. I can’t thank God enough we had a real patriot with steel nuts in the White House when that economic attack happened on our soil. What exactly should have our response be post Clintonian decimated CIA covert operations? Did all of you, Ron Paul fans forgot the kangaroo trial of Oliver North? Ron Paul had no, and still does NOT have a course of action if foreign entities attack us without any nation actually declaring war on us. What were we supposed to do? Hunker down and swat at gnats before a mosquito succeeds to sting us again and again? Than swat some more in hopes that we can win in a battle against swarms of mosquitoes?

Bush’s decision to settle in for the “long haul” of fighting Islamist terrorism in (at the time) most vulnerable and internationally condemned terrorist supporting Islamist country was the right thing to do. To mount a military offense against the myriads of terrorist “swarms” from an ocean away without a base in the “swamp” would have never worked. Anyone who is bemoaning of lost “treasure and life” in the war against terrorism, cannot fathom what our losses would have been if we would have followed a Ron Paul-like national defense policy.

Robert gates (read his book From the Shadows) is one of the most directly responsible for the creation of Al queda and we can all guess that he is a neocon Bush fan. So it is puzzeling to me that anyone would think Robert Gates’ favorite congressman would be someone as great as Ron Paul, a chicken hawk neo con like him would back a fellow chickenhawk neocon.

the idiots who allowed a lowly Private, a man who had been demoted and possibly upset about this, to have access to those documents? People in charge of the security of those documents haven’t been mentioned much, have they? These are the people who we place our sacred trust in to ensure our top secrets aren’t treated like your sister’s diary. And what about the other items mentioned in the documents? How England was humiliated about their army of terrible fighters, for example–what about the fact that we spied on Canada? And this wasn’t your basic CIA spying–this was our use of people who are not supposed to be in the business of spying. I feel that we need to take a long hard look at ourselves, how we protect our secrecy, and how to keep our friends rather than lose them. Oh, and what about the newspapers that printed some of the documents–shouldn’t the NY Times also be held accountable?

1. His constituents keep electing him. They feel like they may be returning a crazy loon, but an honest one; meanwhile most of the rest of ushave been stuck with sending deceitful RINOs and Dem Statists to Congress. Who’s laughing at whom?
2. An LBJ scatology comes to mind: would you rather have him in our tent peeing out, or outside our tent peeing in? He serves a broad base appeal purpose: libertarians of all stripes understand they will at least get a form for discussion by people who understand where they are coming from, in the Repub party. There is absolutely nothing a libertarian has in common with the modern Dem party, why would they go there but to be insulted? Why is this important? The Libertarians in 1980 and 84 helped put and keep RWR in office. They hadnt had a Pres candidate they had been comfortable with, since Goldwater. I am not a Libertarian but I understand we will need Libertarian electoral support to get elected and yes, Libertarian perspective on how to govern on particular issues, once we get our guy or gal in the WH in 2012.

they wouldn’t advocate saddling it with a trillion dollar per year foreign policy that creates enemies.

They wouldn’t advocate that Americans have their freedoms limited in order to “protect” us from “terrorists”.

The fact is, the biggest bin Laden supporters are those who continue to play into the hands of those they claim “hate us for our freedoms”.

Neoconservatives and other dupes of Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. hate fundamental freedoms as well given that they advocate, on a consistent basis, the destruction of fundamental rights (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Guantanamo) in an apparent effort to appease the terrorists, though they pretend that these attacks on liberty are for your own good.

Red State has always hated Ron Paul as he consistently calls into question the logic and intelligence of people who would destroy freedom in the name of protecting us from their list of bad guys.

Nevermind that their bad guys have killed less American civilians and soldiers than the flu or automobile.
Perspective and a sense of proportion is, and never was or will be a part of their political agenda.

it was 9/11/2001…

From 1932 to 1952, how many COnservatives were actually in charge of anything important?

Nov 2nd was the biggest Republican victory since 1938 and 1948. The difference back then was the south. I’d rather vote for a Yellow Dog than a Republican. Abe Lincoln. Now the south is solid Republican.