by Ghost of John Brown
Last night, I watched the Iowa Debates on Fox. While there were several times that I yelled at the TV, the moment that caused my blood to boil the most was the shocking set of comments from eternally cranky uncle Ron Paul. The Fox News moderators asked him repeatedly about how he would handle a nuclear Iran. In a complete denial of history, Congressman Paul compared his potential actions against Iran to those of John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis - essentially saying, that Kennedy solved the problem by "talking" to the Soviets. Yes, we can have a kumbyya moment with the Iranians and solve all of our problems.
Mr. Paul leaves out a lot of details in Kennedy's handling of the Crisis.
He conveniently forgets that we imposed a military blockade of Cuba.
He conveniently forgets that the President went on TV and stated unflinchingly that we weren't going to allow the Soviets to have offensive nuclear weapons on Cuban soil.
He conveniently forgets that President Kennedy publicly warned the Soviets that if there were ever a missile launched from Cuba, that we would hold the Soviets responsible and we would respond with a "full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union". Essentially - "do ya feel lucky, punk? Well go ahead, make my day".
He conveniently forgets that during the crisis, we raised the Strategic Air Command to DEFCON 2.
He conveniently forgets that the Cubans shot down one of our U2F Spy Planes while on a reconnaissance mission.
He conviently forgets that during the Crisis, the President recalled all active duty Air Force personnel to their bases.
I slightly agree with Mr. Paul that we have been involved in too many places around the world. We shouldn't have been involved in Libya. We took out a crazy, but ineffective leader in Khaddafi, who had been muzzled, and now we have opened up the Muslim Brotherhood to take over. We have been involved in Afghanistan for far too long. We've been involved in Central Africa, where we have no strategic interest. I get that, and I agree with the good Doctor.
That said, Congressman Paul has a remarkably naive view of foreign relations. With the Soviets, we were dealing with a dangerous, but largely responsible party that understood the consequences of mutually assured destruction. We got to a point in the Cuban Missile Crisis that one party had to blink, and fortunately, the Soviets did. That ONLY happened because they knew that if they didn't blink the Krelim might be glowing in a nice tinge of green still today. They didn't like that possibility.
With the Iranians, we are dealing with a completely different situation. The Iranian President has talked openly and positively about the possibility of harkening the coming of the 12th Imam. He has talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth. If the whole world was ripped into global war, the Iranian President believes that the 12th Imam will return and help Muslims take over the world. We aren't exactly dealing with an enemy that is sane and rationale. Just having a nice little chat with the Iranians isn't going to get the job done.
Let me be clear. I am NOT calling for a war against Iran. What I AM calling for is a strategy that leaves all options on the table, covert actions to prevent the Iranians from getting their hands on those weapons, and if necessary, strategic strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians will be a sure recipe for disaster.
Ron Paul completely disqualifies himself for the office of Commander in Chief by not having a clue about foreign relations.
Added to this people need to look at the newsletters that were produced a decade ago under the title "Ron Paul Political Report". Does Mr. Paul and his supporters think that there wouldn't be ads run every single day reminding the voters of comments such as: black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" rather than the Statue of Liberty? I've written articles about Newt Gingrich and how the Democrats and pundits will vilify his previous associations. That will look like a cake walk compared to how Ron Paul will be treated if he were to get the nomination. Most polls have Mr. Paul losing to the President by a range of 8-13 points. Suffice it to say, probably only 1% of the public have ever heard of the "Ron Paul Political Report", but they will if he gets the nomination. He'll go from losing by a margin of 8-13% to ONLY GETTING 8-13% of the vote. Mr. Paul could probably make the case that he never wrote those articles himself, but the newsletters were under his name and were most likely written by his Congressional Chief of Staff. That is a point that Mr. Paul needs to take responsibility for.
Sorry Paulbots - your guy should not, will not and can not be our nominee.
Follow Ghost of John Brown on Facebook. Click here.
