Ron Paul Vindicated on Iran

Ron Paul is the only non-Armageddon presidential candidate among the Republicans.  He is the only person who staunchly opposes a massive first strike against Iran because of  its alleged nuclear program.  He has long been ridiculed for his aversion to preemptive genocide in the Middle East.

The National Intelligence Estimate yesterday reported that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This blows to pieces the Bush-Neoconservative case for war.

Bush has known this for at least the last 5 or 6 months, but he continued rattling his missiles and warning of World War III if Iran did not kowtow to U.S. demands.   Cheney has been even more bloodthirsty, as usual. 

Top Bush supporters like Norman Podhoretz are wailing that the intelligence agencies are cheating them out of another U.S. government-orchestrated slaughter of Muslims.  Not exactly “Presidential Medal” Podhoretz’s words, but that’s the soul of the complaint.

In the Fall of 2002, Ron Paul stood almost alone denouncing the “phantom weapons” claims the Bush team was invoking to attack Iraq.   Once again, he has been proven right.

If Republican primary voters are looking for wisdom, the choice is easy.


, , ,

18 Responses to Ron Paul Vindicated on Iran

  1. Lawhobbit December 4, 2007 at 7:57 pm #

    “If Republican primary voters are looking for wisdom, the choice is easy.”

    Oh, you are SUCH a kidder!!!! 😀

  2. Mike December 4, 2007 at 9:28 pm #

    Thanks for the details. I think I’ll listen to this wise man who has been right for so long. Go Ron Paul!

  3. Jim December 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm #

    LawHobbit – Ye of Little Faith….

    Maybe I’m biased by my Iowa roots.

  4. W. Baker December 4, 2007 at 10:50 pm #


    Brilliant point. Let’s hope the lemmings come out the Armageddon bunkers.

    Take good care.

  5. Jim December 4, 2007 at 11:20 pm #

    Wes – we are long overdue to watch a heap of lemmings take the plunge.

    Personally, I would enjoy seeing that even more than seeing the Philadelphia Eagles lose.

  6. Sue December 4, 2007 at 11:23 pm #

    Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing our financial future. We have 65,000 troops in Germany, 45,000 in Japan and 700 bases outside the USA. Our military industrial complex enjoys keeping us afraid. Paul wants to fix the problems, not ignore them. SS,Medicare and Medicaid already take 40% of the budget and when the boomers are retired, that will double. Paul’s plan vastly reduces overseas spending, bases, and runs a defense dept. When we cut spending, those dependent on govt can be funded, while letting the young out of SS.

  7. Tom Blanton December 4, 2007 at 11:29 pm #

    Not only has Ron Paul been right about Iraq and Iran, Podhoretz has been wrong. He is not just a Bush supporter anymore, now he is a foreign policy advisor to Giuliani, in addition to being a demented psychopath who prays for an attack on Iran.

    In response to the new NIE on Iran, he writes:

    “But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations.”

    How dare the intel community plop a turd in the war party’s punch bowl on the eve of WW IV? I guess poor Norman is going to have to pray a lot harder – Satan isn’t paying attention.

  8. R.P. McCosker December 4, 2007 at 11:49 pm #

    When can we expect the vice president to apologize for his long-repeated threats and accusations toward Iran?

    A solemnly delivered national address, perhaps?

  9. Scott Frost December 5, 2007 at 2:26 am #

    The inmates have been running the asylum for too long. It’s funny that the neocons try to smear Ron Paul by attacking his supporters, whether Ron Paul has ever even heard of them or not. But here you have Rudy Giuliani, whose advisors have been demonstrably wrong time and again and who are clearly a bit delusional (see the Podhoretz “darker suspicion” quote just above in the comments) and he gets a complete pass. And then there’s Bernard Kerik…

    The media should be reporting that Ron Paul was right — AGAIN!

    Ron Paul is right about our misguided and counterproductive foreign policy and he is right about our domestic policy, too, whether it is the fiat currency we have, our unsustainable overspending, or our loss of liberties, (which nobody has chronicled better than James Bovard!)

  10. Tory December 5, 2007 at 6:12 am #

    “The National Intelligence Estimate yesterday reported that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This blows to pieces the Bush-Neoconservative case for war.”

    Bush responded to that accusation by saying “Nothing has changed, we must continue the same strategy because they can’t be trusted because they kept their program secret.”

    “In the Fall of 2002, Ron Paul stood almost alone denouncing the “phantom weapons” claims the Bush team was invoking to attack Iraq. Once again, he has been proven right.”

    What Paul said never mattered, and what Bush said never mattered. No one was listening to Paul, anti-war types were definitely not listening to Bush, and pro-war types were convinced the war was neccessary (even if it included attacking Iran) because they believed we were attacked on 9/11 because Arabs hate us for our freedoms and our values.

    Very few Americans have the ability to learn and know the truth. They don’t in part because not enough people are saying it. Even Ron Paul has to be careful, by practicing political correctness, and say only in the broadest style, rather than in specific terms, we were attacked (on 9/11) because of our (antagonistic and inciteful) diplomatic and military presence in the Middle East. And why are we in the Middle East ? Answer: For profits, to embolden the military industrial complex, for campaign contributions, to appease holy crusaders, to appease Nationalists, and to help other Americans advance or enrich their careers. Americans don’t want none of that spoken in public.

    You can respond to me by saying most don’t support the war, but I can respond to that by saying enough politicians do support it; if not then why can’t, or why doesn’t the Congress cut off funding for it.

    Bush, regardless of the recent Intelligence report is simply continuing his tactic of lieing to continue and maintain his foreign policy. For the most part, enough of the country are aiding and abetting the president; they are because it is to their benefit the same as it is for Bush. We’re a nation of crooks and liars and that’s the reason we use our resources for empire building. It’s the reason Americans don’t respect the constitution, the bill of rights and limited government – it’s not in their financial interest to do so.

    What would happen if Ron Paul became president ? Millions of Americans who benefit from government handouts (at the expense of others) would lose them. That’s another reason to support a president who can lie with the boldness that Bush does.

    Thousands of Americans are profiting from US foreign policy; thousands are writing and publishing books for and against our war policy (for profit.)

  11. Dirk W. Sabin December 5, 2007 at 11:39 am #

    If you were an organization….like big media…that made a substantial amount of it’s money on;
    1. Reporting the banal yet titillating buffoonery that is Washington D.C.
    2 The various casino related activities of the Wall-Street-Federal Reserve Axis of Fractional Reserve
    Bunko…oh excuse me, I meant “Banking”

    …would you then support a politician who wanted to reduce government and shutter the seamy little numbers parlors of K Street and the Federal Reserve Bank and The IRS? Adding insult to injury, would you think it in your best interest to report comprehensively on a person who wants to shut down the Military Industrial Complex when that is one of the most reliably shocking elements of your shock-led industry?

    Probably not. A mimeographed neighborhood newsletter is all we would really need, or perhaps the sturdy charms of these here blogophiliac internets and the major media would be simply holding alot of expensive real estate, expense accounts and hardware without much to report on.

    Wouldn’t be prudent, wouldn’t be right.

    I hope I’m right about this but I believe New Hampshire will shake these big media tycoons to their bones.

  12. Tory December 5, 2007 at 3:03 pm #

    He’s got reporters (always) in front of him so he can pick them to ask their questions – the ones he wants to answer so he doesn’t have to answer questions that require him to lie. That’s what happened yesterday after the news went pulbic. Some got thru; and while they did his face did a hundred different distortions from the top of his head to the bottom of his jaw. But some are in there to protect him.

    We got this thug, this all-revealing thug, for everyone to see with their own eyes; but the country can’t stop this rhetoric about another nazi like invasion.

    Does not the 9/11 commission remind you of the Warren commission.

  13. Chris December 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm #

    Its never been about ‘Intelligence’. Its always been about political policy. If Cheney/Clinton want to bomb Iran for whatever reason, they will. Public be damned.

  14. alpowolf December 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm #

    Another part of the NIE that really spun the Wargasm Party up was where it stated the obvious: the Iranian government makes decisions rationally. In other words, the “mad mullah” argument is out the window, too.

    D’oh! Stupid reality!

  15. Mace Price December 8, 2007 at 5:36 am #

    …Armageddon…It’s sometimes difficult for me to conceive of Main Stream US Politicians lending credence to even the concept of Biblical Caveats and visions of Mass Annihilation in this, The 21st Century…Conversely, such common atavistic thinking by otherwise conventional if duplicitous adults, suggests an actual risk of what the Trappist Monk Thomas Merton first termed “A self fulfilling prophecy.” It’s as if they have one foot in the present and the other stuck in the 16th Century.

  16. Dirk W. Sabin December 8, 2007 at 1:17 pm #

    Does anyone find it vaguely interesting that the NIEis outed, pulling the White Houses Pants down, then, the Neo-cons say the CIA is out to get the Administration and then the news that Harriet Meyers told the CIA to not erase the tapes is floated and poof, the NIE Iran World War III issue is pushed off the leading news slot in favor of a Renegade CIA Story.

    It’s nice to see our government running so smoothly. Under Buses We Toss.

  17. Tory December 9, 2007 at 7:49 am #

    Anything coming out, leaked out, outed, most likely it is planned that way. The CIA belongs to the Right. Where are the files on Agent George Joannides ? How are those such a best kept secret ?

    They know there are rumors flying about three presidents conspiring to murder JFK (and others.) Neocons want people to believe they don’t control the CIA.

    Too many people knew Iran was not a threat. We knew the shrub was lieing about Iran. Even more ludicrous, the shrub now wants to punish Iran for simply having the ‘knowledge’ to enrich uranium.

    The CIA is a right wing entity. If it’s in the ‘outing’ mode then the CIA should do some significant outing about murdering Americans and American Presidents and candidates for President.

    Neocons own the self-funded CIA. The CIA is funded, in part, by drug sales. Nixon (he owned stock in the CIA) escalated the war on drugs (to give the CIA a greater monopoly on drug sales.)

  18. Mace Price December 9, 2007 at 11:15 pm #

    …Now having been effectively purged of former “disloyal elements.” CIA is subject to the absolute decisions and priorities of neo-Conservative Dogma; and Authority. This handed down from on high by its Chief of The Realpolitick, Dick Cheney. These edicts then enforced by his own personal Scarpa, one David Addington. Probably the most intelligent, amoral—and thus dangerous individual in Foreign Policy Leadership in The US today…An inwardly graceless man…a personage nothing less than a modern day, toxic blend of Wallenstein and Richelieu, with certain aspects of Lyndon Baines Johnson thrown in; minus of course the vulgarity of the later.