POLITICO MAFIOSO: John McCain Clubs Ron Paul Right Over The Head on Iraq During the CNN/YouTube Debate!

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

John McCain Clubs Ron Paul Right Over The Head on Iraq During the CNN/YouTube Debate!

Sen. McCain puts Ron Paul in his place with this:

7 comments:

Phillidor5949 said...: Please consider contributing on the 16th of December.
Ron Paul needs the publicity of another big fund raising day.

There is an obvious media bias and it is sad. Rep. Paul is the one candidate of the crowd who has substantially differing views and he was not given much of a chance to articulate those views. Much time was given to marginal issues and small differences between other candidates' positions on the issues. I suspect many special interest groups have much to lose if a President Paul had a chance to use his veto pen. This is reflected in the lack of time given to Rep. Paul.; 9:09 PM
Tony GOPrano said...: Ron Paul has had just as much of an opportunity at these debates as any other candidate. Have you watched these debates Phil or are you just one of the Pauliac Trolls who comb thru the Internet to attempt to make Paul a legitimate candidate? McCain was right to question Paul on that topic. Paul's view is wrong on the war on terror.; 9:25 PM
Sheridan Folger said...: McCain simply proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the ONLY candidate we should consider for the next President of the United States. He proved , that if you have not realized that as of yet ( and if you haven't, well, I can't take it anymore...yer a dipshit!) That you need to listen to him before you make up your mind. The Spitting Mayor, The Masshole Liar, Deputy Dog, Run-away Paul, proved they're . . . well, lets stick with what we know . . . dipshits! Duncan Hunter and Huckabee secured our faith in their support for McCain, and I imagine they will outwardly endorse him shortly. BTW Huckabee is a great guy. Tancredo...well...same as always. Funny lil bastard isn't he?
Slainte'
Mad
http://madirishmaninc.blogspot.com; 7:00 AM
Christopher S. Lawton said...: Zany McCainy
Originally Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo
http://lewrockwell.com/blog

I'm confused. Last night John "I know how to use guns" McCain falsely accused Ron Paul of being an "isolationist", reminding everyone of the false theory that "isolationism caused World War II." But wait. Isn't the entire neocon establishment, of which McCain is one of the "stars," just itching for what Norman Podhorotz and Newt Gingrich call "World War IV"? Haven't THEY been plotting and scheming to widen the war in the Middle East by finding an excuse to bomb Iran? Of course they have.

So what's up with the supposed "concern" that Ron's view (that other people resent it when we occupy their countries and kill their people) might lead to another war? That's exactly what McCain and his fellow neocons want!; 1:14 PM
Christopher S. Lawton said...: Originally Posted by John Nichols

RON PAUL WINS ANOTHER ROUND...Arizona Senator John McCain tried to resuscitate his ailing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul's anti-war stance during Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate.

But, as in previous Republican debates where leading contenders have stumbled in their attempts to attack the renegade congressman, it was Paul who ended up drawing the cheers of the crowd.

Playing his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq for political points, McCain tore into Paul for arguing -- as part of a discussion about spending -- that bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."

Just as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried in an earlier debate to buff his national-security credentials by attacking Paul's suggestion that misguided U.S. foreign policies increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, McCain attempted to burnish his image as a champion of the troops by attacking Paul -- and, by extension, all critics of the war.

Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."

That rhetorical flourish drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida

But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.

The congressman, whose fund-raising in recent months has dwarfed that of McCain and several of the other top candidates, trumped the senator by responding: "The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?"; 1:19 PM
Christopher S. Lawton said...: originally posted by Juan Cole
Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul
Not Invading and Occupying other Countries Branded 'Isolationism'

In a new low of despicable looniness, at the Republican debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain equated those Americans who want to stop militarily occupying Iraq with Hitler-enablers. He actually said that, saying that it was 'isolationism' of a sort that allowed Hitler to come to power.

It gives a person a certain amount of faith in one's fellow Americans that McCain was booed by the Republican crowd for this piece of calumny. Comparisons to Hitler should be automatic grounds for a candidate to be disqualified from being president.

But then McCain is the same person who joked about bombing Iran. He thinks that killing all those children from the air would be funny?

McCain also repeated his standard lie that Iraqis would attack the United States if US troops were withdrawn from that country. He contrasted the Vietnamese Communists, who, he said, just wanted to build their workers' utopia in Vietnam once the US left, with Iraqis, who he continues to confuse with Usamah Bin Laden (a Saudi living far from Iraq who never had anything to do with Iraq).

Of course, back in the early 1970s, if you had asked McCain, he would have said we have to fight the Vietnamese because of the Domino effect, and if we lost there then International Communism would be in our living rooms. Now, he says the Vietnamese Communists weren't expansionist at all, and just wanted socialism in one country.

So then, John, if that was true and there was never any danger of a domino effect, why did we sacrifice 58,000 US lives and kill a million to two million Vietnamese peasants? You just admitted we weren't in any danger from them, even if they defeated us.

But since you were wrong about the domino effect with regard to Vietnamese Communism (which I remember arguing in a class debate as a teenager in 1967 was just a form of nationalism), how do we know you aren't just as wrong or wronger about your fantastic Muslim domino theory? After all, international communism was a big important political movement to which many governments adhered. Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come out of their caves, who don't even have good sleeping bags much less a government to their name.

McCain is so confused that he thinks Shiite Iran is supporting "al-Qaeda." When I think that people who say these crazy things serve in the US senate and are plausible as presidents of our Republic, I despair a little. (When I see a nut job like Tancredo on the podium, he of 'let's nuke Mecca,' I despair a lot, but that is a different story.)

McCain also insisted that we never lost a battle in Vietnam. He still doesn't understand guerrilla war. What battle did the French lose in Algeria? You don't lose a guerrilla war because you lose a conventional set piece battle. Then it would be a conventional war and not a guerrilla one. You lose it because you cannot control the country and it is too expensive in treasure and life to go on staying there.

Ron Paul was only allowed to reply briefly to McCain's outrageous and mean-spirited diatribe. Although the transcript says he was applauded for saying that it was only natural that the Iraqis would want us out of their hair, just as we wouldn't want somebody invading and occupying us-- I heard a lot of booing in response to that point.

At another point, Paul made the point that the quiet parts of Iraq -- the Shiite deep south and the Kurdistan area in the north-- are the places where there are no foreign troops to speak of. Unfortunately, he forgot the name of the Kurds and seemed to get confused, so I'm not sure he got the point across.

Here is the exchange.

"McCain: . . . I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.

(Applause)

And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...

(Applause)

We allowed ...

(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...

(Applause)

Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...

(Applause)

All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?

(Applause)

What John is saying is just totally distorted.

(Protester shouts off-mike)

Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.

(Applause)"

The rest is here. This is what Ron Paul said about Iraq:

"Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.

(Applause)

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much.

So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here.

What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam.

So it's time for us to take care of America first.

(Applause) "

Labels: Iraq; 1:22 PM
Tony GOPrano said...: I love to debate these 'Ron Paul Trolls' that permiate the Internet. From the Ankle Biting Pundit Blog:

- The “winner” tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second.

- McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it’s necessary we win. His “let us win” retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the “sound bite” of the evening.

It’s hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be “above it all” in terms of playing “gotcha” with his opponents and focusing on the big picture.; 1:29 PM