Tuesday, October 30, 2007

A Case in Point: Ron Paul Isn't Worried About Islamic Fascism

U.S. Representative and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas told Arab Americans at a political conference in Dearborn this past Friday that he wants to see "a return to the Constitution and protecting civil liberties" and a foreign policy based less on making war than "talking to other nations." ("Hopefuls call for political activism").

"If Kennedy could talk to Khrushchev in 1962 at the height of the Cold War, why can't we talk to people?" Paul said.

"We certainly ought to be able to talk to Third World nations that don't even have nuclear weapons.

"The talk about the war against Islamic fascism -- whatever that is supposed to be," said the populist congressman who is running a campaign that stresses grass-roots organization.

"I am not worried about that war -- whatever it is. I am worried about the war that will ensue after the bombs start falling on Iran."

I’m glad Ron Paul hasn’t got a chance.

He admits he doesn’t even know what “the war against Islamic fascism” is-- but he does know enough not to be worried about it.

Then again, he is worried about a war with Iran we aren’t in yet, the one we’re still trying to prevent, in spite of resistance from guys like him and his supporters, and almost all Democrats, who are convinced the only thing a defiant Iran respects is talk.

Why, candidate Paul wants to know, can't we just talk to other nations the way Kennedy and Khrushchev did "in 1962 at the height of the Cold War"?

Paul seems to remember 1962 as the happy year that two world powers just got to “talking it over”: no memory for him of the naval quarantine, the mobilization of armed forces, nor what a New York Times’ headline in the middle of the crisis described as “Kennedy Ready for Soviet Showdown.” The Times described Kennedy's televised speech to America as one that left no doubt that he and Khrushchev weren’t just two guys working it out:

“The President made it clear that this country would not stop short of military action to end what he called a 'clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace.'"

Kennedy announced a US naval blockade of Cuba to prevent Soviet missile deliveries to Castro, knowing full well he was risking an armed exchange with a nuclear power.

"Let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out," the President said. "No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or causalties will be incurred."

"The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are--but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world," he added.

"The cost of freedom is always high--but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose is the path of surrender or submission.

If that's the kind of talk Paul has in mind, I'm all for it.

But it isn't. He likes the talk part, not the course that incurs costs or casualties.

As I said, I’m glad Ron Paul hasn’t got a chance.

The guy's a crackpot and worse--he’s a foreign-policy menace, and we'll all be better of when he’s out of the race for good.


Anonymous said...

Ummmm...OK, where to start...How about this, please define IslamoFascism...I'd love to see that.

This term makes no sense. Radical Islam doesn't like corporations very much you see. Or secular governments. So since it doesn't really exist, it really makes no sense to "fear" it, does it?

Of course you raise good points about protecting this country, and Ron Paul certainly would like to see our troops on OUR borders, instead of every other country's.

He is also one of the only GOP candidates to serve in the armed forces. So your point about him not being willing to incur costs or casualties is bunk. He is no chicken hawk.

Plus, the members of the armed services (past and present) have been backing him with their dollars, and what really speaks louder than putting your money where your mouth is?

So, unless you have a magical device that tells a radical islamist from a regular muslim, we might actually need to talk to some of these people at some point in time, not just park carrier battlegroups off their coasts.

I hope you are as concerned about the safety of our freedom and liberties as you are about our physical safety.


Unknown said...

There is no principled way to tell the differnece between anti-American Jihadists and people of the Muslim faith except by engaging in a dialog, which allows one to be convinced that they are correct. I took several classes in criminal justice and interrigation techniques. You must allow youself to sympathize with the suspect in order to allow them to open up, identify their lies, and unearth crucial evidence. We must do the same to prevent further terrorism! This bloggers views are dangerous and antithetical to the scientific techniques developed by our CIA and FBI to unearth criminal behavior. I wish terrorists held up signs claiming that they are terrorists, but like all criminals they hide their intentions and thier ideas from plain view.

Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses said...

Very interesting article. Thanks for reporting on this story. I didn't see anyone else covering it. You are doing an important public service!

P.S. Ron Paul supporters are crazy.

T.R. Clancy said...

Hi DaveP

Thanks for joining in.

Define Islamo-Fascism? Fair enough. We like to see terms defined here.

I'll incorporate the definition provided by Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas, as quoted in Robert Spencer’s and David Horowitz’s article, Why “Islamo-Fascism”?, which we posted here 2 weeks ago, http://dearbornunderground.blogspot.com/2007/10/islamo-fascism-awareness-week-october.html:

“political forces working under the cover of religion in order to gain political power and to impose a theocracy (‘The Law’ -- singular -- of God, unchangeable, ahistorical, interpreted by self appointed old men) over democracy (i.e. the laws -- plural -- voted by the people and changeable by the will of the people).”

Yes I am as concerned about the safety of our freedom and liberties as I am about our physical safety. Do you really think we can preserve our liberties after we’ve lost our physical safety to nuclear-armed enemies?

T.R. Clancy said...

Hi Rhys,

I don’t know what you mean by “no principled way” to tell the difference between jihadists and ordinary Muslims.

Why can’t we read their literature, listen to their sermons, and accept as stated their own pronouncements about their intentions and views of the world? (E.g. Arafat, bin Laden, Nasrallah, Ibrahim Hooper, Ahmadinejad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc., etc. )

Especially if they are quite blunt about their anti-American jihadist program? Then go from there to their financial and moral supporters.

That’s what little blogs like us, and big guns like Spencer and Emerson and Pipes and Horowitz and Bat Ye’or and Melanie Phillips are doing--nothing more and nothing less. No need for interrogation techniques. Just pay attention, and say what you see.

Ron Paul obviously couldn't care less about that, which is why I think he's unfit for office.

Leo said...

thanks for printing this, I do like much of what Rep. Paul says but this is one issue that we need a little more clarity from the good doctor.

Anonymous said...

Leo - Ron Paul is not a "good doctor" - he's a lunatic! And he's received support from Stormfront - the white supremacist site. I'm with you Mr. Clancy - I can't wait until we no longer hear a word from that freak. I'm just wondering what kind of people actually support him, they make the "Deaniacs" from 2004 look normal. ------CD

Leo said...

It's times like these when I miss that early supporter of Ron Paul (really early like the 1980's and 1990's)- Mark Scott (WXYT before Sports) I wonder how he would have responded to the 2007 campaign of Ron Paul? I miss his incisive analysis...Excelsior!

Cedo said...

Your favored definition of islamo-fascism doesn't mention anything I'm worried about. Freedom of speech. Until something bad happens, they're just children spouting their feelings. When someone becomes a criminal, we're on the same side. But until then, I cannot stand with you on attacking innocent people. Take a step back.

Cedo said...

And watch Minority Report.

T.R. Clancy said...

Hiya Steve

Until something happens? Have you been really really busy since September 11, 2001?

If people are innocent, we're not attacking them.

And if you aren't worried about forced theocracies, sharia law, and nuclear-armed nations that open and close every single official meeting by shouting "Death to America!", then that's your business, but I am concerned about those things, and many others of us are, too.

If you inferred into anything I have written that we are opposed to cutting off the free speech of Americans, rather than fighting Islamo-Fascists as enemies of the country, then you haven't understood what we're about at all. We have free speech here.

Cedo said...

The civilians killed by our actions in Iraq, as well as our troops, bother me. I'd rather not take that course. I am convinced there's a better way and I think it has something to do with being popular in the region while letting our homeland continue to grow more prosperous and better defended. We're losing progress in science (our market is heavily taxed), which is the only hope for long term human survival. So you say we don't attack innocent people? What about those civilians, or the troops we put in bomb-ridden streets? You think it's gonna spread here? Then DEFEND here. Fix up that border, let businesses take measures to protect their investments, keep the troops at home, let people at home breathe so they can do business, make progress and live without fear. That'll be doing our part to keep the blood feud from perpetuating, even if there are a couple of attempted attacks after we back off.

The american people are better to defend theirselves than a bureaucracy, anyway.

Anonymous said...


You are living on some other planet man, either that or in a pre-9/11 world. Your idea of "being popular in the region" is astonishingly naive and very dangerous. Maybe if you spent some time learning about Islam and what the Koran says you would be able to face up to reality. Read Osama Bin Laden on "the strong horse." You could benefit from actually learning about how the enemies of the US (foreign and domestic) see the world, rather than relying on how YOU see the world. Your mind is closed man, open it up for your own survival. -----CD

Anonymous said...


You are fixated on terrorism as a "crime". Did you read OBL's statement in 1996 declaring WAR on the USA? And in war, the axiom is: "the best defense is a good offense".
(link - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html )

A passive defense as you advocate would only bring about your worst nightmares. How could we live without fear with terrorist bombs going off in our cities?

Protecting the USA passively would require massive curtailing of the civil liberties you seem to cherish so much. And screening all goods coming through our ports would slow our economy to a crawl creating massive unemployment and lower our standard of living.

If you want the US to become a communist state, bringing home our troops for "border security" and letting the rest of the world go to hell is a sure way to go.

I thought Paul was a libertarian not a communist.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the link in the previous post.


The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Cedo said...

OBL seems to advocate violence against our troops in the middle east and violence against all americans as long as our troops are there. We have been enforcing our will overseas unconstitutionally for a long time before terrorist tactics grew to be as popular as they are now. Always he cites our involvement, a favorite argument of his which indicates it's a good recruiting tool. We're dealing with humans over there; they think much like you and I.

There will also always be ways for terrorists to attack people on a massive scale. If they don't, it's because nobody wants to or because they were twarted by existing policing methods. Yes, it's true, Ron Paul isn't worried about Islamic Fascism, not until we've tried taking away OBL's recruiting argument piece. The 9/11 commission report cited our middle east militant presence as one of the major contributors to 9/11. And it's common knowledge among our enlisted that our troops are not very supervised overseas. Who knows what trouble those poor kids COULD get us into so long as individuals using terror can sway our military philosophy?

The point of the Ron Paul movement is that when you give those Islamic people just as much motive to fight us as anyone else, they'll stop fighting us. If they don't, well THEN we'll learn. Meanwhile we'll save tons of money and there's no reason to investigate domestic cargo or personal things. It's the only chance to get everything we want, as it was in america before we sacrificed civil liberties. Even anarchists were considered terrorists a long time ago when an Irish guy wrote that terrorism was the only way for a minority to sway things. That was when the U.S. government learned that terrorizing the people was good for the military industry. Then they learned that occupying foreign countries is great for pork. But that's circumstantial. Consider the impact of terrorism related to all the other major killers of people, too. It's among the tiniest blips of them all, though still deserving adamant prevention. Suppose the U.S. weren't such an empire? What identity then would someone hate?

War used to be against a defined enemy, now it's against an idea. Therefore it needs not ever end.

T.R. Clancy said...


you say "Suppose the U.S. weren't such an empire? What identity then would someone hate?

War used to be against a defined enemy, now it's against an idea. Therefore it needs not ever end."

I don't agree with your history, unless you're going back to purely tribal and racial wars. Most modren wars have been against ideas. Last century we fought ideas of Communism and Nazism, though the latter was rather a confused idea. In the Civil War we fought the idea of armed secession and rebellion.

Like it or not, America is the greatest superpower, and even if we weren't the only one, we'd still be one of only a few. We aren't Luxembourg, we aren't Iceland. We can't live as if the rest of the world didn't matter.

Leo said...


As I reread your initial post it occurred to me that the missile crisis was really due to the United States placing Jupiter missiles in Turkey. The 1962 crisis did not end until JFK pledged to remove the Jupiter’s from Turkey. A wiser foreign policy would have avoided the confrontation all together.

I do have to wonder what a Ron Paul foreign policy would really look like and how would it affect our relationships around the world?

One must admit that foreign policy errors have exacerbated and intensified our conflict with Islam. As an evangelical who is very interested in missionary endeavors I am very aware of the true goals of Islam - conversion of the world to Islam. But errors like supporting Churchill/Eisenhower in the early 50's in the take down of a liberal Iranian government and an unwillingness to chastise Israel for its abuses in 1982 forward to today have contributed to the problems in Middle East.

I wonder if Ron Paul's potential policies would help avoid a further decline in America’s credibility moving forward.

Cedo said...

""War used to be against a defined enemy, now it's against an idea. Therefore it needs not ever end."

I don't agree with your history, unless you're going back to purely tribal and racial wars. Most modren wars have been against ideas. Last century we fought ideas of Communism and Nazism, though the latter was rather a confused idea. In the Civil War we fought the idea of armed secession and rebellion."

In all of those wars, we fought countries or states. What state or country are we fighting now? The answer is none. We are fighting an enemy that resides in every country, so it's actually police work. It's like fighting the mafia with our military: lots of unnecessary collateral.

As for being unable to ignore the rest of the world, that's an argument you'll need to define and support, cause I see us having been much more successful in rates of safety, science and prosperity-related progress before fully employing our military against people who can somehow spook our president. I say president because he started using the military with his illegal powers to deploy marines for a 90 day period back in the day, starting the use of our military. Since then, "support our troops" has SOMEHOW drowned out the call to "end the fight". They are both good things to chant, but they don't contradict eachother!