Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Senate GOP Releases Obamacare Overhaul to Immediate Criticism From Both Sides of the Aisle

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived

Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived

janet M. Lang, David A. Welch

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Paul: U.S. Should Keep Its Nose Out of Pakistan

Posted on Dec 28, 2007
Ron Paul

When point-blanked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about how he would handle the current situation in Pakistan, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul blasted U.S. alignment with “military dictator” Pervez Musharraf and accused Washington of fostering unrest among anti-U.S. factions in Pakistan by setting up a “puppet government.”  Rep. Paul was on Thursday’s “Situation Room.”

Watch the clip:


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile

Subscribe to the Truthdig YouTube channel:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Nomascerdo, December 29, 2007 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2, 2002

Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process (continued)

“...Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm’s way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the “peace process” and some 300 billion of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks.

Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?”

Report this

By Ga, December 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

Obviously, this game is rigged.

You do live in the United States, don’t you?

I mean to be sarcastic because the “game” has been rigged for quite some time.

Paul’s run just might parallel Nader’s in 2000. He’ll have a ground swell of public support, with vast amounts of people coming out to support him, but the Media will reject him, as he’s not mainstream enough.

Eventually, he will run as a third party, get some small percent of the vote (remember, his support will peak right before the MSM stops covering him), and then be called a “spoiler” for the Republican party for the next 8 years.

Good luck, anyway.

Report this

By weather, December 29, 2007 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After having been struck in the head by a high-speed bag of rocks,  Lefty continues to confuse Ron Paul w/RuPaul.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, December 29, 2007 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Seems Ron Paul has been excluded from the upcoming New Hampshire Republican Candidates debate, despite the fact he is out-polling and out-fundraising several opponents who HAVE been invited.

Obviously, this game is rigged. Faux News is obviously very scared of Ron Paul’s message of non-interventionism.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2007 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Fox News January 6 exclusion                

The Ron Paul supporters have taken offense to his exclusion at the Republican round table discussions.

A very interesting plan of attack.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

By Nomascerdo, December 29 at 1:11 pm #
(126 comments total)

I am attracted to Ron Paul’s idea of non-partisan foreign policy, if my usage of the term is correct. I don’t have the time to read all the speeches he gave under the link you posted. However, I am particularly interested in learning about his stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. I will appreciate if you can direct me to something specific on this issue from among all these speeches. Since you’re advocating for Ron Paul, I assume you know better whether there is specific reference to this topic. Thank you in advance for your help, if you can!

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, December 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Our foreign policy is pretty much one of Bribes and Beatings, politely referred to as “carrots and sticks.” Ron Paul takes an entirely different, third approach: “trade, not invade.”

“Foreign Aid” = “Bribes.”

“War” = “Beatings.”

That’s the only game our Masters in Washington know. It is exactly the opposite of what the Founders stood for: limited government and friendly trade relations with all nations, but entangling alliances with none.

Libertarianism is very counterintuitive to those who have always believed we need to “do something” about whatever horrendous foreign crisis rears its head, whether the crisis is in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, India, or North Korea. History shows we make things infinitely worse when we intervene. Ron Paul’s approach—letting countries sort things out on their own—is the only sensible foreign policy.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Nomascerdo, a very in depth source.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 29, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

I will also point out AGAIN that the ONLY person Ron Paul has mentioned as a running mate is a black economics professor, Walter E. Williams.  Cyrena, do you think that Walter Williams has been ‘fooled’ by Ron Paul?

Furthermore, his intellectual heroes are predominately Jewish.  It would be strange to consider a Jew a personal hero if you were an anti-semite no?

And now to quote another influence of Paul’s just because it is important for all of you who think Socialism is the answer to truly understand how the world works.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1848:

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

PS - If you want socialism there are plenty of other countries in the world where you can go but please leave our constitutional republic to those of us who love America.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 29, 2007 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

Lefty - If this is what you consider to be even remotely credible you are more helpless than your prior posts would suggest.

Here is one of my favorites from Lefty just in case anyone here thinks they should listen to anything he says or the websites he thinks are credible:

#122698 by Lefty on 12/26 at 11:57 pm:

“When the hell did medicine become science? DUMBASS!”

That is just a classic example but there are sooo many more.

Cyrena - As usual you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to anything regarding Ron Paul and his very well documented policy positions.  Further, what you do know is B.S. and what you think you have decoded a secret plot of Ron Paul and white supremacists in this country planning on taking the country over and locking up minorities and women is delusional.

Now we need only look at this recent comment by Cyrena as proof that she is “shooting from the hip”:

” Needless to say, isolationism isn’t a viable option in a 21st Century world. I also wonder the same thing (as Fadel) about how he feels with the billions that we keep doling out to Israel.

My intuition tells me that he’d just as soon he keep the money himself, (and a few of his supporters claim that he HAS said we shouldn’t be giving billions of $$ to Israel) but I don’t believe he cares a whit that Israel continues to brutally oppress the Palestinians. “

Now do you want to actually READ what Ron Paul himself says about Foreign Aid, about Israel, and about his foreign policy of non-interventionism?  If you do, I would actually be happy to buy you his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, which is a compilation of his speeches on foreign policy to Congress over his 10 terms starting in 1974.  Either read the book and understand what he actually says, support your statements with verifiable facts, or you will continue to only be found credible in the minds of the other clueless folks like Lefty.

If anyone is interested in actually reading the speeches that Ron Paul has given on the floor of Congress is a free, definitive source.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

Lefty read the comments.

Not one of the commentors was for this obvious hit piece and saw right through it for what it was.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, December 29, 2007 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

The USA should keep it’s nose out of EVERYWHERE…

...unless specifically and openly INVITED to ADVISE and perhaps ASSIST a recognized, legitimate government to provide a better quality of life for its people.

Again, I’m dreaming… right?

Report this

By Jonas South, December 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you examine Ron Paul’s congressional voting record, you might notice that he would allow taking minors cross state lines for abortion, yet is against late term abortion. This seeming contradiction is, in fact, consistent with his core belief, which is to live and let live. It is what we Americans used to practice, and what made us so attractive to peoples around the world.

Ron Paul’s public life examplifies this concern for personal freedom. He may not agree with what a pregnant woman wishes to do with her body, but it is her body and her wish. Of course, live and let live cannot be carried to an extreme. Ron Paul draws the line when free choice results in unnecessary harm to another sentient being. This happens to be the compromise proposed by the late, great Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist, best-selling author and Hollywood producer.

Far better than cell mitosis, ovum implantation, or even heart beat and spontaneous movements, says Sagan, the start of brain waves is the one criterion we can all accept as defining being ‘alive’, since we already agree that the absence of them defines death. Sagan and Paul draw the line at the third trimester, because that is when the fetus first develops brain waves. Live and let live includes reproductive choice,  but not when that choice causes ‘unnecessary harm to another sentient being’. A slippery slope is just behind the line that Ron Paul draws.

Understandably, Doctor Paul does not wish to dwell on a divisive issue, when there are so many other pressing issues to address. But examine what he stands for, and we find a principled yet practical man backed by a fierce intellect. Look around you at the other presidential candidates; can you not wince? Or, more to the point, can our country afford to settle for any of those yahoos?

Report this

By QuyTran, December 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

You’re right Mr. Paul. The international police policy is no longer effective method of doing political business in this century.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, December 29, 2007 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena might have information on RP I do not and otherwise I am not knowing what she finds so flawed about him.  Or Grand Oprah etc., while most of what Cyrena says I follow in agreement, but centuries before H.G. Wells and ilk said so in the twenties or thirties it is understood there is hell to pay while we have borders between countries and all these howling individuals in the said countries are the same exact critter since the city state and 200,000 years minimum before any humans settled on a coast or river to fish and grow grain.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2007 at 10:32 am Link to this comment


No where in Ron Pauls agenda does he plan to build 15 more bases in each state.  If anyone has looked at a map of his/her state they would be amazed of how many military bases already exist.

Bill Richardson would be a real good Democratic nominee who I could support, however he lacks the momentum it takes to win a general election.

Aside from your hyperbole about building a fence securing our southern border to prevent people from walking across, you attempt to bridge this as being an isolationist policy regarding Ron Paul but you describe Richards who agrees with the wall as being a non-interventionist.

Ron Paul has at least trumpeted his intention of cutting off U.S. aid (bribes) to these despotic countries which include Israel.  The day they don’t get their welfare check from the U.S. they will have a whole new mindset of how they treat the Palistinian people.  If they don’t relent, boycott them, an age old proven method of the free market.

The UN serves an important function and I do not agree with Ron Paul on this issue, however, it is as corrupt as our own government and this speaks volumes.  The U.S. should not be required to fund the lions share of its operations when that money is squandered and misappropriated.  Until we straighten out our foreign policy and introduce a kinder and more humble one, the majority of nations will be against anything favoring the United States.

Report this

By DennisD, December 29, 2007 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Ron Paul is the person who will start to bring our government back to it’s people, he has my vote. The change won’t happen overnight. I haven’t heard as much common sense from any other candidate on so many issues. And no, I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says but nothing is perfect in an imperfect world.

As far as staying out of other countries affairs - wow, what an original idea.

For a country that is currently north of $9 trillion in debt, it’s military stretched to the breaking point if not broken, infrastructure disentegrating, health care system out of control, economy in the toilet and illegal immigrants running wild across wide open borders, I guess the logical thing to do would be to stay involved or get involved somewhere else because everything is “just peachy” here isn’t it. WTF!

As for the Ron Paul detractors - let’s hear about the candidate you support and his or her view on the topic du jour and why it’s the right view versus someone else’s. It’s easy to run down someone else’s opinion when you have none of your own or your candidate’s to defend. Bring alternative solutions to the discussion and maybe, just maybe you’ll change some minds.

Report this

By cyrena, December 29, 2007 at 5:23 am Link to this comment


With all due respect, we’re not so easily contained in left right boxes any longer. That all went up in smoke eons ago.

And in all equal honesty, the very use of the terms speaks to an either/or concept, which is killing us. It’s too divisive.

That’s the reason why another radical just won’t do. We have to stop being lazy, about accepting pre-packaged models just because we think they’re something different, from the disaster that we’re in.

It’s like we take what’s on the shelf, just because it has the most features that we actually thing we want or need, and we’ll just put up with the few things we don’t like, like the chance that the sucker may blow up on us.

It’s like choosing a candidate like some new prescription medication. You really want SOMETHING, because you think you’re gonna die if you don’t get it. But then, you start reading or listening to the ‘disclaimers’….may cause…blah, blah, blah, including DEATH, which is the whole reason you’re looking for the shit to begin with! To avoid exactly that!

It’s the same with buying a new computer. The last one is dead, you need another, and preferably a cheap one, so you take the one that seems like the best buy, even if it has already shown in test runs, that it might blow up or electrocute you.

So, it’s time to stop ‘settling’ for what seems like the least of the evils, or ‘rolling the dice’ that the meds will cure you before they kill you. There’s nothing WRONG with DEMANDING a custom model, and one that is gonna fit more of us than it doesn’t.

So don’t ignore ALL of the other candidates, based on one or two issues that are easily adjusted. Make ‘em build it the way we want it, with the full knowledge that we are not a ‘one size fits all’ society.

Make ‘em cut a deal, BEFORE they get the job.

Report this

By cyrena, December 29, 2007 at 1:02 am Link to this comment

To be honest, there was another candidate who responded in kind, and I mentioned this on the other thread. (candidates respond to Bhutto’s assassination.) It was Bill Richardson. His own non-interventionist policy isn’t so far from that of RP, except of course it’s not as radical.

In short, he knows that we have no business in ANY of these places, and has said as much. The problem of course, is that the media rarely covers him, if ever.

And, when I say that his position is less radical, it too is an ‘observation’ based on reason. RP is just pick up, head out, divy-up the military here at home, (I think he wants 15 bases in every state) and build a trillion mile high, 1000 foot thick concrete wall around the whole place, (the US) and simply cease all contact with the rest of the world. He won’t let anybody in or out, and everything will be just peachy.

Of course there could be some logistical concerns there, since he’s counting on the Alaskan oil to serve us for the next few centuries, and that’s gonna take some doing, to get it past the big wall. But, he’ll figure that out as he goes along I guess.

Needless to say, isolationism isn’t a viable option in a 21st Century world. I also wonder the same thing (as Fadel) about how he feels with the billions that we keep doling out to Israel.

My intuition tells me that he’d just as soon he keep the money himself, (and a few of his supporters claim that he HAS said we shouldn’t be giving billions of $$ to Israel) but I don’t believe he cares a whit that Israel continues to brutally oppress the Palestinians.

In other words, his is a truly ‘hands off’ policy for everywhere, when it comes to the money, and anything else. It’s the same reason he’s ostensibly against the war in Iraq. He doesn’t like giving up the money. (especially to those Arabs, since he knows perfectly well that the grotesquely corrupt puppet Iraqi government is attached via umbilical cord to the host Cabal of corruption in DC). But, that’s the ONLY reason. He couldn’t care less about the damage and destruction to humanity and other living things. He figures that’s ‘their’ problem. So, if Israel wants to keep brutalizing its Arab neighbors, for eternity, he’s not much concerned, as long as it’s not on his dime. He might suggest that the UN look into it, but not with any sincere conviction, because he’d yank us out of THAT participation as well, at the very first opportunity. (it’s SO embarrassing that we NEVER pay our UN dues on time, if at all).

Now, that’s a harsh cynicism I know. But, something tells me, (specifically his own words and actions) that it’s pretty much where he’s at.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, December 28, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Whether you are on the LEFT or the RIGHT, Ron Paul is the only candidate for either party enunciating a reasonable, non-interventionist foreign policy. This constant warfare overseas is bankrupting us. Listen—everyone has some policy differences with Ron Paul (even me), but the overwhelming importance of ending foreign wars and foreign aid (aka beatings and bribery, politely called carrots and sticks) is reason enough to unite behind him. If you want an America at peace with the rest of the world, support Ron Paul.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 28, 2007 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is right and “reason”, December 28 at 5:32 pm # is right too.

However, I wish Wolf Blitzer had the courage to ask Ron Paul a question on his stand in dealing with Israel and the so many billions the U.S. spends on Israel despite its brutal occupation of Palestine!

Report this

By reason, December 28, 2007 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is not someone I would want to be President but he is right in his opinion that we should not be supporting Pakistan’s dictator/leader (Pervez Musharraf). The United States has put it’s self in an unethical situation in Pakistan by supporting this pompous dictator and the Pakistani Army. Our State Department refers to our policy as “encouraging democracy”; the rest of the world knows it is more “disinformation” and “politcal spin”. For the ordinary citizen, a lie is a lie but to the Bush Administration a lie is fine if it expedites the policy they wish to execute. Our so called “War of Terror” is really about how to use “Terror” to influence and intimidate anyone who oppose Bush’s agenda.
When Presidential candidates were asked how they would respond to Bhutto’s assination, they all seemed to shy away from giving a direct answer. I do not want to vote for a candidate that will not answer an honest question that is so relevent to this country’s foreign policy. Ron Paul can be severely direct and in the position he is in; he has nothing to lose (this is not a citizism; it is an observation and in writing this comment the same observation applies to me.) My disappointment in the other candidates is that they don’t have the courage to offer their real views as to how we should be dealing with Pervez Musharraf.

Dan Campbell
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By weather, December 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Free us from Wolf Blitzer, CNN, regretably PBS/NPR and the other media monsters - they are the new ‘opiate of the people’.

They create the status faux.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook