Ron Paul Criticizes Bush's War Policy
Or Was That Clinton's?

Ten years ago, Ron Paul criticized Bill Clinton's policy for war in the Balkans. You'd swear he'd just been criticizing George W. Bush. It is uncanny how similar the motives are behind the Bosnian War and the Iraq War.

A critique of our quest for oil hegemony? It's in there. Allies running away from us? Yup! How about "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops." It's all been said before--ten years ago during the Clinton Administration. So, put on your seat belt, and prepare for a topsy turvy ride of deja vu.

The Establishment of Mao Tse-Tung's China was a master at propaganda. But he has NOTHING on the US Establishment, which now has the sights of its big guns trained on the ONE candidate that is not in some way beholden to the American Establishment--Ron Paul. Recently he has emerged as a formidable candidate. The American kingmen can no longer ignore him, and they don't dare talk about his clearly sound and attractive policies, so they're dredging up lies out of his distant past in an attempt to smear the person.

Good one!

The major players in America haven't liked Ron Paul for a long time, because he's been onto them for a long time. Ron Paul has never waivered in his criticism of unsound and unjust US foreign policy, whether it be the failures of a Democrat or a Republican administration.

Why do his critiques of Bush's and Clinton's war policies sound so similar? Because Bush and Clinton are opposite sides of the same Establishment coin. Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, put it this way:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
Unfortunately, even non-establishment types are getting into the act of belittling the achievements of Ron Paul. It's because they haven't paid attention to what he stands for. If they did, they'd say, "Hey that's exactly what I believe in!"

Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Carroll Quigley

Read the following quotes and see if they don't sound like recent criticisms of President Bush by Ron Paul. The reality, though, is that (although they sound just like recent critiques of Bush's war Policy), these statements were made by Ron Paul in opposition to the Clinton Administration in 1998.

The fact that, of the original...allies in the Persian Gulf War, only one remains--Great Britain--should make us question our policy in this region. (p. 70)
The uniformity of enshrined with the common cliche`s...we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war. Any consideration of the facts involved elicit[s] charges of anti-patriotism. (p. 70)
There is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign policy is less hidden than it has been in the past. ...United States...oil compan[ies have had] success in the [region, where the] "U.S. views pipelines as a big foreign policy victory". (p. 71)
Isn't that interesting? Bill Clinton started a war ten years ago, for all of the same Establishment reasons as for the war Bush started four years ago. Ten years ago, Democrats were the cheerleaders of "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops". Now that there is a Republican "rascal" in the white house, the Republicans are the water carriers for the establishment, spouting the same silly mantra.

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit bizarre?

America's future depends on rejecting the Establishment with is nearly identical, worn out foreign policy that ruins nations and cuts away at the liberty that Americans once held dear. The best beginning to that rejection is the election of Ron Paul as president of the United States.

During the Clinton years, Ron Paul had this to say about patriotism:
The best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation.
Hardly anyone listened to him then. Let's hope were not still so stupid.


  1. Great, Ron Paul is anti-interventionist. Whoopee!

    The rest of his politics are downright scary.

  2. I'm glad that you appreciate that he is anti-interventionist.

    Would you mind elaborating on what scares you? Is it scary that he wants to protect our borders? That he wants to reduce taxes and the size of government? That he believes that families should have choice in education? That he wants to allow the younger generation to replace Social Security with their own retirement plans? That he wants to ensure that people's private property is protected?

  3. My favorite Kosovo quote:

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

    -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

    More from
    Crooks & Liars

  4. The most bizarre part of Bush's campaign in 2000 was that he stated several times that the United States should not be in the business of nation building, and then he immediately launched off (before 9/11 it would seem) in preparing for and conducting nation building.

    Kind of reminds me of Woodrow Wilson who ran for re-election on the slong "He kept us out of war" and then right after beginning his second term, he embroiled us in a huge war.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog