Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy is Insane?
I just wanted to narrow in a specific section of the exchange I quoted earlier today between Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. There’s something incredibly insane here that absolutely needs to be pointed out:
Bachmann: Can I respond? And the problem would be the greatest under-reaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the earth. And we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard.
Baier: All right, 30 seconds, Dr. Paul.
Paul: There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong on what — what you just said.
Bachmann: It’s an IAEA report.
Paul: That — that is not — that is not true. They — they produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There’s no — been no enrichment of these bombs.
Bachmann: And if we agree with that… if we agree with that, the United States’ people could be at risk of our national security.
So what just happened there? Michelle Bachmann claims that Ron Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention is an under-reaction, especially as it relates to her statement that the latest IAEA report says that Iran is within months of obtaining nuclear weapons and has intent to use them. Ron Paul then tries to set the facts straight by saying that her claim is completely false. The report says nothing of the sort. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is months away from obtaining nuclear weapons. And what is Michelle Bachmann’s response? “And if we agree with that… if we agree with that, the United States’ people could be at risk of our national security.”
Wait, what?
So let me get this straight. Michelle Bachmann just claimed that a recent IAEA report has evidence that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons and intends to use them. She was either lying or misled because the report doesn’t say that at all. The reality is that we have no evidence to suggest that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons. And her response is that we shouldn’t believe that? Her response is that we should attack them before they attack us? We don’t even know if they have nuclear weapons. The evidence would seem to suggest that they don’t. We don’t even know their motives. And her attitude is that we should attack them? Are you kidding me?
She had the audacity to say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention, peace and trade is the most dangerous comment made on the issue? I’m sorry but I believe that anyone who ignore facts and strikes at countries because they might eventually have weapons that they might eventually use on us is the most dangerous comment made on the issue of foreign policy.
I hope we’re awake here because this is the predominant stance on foreign policy from everyone up on that debate stage save for Ron Paul. If we don’t change our tactics soon I’m afraid we’re going to have to pay the penalty for our actions, and the cost is going to be far more than we could have ever imagined.
