http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

Nov 6, 2011 7:00pm
Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy


Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.

His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.

“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.

A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.

“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.

He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For sure America’s attitudes toward the war has changed and popular opinion seems to be on his side.

It’s evident at most of his campaign stops, where Paul’s calls for the troops to return home are met with thunderous applause and the occasional standing ovation.

But not all of Paul’s foreign policy positions have gone over well.

Paul has often said that America encourages terror by stationing troops worldwide.

“That’s irresponsible,” former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said. “A future president of the United State should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11.”

Santorum, who is among Paul’s rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, challenged him at a recent debate, to explain his view that American overseas domination caused the Sept. 11 attacks.

Paul’s answer received a hostile response from the audience and even a few boos.

Paul’s view that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would decrease the incentive for terrorists to attack the United States got him into trouble with a Concord, N.H., voter earlier this year, who questioned his sanity.

“Anyone who thinks that is off their rocker,” she said.

“He’s easily dismissed as a crank,” said Sapolsky, who says Paul has good ideas but can be an inarticulate messenger.

Like most aspects of running a national political campaign, style often outweighs substance and both Sapolsky and Preble said that Paul is neither a great orator nor does he break down large global situations well.

But despite his shortcomings, Sapolsky does give Paul credit for speaking his mind.

“A lot of people won’t say come home,” Sapolsky said. “But Ron Paul does and that’s great.”

Veterans for Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP8q7fc7TR4&feature=youtu.be

*Sigh* Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination. Even veteran Republican, Democratic, Independant and even Libertarian political consultants are saying the same thing. He MIGHT pick up a few deligates and in the even of a close call between Romney and Newt, Perry or Bachmann be the deciding factor but he;s not gonna win and the few people who keep flooding the forums with thread after thread about Ron Paul are just gonna get all upset.

Say what you want, the guys not gonna win thats all there is to it.

I think this is Ron Paul's now-or-never year.

Even if he doesn't win the nomination, I think he will still run as an independent or as a Libertarian (if they'll have him, and there are indications they would). I believe this because of the support Ron Paul has gained this past year. It may not be enough to gain him the Republican nomination, but an argument can be made that it is enough for him to win as a third party once independents and Democrats are thrown into the mix.

I'm still not certain I want to give him my vote. I still smell something fishy going on. Even if Lew Rockwell came forward to admit writing the newsletter articles (which I actually believe is likely he did), I still have questions looking for answers. I really hate having both vote on faith or choosing the lesser of evils. Until I have my questions answered, I view all the candidates as equally bad.

So, Sojourn and HB, there you have a slight admission from me. I think RP has a chance of winning as a third candidate.

Could someone perhaps tell Mister Sapolsky,that all the Soviet-Russian Bear dis was dyeing his Pelt!
Same Horse,Different Rider!

When will the US stop blaming themselves for every Ill in this World?

The MSM and staus-quo don't want Ron Paul to win so that and the racist thing are what they are preaching to their hypnotized. You going on all these Ron Paul threads regurgitating their propaganda is not cool.

Ron Paul can win if you don't give in to the bs and believe them when they say "you're only wasting your vote, Ron Paul can never win". They're getting desperate bringing up the racist thing. Seriously, a newsletter he didn't write or endorse with no other proof he's a racist after decades since? Is that all they have on him?

If you did some research rather than just buying RP's propaganda, you might find that Ron Paul has contradicted himself and even defended those newsletter articles which keep being brought up. Go back before 2008 to the 1996 interviews when the articles were an issue during his run for Congress. You'll find that he did an about face in 2008. Not to mention most of that newsletter staff was part of his 2008 campaign staff. If you check his current staff, none of those same people are listed in "official" roles. But Lew Rockwell has long been Paul's advisor on economic strategy, going back to the 1970s.

Many believe Lew Rockwell was the one who wrote those articles, but there are a few written in the first person talking about experiences in Congress. Ron Paul was the only staff member listed in newsletter credits who has served in Congress. He denies writing the articles, and it could be that someone close to Paul borrowed from stories Paul related, but you better believe that Ron Paul knew who wrote those articles, especially if he ever read them himself after the fact. He won't admit it because he's covering for a close friend and former staff member.

Does this mean Paul is a racist? Not necessarily, but he's not being honest either. There has been a cover up going on since 1996, and Ron Paul has yet to come clean or exhibit genuine remorse for the publishing of those articles. More than half of the newsletter staff were either close friends or family members, including the editor and publisher. One of them had to know who was responsible for those articles. Ron Paul was listed as Editor, but was likely only in title. Lew Rockwell and Mark Elam are believed have handled most of the operations. This all matters because his campaign is based on integrity, not just ideas.

As Conrad keeps saying, same horse, different rider. The horse isn't just the civil service he's pointed out. It's also the same old b.s. - tell the people what they want to hear, and lie about your past. Americans are getting fed up with the b.s. So if Ron Paul turns out to be blowing a smoke screen, he's a lame duck no matter what his ideas are.

As I believe, Ron Paul may never have a better chance than 2012 to win the Presidency. That's why I think this is his now-or-never year.

You're probably right that Ron Paul knows who wrote the newsletter and doesn't want to expose them. That was the impression I got as well. Also, yes, it is a big deal, but only because the media has made it one trying to discredit him and his message. He constantly defends that he does not agree to what what written in the newsletters when confronted.

I don't blindly follow anyone and have my doubts too since it's been rumored once or twice that politicians have a tendency to lie. I do feel that Ron Paul is genuine in his views and has a good track record of sticking to them.

I hope he wins and that we start to see some real change for the better. None of this hope crap and "change", lets just do it already! I'm so tired of this corrupt system

Well, back in 1996 he didn't disagree with what was in the articles. He defended them. Some of the ridiculous Ron Paul quotes that are circulating are actually from the 1996 interviews where he defended the articles. It's not easy to find the newspaper articles online because to access the newspaper articles you need to log in to the system, unless you gain access through a library. Nevertheless, I did manage to find them, and read them for myself.

I am still waiting to read the newsletter articles because those archives had never been made publicly available. Online versions tend to be only partials, and could be subject to tampering.

I just want Ron Paul to man up about it rather than trying to push it to the side or cover things up. Unfortunately, he's danced around it so much that he's dug himself a hole. As I said before, I hate to vote on faith, especially with all that is going on right now. I'm getting the feeling that Ron Paul is a case of the right ideas but the wrong person.

An honest, objective opinion! No harm, No foul! That's why there are debates, both in the country and here on Mingle. Knowledge is power, action is the process.

We have seen what is and has happened with our previous choices (ALL sold to us "like our clothes and our cars" .....as Jackson Browne would say).

RP is outside that box, anyone MUST admit, for even with all the blackouts, NO support from Wall Street or the BIG MONEY institutions, he still leads in the places where he is currently making his stands. I feel it will continue, state to state, as the race continues.

As stated on The Young Turks, the "corrupt status quo, wall street, banksters" HATE him. For a governor to say that peoples votes don't count if he wins the caucus in his state.....which people is he representing? Obviously NOT the ones who elected and pay him!

I TOTALLY agree with you about Lew Rockwell, and have stated as much. I feel Pauls lack of defense on this, is because Lew is a long time friend, and Paul simply refuses to throw him under the bus (as Rockwell is doing to him by not coming foreward with a statement). As far a s the newsletters, Paul had returned to private practice, and while contributing "sound money" inserts for them, who was running it in his absence.....ROCKWELL! Read the rockwell sites and blogs.... WAHLAH!....MANY SIMILARITIES!

People are ....waking up? I would like to think it is more "wisening up". War, No jobs, best career choice is the military, dead congress, more commercials and programing than actual entertainment in the media.... WE'RE PI$$ED!

At least under a Paul Presidency, WE have a voice, our constitution would bear fruit again, and banker/shyster policies would be questioned before imposed!

I could go on, but the message is clear....do we desire freedoms, or more of the same.... simple....

And thank you!

Let's face it, if Ron Paul is really genuine and always has been, then Lew Rockwell (and likely a few others) have been using Paul to achieve their own ends. That means Ron Paul needs to draw a clean break from people like Lew Rockwell, or it may drag him down. That's why I want him to come clean. It's already apparent that Lew Rockwell won't. If the guy deserves to be thrown under the bus, then he should be thrown under the bus.

When it comes to all voters as a whole, addressing this issue in a firm manner would gain him many more votes than maintaining the (unintentional) appearance of catering to hatemongers and conspiracy believers. That means he is more likely to win a nomination, and more likely to win a two-party election.

But first he has to show he has nothing to hide, show us his faith so then we can return that faith.

Edit: Realized I had a typo inside the parentheses. It should have been "unintentional".

You have a crystal ball and animal entrails with you there that's telling you this?

They aren't desperate, NO ONE with any real experience in politics thinks Ron Paul's gonna win.

Not to mention the guy is a loon and they have a lot more to focus on then just the racism thing(which by itself is a big thing that's why they are making a big deal about it, if the guy cant run a family newsletter we expect him to run a country? I don't think so) they just choose not to because he is not a real threat and has no chance of winning so why waste their time and resources on the Loon from Texas.

The funny thing is that all's he has to do is man up for once in his life and not blame everyone else and this would probably go away.

A colleague of mine has written a very lengthy FAQ on this issue if you're seriously interested in this.

Abstract:
For 3 decades, several newsletters ran under Paul's name containing fairly conventionalright-wing commentary for the time. Paul personally distanced himself from production and variousghostwriters came and went. For a brief period, lasting from about 1990-94, a relatively small numberof newsletters were released sporadically which contained racially hateful and “homophobic” remarks.This occurred during a time when Paul had relinquished responsibility for the newsletters ‟operation,retired from Congress and an exhausting Presidential campaign, and consigned himself to working full-time as a medical doctor and public speaker, in addition to raising five children. A few objectionable issues managed to leak out under his nose, quite understandably. Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. The racist comments fly in the face of everything Paul has ever written and said, as many people who know him personally have attested, and he was angry when he learned of them. He didn't issue a full denial in 1996 when it was first brought up only on the (in retrospectquite bad) advice of his campaign staff. He has in the recent past addressed the issue several times publicly, explicitly denying authorship, and there is every reason to believe it and move on.

The rest (22 pages with numerous footnotes) is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewslettersFaq-Tunk

Nope, but i've been pretty accurate in predicting elections over the years. I think I am at about a 95% accuracy.

Insults will get you nowhere. What makes you think he hasn't "manned up"? He's already dealt with the issue, as I pointed out in another thread.

Really? He hasn't taken responsibility ONCE for this and has blamed everyone else when he is ultimately to blame.

I don't want to read someone's piece. I want to go straight to the source, see the evidence for myself without interpretations or opinions. I was a history major. This is what I am trained to do. Only after I examine the original sources can I place subsequent material in their proper perspective.

As of yet, I am still searching for source material because there is too much subsequent material for me to draw a fully objective conclusion.

That's why I entered the Ron Paul threads - so I might be referred to the source material. In that light, only the footnotes of the quoted piece may be of use to me. This better be good because trying to find anything these days with all the propaganda circulating is a downright chore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A At ~1:50 he says he published newsletters. This was in 1995.

See also:
“Ultimately, because the writing appeared under his name and he should have better policed it, Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight and disavowed the offensive material.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876#ixzz1habpRIGK