The spy who loved Ron Paul
January 3rd, 2012
04:50 PM ET

The spy who loved Ron Paul

By Pam Benson

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has been endorsed by an outspoken former CIA officer who once headed the Osama Bin Laden unit.

Michael Scheuer pulled no punches in throwing his support behind and encouraging Iowans to vote for Rep. Paul.

Scheuer was a 22-year veteran of the CIA who served as the chief of the Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999 and continued to work on counter-terrorism issues until he left the Agency in 2004 shortly after anonymously publishing a book entitled "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."  He continues to write extensively about U.S. foreign policy, critical of what he believes is America's dangerous intervention in the Muslim world and kowtowing to the pro Israeli lobby.

In a lengthy column on his website entitled, "Iowa's Choice: Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars and many more dead soldiers and Marines," Scheuer touted the Texas Congressman for taking principled stands against foreign intervention.

"Dr. Paul's non-interventionist policy will allow foreigners to work out their political destiny in their own way and at their own pace; prevent unnecessary additions to America's growing list of enemies; and save countless young lives," Scheuer said.

He criticized the other Republican candidates and President Barack Obama for supporting policies that will only "motivate more Muslims" to fight against U.S. interests.

And he said only Rep. Paul could be counted on to develop domestic energy resources to end the dependence on what he called "oil-rich Arab tyrants...that mandates that the U.S. military spends billions each year to defend the Arab Penisula's fundamentally anti-U.S. police states."

Scheuer’s not the only spy in the politics game. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden advises Mitt Romney.

Scheuer currently is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.

In a written statement on Tuesday, Ron Paul's Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said they are pleased by the endorsement saying Scheuer “like Ron Paul understands the connection between U.S military adventurism and emerging threats against America. Michael Scheuer understands that only Dr. Paul will put our national security first and stop the foreign wars and nation building."

Post by:
Filed under: 2012 Election • Paul • Romney
soundoff (190 Responses)
  1. BHUPVuKxIj

    buy cialis online cialis us – cialis 2.5 online

    April 9, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Reply
  2. Loraleil Roscupv

    Hello there I am so thrilled I found your website, I really found you by accident, while I was searching on Yahoo for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a marvelous post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the great work.

    July 3, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
  3. Mahir

    Well, this is just great. One more thing we agree upon . . . Christians and/or those that call themselves Christians do not avenirsully agree on biblical interpretation.There's a horrible joke/cliche to the effect of the reason Republicans are against abortion is because they need more bodies to go to war. Then they complain when they're disabled rather than killed since they have to make welfare payments to them and pay medical care until they're dead.

    April 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Reply
  4. Indra

    The govt has doubled its beugdt since the year 2000. I don't know about you, but I think we did fine in 2000. If you think we cannot massively cut the govt beugdt without cutting welfare programs you are simply dead wrong. The wars are a good place to start. Then, start slashing unnecessary programs, and beleive me there are plenty. Eventually, yes, the welfare programs will have to be cut.Unfortunately, we have been living in a fantasy world; the govt promises more than it can afford

    April 4, 2012 at 6:50 am | Reply
  5. michaelfury

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/illicit-but-ill-defined/

    January 4, 2012 at 7:27 am | Reply
  6. michaelfury

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/as-the-crow-flies/

    January 4, 2012 at 7:24 am | Reply
  7. FIELD1stSGT

    Turn U.S.'s back on Israel and we will be destroyed. It is written in Revelations. And to you Atheists who do not believe. Pitiful times will befall upon you. It is not to late. God says you will turn back to God but it may be to late. You do ungodly things and allow ungodly things to go on, Abortions, Same Sex weddings. English speakings nations are the ones he is talking about. The lost tribes of Israel. We are doomed for we are not fulfilling prophecy. Not here say but fact. It is written so it shall be done.

    January 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Reply
    • Larry L

      I certainly hope you are not still associated with the military – you've totally lost it.

      January 3, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Reply
    • Joe B.

      Hey Sarge, I am a very conservative Catholic and have read the bible many times (including the books written in the original Latin), and not once do I recall the United States being mentioned, let alone anything about it being destroyed.

      Unlike you, I am pro-life across the board, and that includes innocent people in other countries dying needlessly in immoral wars of aggression. Even the Vatican agrees (a crucial point lost on so-called 'Catholics' like Gingrich and Santorum). This uniquely American Protestant Evangelical Dispensationalism you appear to subscribe to – that believes it can induce the return of Christ by the US causing what may turn out to be World War III – is so far from the Christianity I grew up with I don't even believe it to be Christianity, but some kind of bizarre death cult.

      "Turn the other cheek" and "Blessed be the peacemaker," this is the Christ of the Bible. All I know is that if He does return in our lifetimes, he's not going to be happy with people like you.

      January 4, 2012 at 12:13 am | Reply
      • TheObsoleteMan

        What? Are you looking for THE UNITED SATES OF AMERICA to be spelled out for you in the Bible? The USA is referred to as MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT. Read Revelations Chapter 17. Thats America, and we are destroyed in one hour. And it will NOT be because we "turned our back on Israel" that is worse than stupid. Israel doesn't need us. They have nukes. No arab country does. Simple as that.

        January 4, 2012 at 12:59 am |
      • Pvt Joker

        Joe B. Acutally the US is mentioned in the bible. We are the Beast that rose out of the earth with two horns like a lamb who would later speak like a dragon... But No were does it say anyone has to support the Nation of Israel!!!! Israel is the people of God, not a country or nation...

        January 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • SPCSKI

      Your god delusion offends me. You should probably go see a worry doctor and get some help with that. Your unfit to lead soldiers with such serious mental health problems.

      January 4, 2012 at 8:23 am | Reply
    • Megeneration

      This rant is reminiscent of something Colonel Kurtz would've said somewhere during "Apocalypse Now"...

      January 4, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
      • Robi

        Thninikg like that is really impressive

        April 4, 2012 at 1:54 am |
    • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

      Yes, but if we bring forth the apocalypse, then there will be zombies, and I desperately want to battle zombies.

      January 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Reply
      • jimkonos

        I would very much like to battle the zombies as well

        January 4, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
      • XX

        It's you happy petit-bourgeois slaves to the international profit machine that are the zombies.
        Don't you even understand the symbolism of zombie movies?
        The whole world is already awash with zombies!

        January 9, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • jimkonos

      well if it is written in the bible then it must be true prophecy and who are we to try to change our fate as written in the bible?

      January 4, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Reply
    • jimkonos

      There is an inherent problem of trying to intermingle religion with politics. The basis of religion is morality, purity and faith, while that for politics is power. In the course of history, religion has often been used to give legitimacy to those in power and their exercise of that power. Religion was used to justify wars and conquests, persecutions, atrocities, rebellions, destruction of works of art and culture.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Reply
    • Cindy O

      OMG, shut UP!!

      January 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Reply
      • Louis Nardozi

        Oh? Which of the 236 versions of the infallible states this? Maybe while you're at it, you can explain how an infallible book has VERSIONS in the same language. Mark you, I'm not talking about the thousands of current versions in languages other than English. Nor am I talking about the hundreds of versions that predated those where the language was strictly Latin. I'm not even talking about the Greek ones or the ones in Hebrew. All infallible. All perfectly correct. All incapable of contradicting each other. Right?

        January 22, 2012 at 1:47 am |
  8. OnceAWaverer

    OK. I've decided. The thing I see from this article and the responses is that Ron Paul's views and policies are based on common sense! And that's OK with me. He gets my vote!

    January 3, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
    • Larry L

      Common sense is fine, but simplistic thinking isn't what it takes to run the most complex and powerful nation on earth. Paul is like a preacher – telling people what they "need" to hear to believe solutions are easy. You can't defend America with four submarines unless you plan to solve every military problem with nuclear weapons. You can't rely on the states to control environmental pollution – especially when profit is the motive and oil is the problem. You can't rely on charities and churches to pay for indigent healthcare. Social Security and Medicare are not programs we can scrap – many, many people depend heavily on these programs. They need smart solutions – not Libertarian anarchy. Paul is strong with voters in the 17-29 year age group because these folks lack the depth of experience required to understand the complexity of a modern world. It's a fragile global economy and too radical a change can destroy America's progress forever.. Our enemies are both national and trans-national. We need a strong military for many limited military scenarios. Global climate change is real. We really do need to end our dependence on oil. The gap between rich and poor really is widening at an alarming rate. These problems will not be solved by Ron Paul's anarchy and pretending the solutions will work is quite foolish.

      January 4, 2012 at 12:53 am | Reply
      • Jackson

        Very erudite resonse, Larry. Well thought out and concise. There is something to be said for the situational ethics on which our country bases its foreign policy initiatives, though. There was a time in which we used to side with the morally just rather than the politically expedient (this is of course debatable). Most of what passes for Middle-East foreign policy these days amounts to appeasement. Syria is the most obvious example. Israel is another (in recent years, we've busted more spies and spy rings within the continental US from Israel than any other country including just after 911).

        January 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
      • Louis Nardozi

        BEFORE the government take a penny in tax from you – it takes 10% + 5% of your pay for FICA and Medicare, including what the employer pays. Add that to the amount they withhold, and you've paid for your own insurance that can't be taken from you.

        January 22, 2012 at 1:53 am |
      • Realist

        Not all elders still get the complex understanding of the planet needed in order to effectively run it or even vote for a leader who truly understands. In fact mist people – regardless of age – DON'T! Why else do the likes of Bush get elected twice, while great candidates like Dr. Paul get left on the wayside! Age doesn't always mean wisdom, and how the political system is is a testament to this reality...

        October 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  9. Voice of Reason

    I think one thing that we need to realize with this economy is not that it's waiting to be unleashed by the government, it's on life support in debt to the government, and by extension, us, the common man. The deregulation and lack of oversight of the financial sector is what got us here in the first place, and now the common man is paying for the rich man's mistakes. We don't need less monitoring of the financial sector, we need a govt that will hold Wall St.'s @$$ to the fire for it's screwups and no republican wants to do that, least of all, Ron-freakin-Paul

    January 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Reply
    • Dtm4u2

      Big government got us in this mess why do you now think big government will get us out. The USA needs Ron Paul. Get real.

      January 3, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Reply
      • russ

        What about the newsletters? You don't know what's on them yet you're making money from them. The racial bigotry, the miltia guides. I'll pass.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:11 am |
      • Angie

        are you a moron all the other candidates favor cnrioratpoos Ron Paul supports the people not Corporations and greedy scums. He is one of the best candidates and one of the reasons i will vote because now i don't have to chose between who is less greedy. Ron Paul is the smartest guy out there so get the facts straight your probably a corporation who favors people who give u better incentives so get out of here.

        April 6, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
  10. Mack Bolan

    Okay, so the way I see it is that anyone on here that is critical of Ron Paul is ignorant and anyone akin to his views and policies is woefully incapable of not tearing into people who may be a little mixed up. These arguments are pathetic.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Reply
    • Mack Bolan

      ...and Just.The.Facts is a smug douche. Seriously, you act like if Ron Paul wins, you're going to be up there on the stage with him.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Reply
  11. Earle Belle

    Mitt Romney Keeps Defending the Individual Mandate:

    http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/28/mitt-romney-keeps-defending-th

    Study: On Spending Cuts, Most GOP Candidates Light On Details; Who Isn't?:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/study-on-spending-cuts-most-gop-candidates-light-on-details/?print=1

    The Compassion Of Dr. Ron Paul:

    http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/12/the-compassion-of-dr-ron-paul/

    January 3, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Reply
    • Omini

      1. End the corporate tax! ZERO is btteer than any.2. End the income tax! ZERO is btteer than any.3. 1% investment transaction tax. (would generate $4 TRILLION per year) 50% goes to the states, 50% goes to the federal government.4. Exemption for re-patriated funds used fro capital investment inside the US.5. End NAFT, CAFT, GATT, FTAA, SPP, and any other SLAVE trade agreements6. Audit, then END THE FED7. Prosecute exposed criminals and void their debts

      April 5, 2012 at 2:08 am | Reply
    • Nikhil

      NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCETopics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Philosophy, Science, Others.Websites: balancedway.yolasite.cometc. See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at frigue4etc2.yolasite.comfrigue4etc1.yolasite.cometc. See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.comannouncements-balancedway.yolasite.com

      April 7, 2012 at 2:35 am | Reply
  12. Earle Belle

    Return Of The War Party?

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/11/14/return-of-the-war-party-2/

    http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/12/new-revpac-ad-adherence-to-the-oath/

    Why Ron Paul Is Overwhelmingly The Most Conservative Presidential Candidate:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/ron-paul-is-the-most-conservative-presidential-candidate/

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/04/29/constant-conservative-ron-paul/

    Ron Paul: Reality Check!
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKaq4qoQvOs&w=640&h=390]

    http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul

    Why Tea Party Voters Are Returning to Ron Paul:

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-tea-party-voters-returning-ron-paul-001800430.html?fb_ction_ids=1894814909530&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQDQ0DXFSqS764JKiJXpvWf1cTCEJwENnSpv55HcIiKVXHCFxJrQ9xjarSMc6gjOj6_HF0Yn2cQdu8h6lyO3at9_IS3fssmr_9RtPrTUR4SSs2GRQpw6jBbOarvKljyycmh8qyP2qIOovXtbCIdPeMn5LSvlY4g2GYgL_s4zZYpqkBRVCRq2nruyfTPM_1DdKMg#_=

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESux7oFMDY&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls&w=640&h=390]

    And Even More Reasons:

    http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/09/grassroots-video-ron-paul-the-only-one-we-can-trust/

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIP8lGBtFQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExwqY7Wiiig&w=640&h=390]

    The Fed’s Dirty Not-So-Little Secrets:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

    January 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Reply
  13. Earle Belle

    Ron Paul Supports George W. Bush’s Foreign Policy:
    From 2000, that is, of being a “humble nation” that does not engage in “nation-building.” Many say everything changed after 9/11. It did. America was attacked by radical Islamists, so we went into Afghanistan to route the Taliban who had aided and abetted Al-Qaeda. Virtually every American supported that mission, Congressman Ron Paul voted for it and the world was on our side in that fight. But what really changed after 9/11 was the degree to which our government used that tragedy as an excuse to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq and to stay in Afghanistan far longer than any American would have ever imagined. It is our post 9/11 haze, and the unconstitutional expansion of Executive power that accompanied it, we created a political environment in which President Obama can now send America’s military off to Libya without so much as consulting Congress. What George W. Bush describes in this video represents the foreign policy sanity Ron Paul would like to return to. Paul’s foreign policy is basically what Americans voted for in 2000. After a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, most polls show that a war-weary American majority is eager to vote for the same policies in 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F9SOVzMV2bc

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/26/peter-beinart-how-ron-paul-will-change-the-gop-in-2012.html

    Is Ron Paul Wrong About Iran? What is more likely? Circa 2003: That Iraq has WMDs and poses a great threat to the United States? Or what Ron Paul said—that America was overreacting and we would find ourselves in a quagmire? In 2003, everyone said Ron Paul was wrong. In 2011, most Americans agree that Paul was right. What is more likely? Circa 2011: That Iran might have a WMD and poses a great threat to the United States? Or what Ron Paul says—that America is overreacting concerning Iran and going to war with that country will find the US in a quagmire once again? The notion that Paul is being “absurd” in his policy toward Iran does not make sense if history, experience and common sense have any bearing on the matter. http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/27/why-the-establishment-really-fears-ron-paul/

    http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/iran-the-aggressor-not-according-to-the-pentagon-which-agrees-with-ron-paul.html

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIP8lGBtFQ&w=640&h=390]

    January 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Reply
  14. Earle Belle

    Ron Paul’s Mainstream Foreign Policy:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/on-foreign-policy-ron-paul-is-more-mainstream-than-his-opponents/249081/

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/billions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent-for-empire/

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&w=640&h=390]

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/why-conservatives-must-adopt-ron-pauls-foreign-policy/

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-antiwar-20120102,0,6340945.story

    International Business Times – "Ron Paul 2012 – Why He Is Right On Foreign Policy"

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/265912/20111212/ron-paul-2012-right-foreign-policy.htm

    Gingrich would be worse than Obama on Foreign Policy:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/gingrich-would-be-worse-than-obama/

    Ron Paul Explains: Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism:

    http://patriotupdate.com/16011/ron-paul-explains-isolationism-vs-non-interventionism

    January 3, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  15. Earle Belle

    Ron Paul: Israel is “Our Best Friend”:
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZpL8F4FgU&w=640&h=390]

    Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel:

    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247

    Israel & Ron Paul Reality Check:
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv9bQFanXj8&w=640&h=390]

    Ron Paul’s Mainstream Foreign Policy:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/on-foreign-policy-ron-paul-is-more-mainstream-than-his-opponents/249081/

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/billions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent-for-empire/

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&w=640&h=390]

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/why-conservatives-must-adopt-ron-pauls-foreign-policy/

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-antiwar-20120102,0,6340945.story

    January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Reply
  16. Olaf

    I remember when I first visited America as a teenage, I thought, what an incredible place! How lucky is a person to be born here instead of Sweden. Now 20 years later, I no longer think this.

    I have been back several times and it still is a great place, but here in Sweden we are neutral, and that is the best policy. I am proud to be Swedish and happy that people I do not know in the Middle East do not want to harm me because my country occupys their lands and kills their people.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Reply
    • Dave

      Truly you are an idiot. Muslims hate you for your freedom no matter how neutral you are.

      January 3, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Reply
      • Louis Nardozi

        You ever think maybe they hate us for the over 1 million innocent men women and children we killed in Iraq with our war and sanctions? Looking for WMDs that weren't there? Even though Saddam was a pissant and we were sitting on 30,000 nuclear warheads. Boy you sure are scared, why don't you hide under mommy's skirts – MEN are talking.

        January 3, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
      • Olaf

        You cannot be serious David. If they hate us for our freedoms then why was Sweden not attacked on 9-11? People do not kill people because of something so stupid, they kill people out of sense of vengeance because they think they have been wronged.

        Think about it, would you want to kill Chinise people because they eat dogs or rice or do something strange or offensive you don't like? Or would you if soldiers from the China government killed members of your family or occupied your homeland?

        January 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
      • Greg

        I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you honestly believe they "hate freedom" you are an idiot. They hate us bombing them, they hate us undermining their sovereignty, and they hate us occupying their nations, they could care less about our freedoms. If they hated our freedom, the Patriot Act should have made them quit hating us. NDAA should make them downright enamored with us. Maybe you should defer to the experts on the matter, all of whom agree they hate us for our foreign policy, not our domestic policy. After all our freedoms don't affect them, our bombs do.

        January 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Traci

      Olaf, I served with Swedish troops in Afghanistan. Those I served with were brave and well-trained. They did your country proud. You may be neutral but your troops are fighting, 'occupying' (and getting killed) right beside ours. I am glad a 9/11 didn't happen in Sweden and I hope it never does. I do agree with you and Greg on the point that it is not our freedoms they hate. I'm tired of hearing that excuse. We would fight tirelessly if a foreign country was occupying the U.S. Enough is enough. Ron Paul 2012.

      January 4, 2012 at 4:56 am | Reply
  17. rhymeskeema

    Woah, a non-negative Paul article! But that's the picture they use to make him look evil... Is CNN jumping the bandwagon after dissing him for so long?

    January 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Reply
  18. Just.The.Facts

    Ron Paul 2012 is common sense :)

    January 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Reply
  19. Tim

    Ron Paul 2012!!! Perhaps the last hope for our republic given any research whatsoever.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Reply
  20. socalpimp

    Funny....the only supporters you will find of OBAMA are union hacks and the unemployed with their hands out.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Reply
    • Synapse

      Keep thinkin that.
      Sane normal people finally see who the poodles of the ultra-rich and BIG business [not small or medium sized business] are- the GOP. Including RP.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Reply
      • Just.The.Facts

        Synapse .. wrong about RP on that issue, do you research thoroughly ;)

        January 3, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
      • Synapse

        JTF- My brother or sister, open your eyes-
        Support of Libertarianism is similar to support of Communism- Commies [still] say- "If only we had MORE control and had eliminated MORE of our opponents- it would've worked" Libertarians would be saying "If only we had slashed MORE... then it would've worked"
        As I said- SOME good ideas to incorporate... too much of a BAD fundamental desire to destroy the fundamental benefits to all, of a cooperative democracy.
        Folks [many young] I know who are self described Libertarians- are unashamed beneficiaries of Gov't training programs / get student loans and are 1 ATV/car/snowboard accident away from needing Soc Security Disability- and don't have Health Insurance, because they're still invincible.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      If Ron Paul (or Jon Huntsman) is not the republican nominee I will be voting for Obama. I don't fit any of the categories you ignorantly believe encompasses all Obama supporters.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Reply
    • Larry L

      I believe Warren Buffet supports President Obama.

      January 4, 2012 at 12:55 am | Reply
  21. Synapse

    If this were a healthy political time- as in the,even recent, past- the good ideas RP has [no internat'l adventurism / decriminalize marijuana / reduce the military / Patriot Act is un-American] would be incorporated into the national political fabric.
    This is NOT a healthy political time- and TOO MANY of his ideas [most especially, his Libertarian foundation idea- everyone for themselves] are way too extreme.
    Those of you who see RP as The Savior or "The One True Way" should remember that as a result of the last depression and the economic effect on these counties- Italy, Spain, and Germany ELECTED extremists who- with an iron fist and the help of rabidly committed followers made the trains run- at the cost of the freedom of their citizenry. Our fathers and grandfathers fought AND DIED IN THE MILLIONS to defeat such idealogies.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Reply
    • Victor

      I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure their extremism didn't involve smaller governments and less foreign entanglements. Paul's 'extremism,' (if you call returning to constitutionally-minded limited government extreme) is nothing like those others you outlined.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Reply
      • Synapse

        You're right- They were DEALING WITH THE RESULT OF imposed smaller government and disarmament.
        It is irrational to attempt to reduce the size of this government to the place "Libertarians" seek.
        America IS the largest economy in history. Without government regulation and involvement- we will soon be a 3rd world country. Rich or poor citizens- only.
        The point was- RP acolytes are following a similar extremist cult of personality that led [before] to disaster.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • Donna

      Synapse,
      If you were to read history back when the Depression became a reality, you would realize that what actually caused the Depression, or that one of the major causes, was the fact that this country was sold out from under the people by its own current President of the time to the bankers, etc... our currency was going down, stocks crashing , among other things.. much like things are doing now and at the way things are standing now, I don't see any improvements in the near or far future with this country continuing going to go to war with one country or another while it is BROKE financially.. If you want to bring up our forefathers, reread the Constitution and it plainly states that our armed forces were created specifically to protect our borders, NOT to fight wars in other countries and most espectially, NOT political wars.. but to be HERE protecting our borders.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Reply
      • Synapse

        Sister Donna- you're doing exactly what I was posting about- you're focusing on the 1 issue that RP "speaks to you" with [and which- I said was one of the good ideas that he has that should be incorporated] pulling our troops back.
        BUT- by throwing your support to him, you may be [maybe not] ignoring all of the other extreme views he has [abortion, "everyone for themselves" including you and your loved ones, etc]

        January 3, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • Greg

      I think you are making the common mistake of assuming an ideal is absolute. Libertarian ideals are no different than any political ideals, they are Utopian and unrealistic by nature. What would be the point of creating an imperfect ideal. That doesn't mean Libertarians expect or even desire our ideals to be fully implemented. like any other ideal it has to be reconciled with reality. It's also important to note that Libertarian is not a singular ideal, it covers a wide spectrum from far left to far right and everything in between. The political spectrum is actually more of a compass on a grid with Libertarian covering the southern half and Authoritarian covering the north. Essentially anyone who is not an Authoritarian or dead center is Libertarian. Obama is left/authoritarian while Bush is right/authoritarian. Milton Friedman and Ron Paul are right/libertarian while Gandhi and Noam Chomsky are left/libertarian. If you compare Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul they are about as similar as Obama and Bush, but they are both Libertarian.

      January 3, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Reply
      • Synapse

        Good luck to you if you are hit by a drunk driver and are made incapable to take care of yourself or your family.
        It happens.
        No man is an island.
        No one is perfect- and can never achieve some subjectively created ideal. But... to take your "you gots to take the good with the bad" position of putting blinders on and supporting such a deeply flawed candidate as RP, is exactly how those societies I referenced in my initial post got into positions of power/control.
        Noam Chomsky a libertarian, indeed. NOT.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:15 am |
      • Synapse

        Noam Chomsky Libertarian SOCIALIST... Hardly "everyman for themselves"

        January 4, 2012 at 1:40 am |
      • Louis Nardozi

        Libertarian Socialist is like saying warmongering pacifist – the two are diametrically opposed philosophically.

        That being said, if the government didn't offer insurance against being hit by a car and disabled, the private sector would. and it would be CHEAPER. And people who didn't bother to buy it would just be SOL, wouldn't they? When you have freedom, you may make mistakes – it's still better than being a slave.

        January 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  22. Cindy

    If Ron Paul should become president it wouldn't be long until we couldn't recognize this country anymore. His Federal Reserve policy would cause a recession/depression every couple of years. His gold standard would make the little guy go back to using wompon for currency. His abortion stand would violate the rights of women. and his isolation stand would turn us into a 3rd world country. Of course all the drugies would love him.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Reply
    • RonFromNM

      Wow, Cindy, you're quite the deep thinker (not).

      January 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Reply
      • Steve

        and I take it you consider yourself brilliant?

        January 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • Just.The.Facts

      You obviously don't know the facts cindy :)

      January 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Reply
    • Kaitlin

      Cindy, I don't recognize this country as it is.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Reply
    • Victor

      Ron, cindy knows. She's obviously making these predictions based on fact and unmatched political wisdom.

      You should write for CNN!

      January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Reply
    • PAUL

      Anyone that hasnt been stupefied by the mainstream media understands why RON PAUL is the only hope America has.
      Especially since the current president signed a law that officially nullified our bill of rights and our constitution.
      We no longer live in a free country.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Reply
    • Dan, TX

      Ron Paul would be great, it's not like most of his policies would be passed by Congress, but his non-interventionist approach is spot on. I'm convinced Romney will lead us to an attack on Iran, because there will be "evidence" of Iran making a nuclear weapon and it will be Iraq all over again.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Reply
  23. QS

    “like Ron Paul understands the connection between U.S military adventurism and emerging threats against America. Michael Scheuer understands that only Dr. Paul will put our national security first and stop the foreign wars and nation building."

    The problem with Ron Paul is, that while he may have the best stance no foreign policy of the candidates, his other positions would end up being the opposite of nation building for this country.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Reply
  24. Juneyt

    Thank God the American Public is awakening despite the AIPAC propganda and the media.

    This is how our Tax $'s are spent
    US Taxpayer pays billions of dollars in taxes that are spent on wasteful military programs. (2 X of the money spent by all of the nations of the world combined)
    US miltary sends troops to the region and pays Israel and the Arab dictators to ensure flow of oil at $100 per barrel.
    Israel develops Nuclear weapons and kills Palestinian civilians or anyone at will without any international punishment. By the way, this really pisses people of the middle east.
    The nations in the region (i.e Iran) develop nuclear weapons and buy arms to neutralize Israel.
    Arab Dictators and US Army buy weapons to neutralize Iran.
    Consumers pay for the $100 gas (inflated gas prices) and pay US taxes spent on wasteful miltary spending. Money goes back to Industrial military complex and oil companies who have the monopoly over the entire energy production and distribution.

    All Democrats and Republican congress members are CROOKS. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the courage to call out this game.

    We are funding the industrial military complex by on Palestinians and the the Arab dictatorships for Oil will bring us only bankruptcy and death.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Reply
    • Coflyboy

      ... and then there are some Americans who think that we should continue burning oil and never invest in alternative energies. Go figure THAT logic!

      January 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Reply
  25. Proud Eurotrash

    Fear not, left-fascist & right-fascist Americans. Obama or Romney will win the presidency. The international bankers, military-industrial complex, and Israeli lobby will make certain of that.

    Here in Europe, we have learned our lessons on war and imperialism the hard way. Now, sadly, it is your turn. The truth is the US does not deserve Ron Paul. Your day of reckoning is coming America, and you deserve whatever fate awaits you.

    January 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Reply
  26. Coflyboy

    I am neither pro- or anti- isolationist. But we need to stop helping those who don't want to be helped. we need to stop being the "world police", and we need to stop pushing our ideologies ("democracy") onto others.
    It seems as if only Ron Paul has a somewhat reasonable answer to our broken foreign policy. All the other buffoons are only doing what is best for their own pocket-lining activities, and have no concern of what is best for our crumbling country. The sad part: too many Americans are buying into those clowns' agenda.

    January 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      It's quite sad how Paul has managed to procure the support of those weak minded constituents. God help this country if he every won the presidency. If he was in office in 1941 we'd be speaking Japanese or Germany. He needs to get his head out of the sand

      January 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Reply
      • Alex

        You act like he would have dictator powers if elected president. Congress were surely not allow any of his radical ideas to pass, but maybe some of his foreign policy ideas will and in the end we will be a better country. I can say now, if anyone besides Ron Paul or John Huntsman(which is a far shot) do not get the nomination, I will not be voting Republican.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
      • Zach

        Steve, don't be so ignorant. The U.S. did nothing (a.k.a non-interventionist foreign policy) until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Congress declared war. As a result, Germany declared war on us as they were an ally to Japan and we became involved in WWII as it came to end. We did not unilaterally invade a country, pre-emptively invade a country, or pass some resolution to get around declaring war. This is what Ron Paul advocates. Non-interventionist policy, reserving war for self-defense. Please take note on how we are not speaking German or Japanese as a result.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
  27. Bob

    If America is now an Empire, than Ron Paul is an isolationist.. If America is a Republic than Ron Paul is a sane man dealing with an insane political system..

    January 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Reply
  28. John

    Just made up my mind, I am voting for Ron Paul.

    January 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      Thankfully he has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning. A much as I dislike Obama, he'd get my vote before Paul

      January 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Reply
  29. jimbo

    If we had the draft instead of asking for volunteers, I'm sure many more would appreciate Ron Paul. If it were your kids that were being sent to fight and die in foreign lands, I wonder how many would be so "gung ho" about invading or throwing nuclear weapons around.

    January 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Nobody likes war. But, neither do we want isolationism.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Reply
      • Ravi

        Can you learn the definition of isolationism please?

        January 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • jimbo

        How do you feel about a national draft with no exemptions?

        January 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
      • marlow

        Ron Paul's foreign policy should more properly be termed "non-interventionism". Considering the hundreds of times Ron Paul and his supporters have pointed out the distinct difference between "isolationism" and "non-intervention" it is clear that those who continue to refer to Paul as an "isolationist" are woefully uninformed or dishonest. Which are you?

        January 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
      • zach rehl

        Ron Paul doesnt want isolationalism either, he wants non intervention, theres a big difference and it means we dont bully other countries around and kill everyone at the cost of american lives. Do some research before you comment. I am in the military and I support Ron Paul.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
      • LIVININSD

        Ron Paul is NOTan isolationist (stop listening to FOX) – he is a non interventionist. Isolation does not support free trade – something Ron Paul fully encourages. – look it up. I hate people saying that we are evil because we dont want to rule the world as an empire. Using fallacies to describe us when we disagree. Get real. Or maybe you are a War Inc. puppet which is why you spread this nonsense.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
      • Bannister

        ddblah – you seem to have a limited understanding of Ron Paul's position on foreign policy. He is NOT for isolationism. Like a parrot, you are simply repeating talking points that you've heard on Fox News. Try reading a book sometime, they can be very interesting.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
      • mark

        Marlow, get over yourself. Look, this is a great example of why I WON'T be voting for Paul – it is that arrogance and self-righteousness that spooks me, you people think your the only ones with answers. And god help anyone that dares disagree with Ron Paul. Now that's spooky.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
      • Coflyboy

        Your definition of isolationism must be similar to your definition of socialism: totally uneducated, uninformed, and too lazy to look those terms up in a dictionary (or wikipedia).

        January 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
      • nqz

        Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist - he simply doesn't want our young men and women stationed in land that we do not own for the direct purpose of taking money we don't have, to kill people we don't know, for reasons we don't understand.

        Ron Paul wants us to be friendly with ALL nations - none of that trade sanction BS that everyone else tries to pull...Can you believe that to this day, it's still illegal to import cuban cigars to the united states? Come on!

        We should trade with all nations and allow all nations to trade with us, and only send troops when we are *directly* attacked, and even then to only *directly* go after the people who attacked us. What the hell are we even doing in Afghanistan right now? Does anyone know?

        January 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Neither party

      I can appreciate the position of non-military intervention, but let's not forget who led us into the 8 1/2 year war based on a lie. Also we can't forget the fact, right, wrong or indifferent, that we have several decades of history that have contributed to our current list of countries with anti- US sentiment. We clearly overstepped more than once but asma world leader we should disengage from the rest of the world. I agree that military engagement should only be used when necessary after diplomatic efforts and strong "truthful" intelligence.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Reply
    • David

      Well.... Obama is a martian, so what's your point?

      My point is, I can make up stuff too, like calling Obama a Martian just like you are calling Ron Paul as isolationist. We are both lieing.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm | Reply
  30. Sheesh

    Well, on the strength of this highly relevant endorsement, I am almost convinced that I have to support Ron Paul. I would be over the line if the cast of Sesame Street came out for him too....

    January 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      I thought Ron Paul's supporters are independents who do not listen to endorsement. Well, guess I was wrong.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Reply
      • marlow

        Considering the endless media talking heads bleating that Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerous and would leave the US defenceless an endorsement from a top level CIA official puts the lie to that claim.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
  31. Brian

    He's not the first or only CIA officer to finally come to his senses, do what's right, and speak-up. Search on you tube for dozens more. Even greater is the number of soldiers who have come out against not just the wars, but US foreign policy in general. Too bad 80+% of the country is still too naive to know the obvious truth.

    January 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Right. The right question is: how many CIA officers have spoken up to promote isolationism? One, two, three?
      Do you know how many people have worked in CIA?

      January 3, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Reply
    • mark

      Well the problem is you can't prove that, and most of try to get our news from something more credible than YouTube

      January 3, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Reply
  32. Jon

    So... remind me why Obama is the anti-Israel candidate these days?

    January 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Reply
    • Anti-Israel

      It is jsut that he did not fawn all over Nutin-yaahoo

      January 3, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Reply
  33. Joe Six Pack

    Word to your mother. US foreign policy is based on making Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex rich while making the taxpayers poor and our sons dead.

    January 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Reply
  34. benfreidmouth

    Ron Paul is the best candidate period.
    Ron Paul speaks TRUTH to power.
    Ron Paul says what is true instead of what will get him the most amount of applauses!

    January 3, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Reply
  35. Marcus

    Spooks and Bigots love Ron Paul

    January 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Are you still buying that racist garbage? Nobody believes Ron Paul wrote any of that, and nobody believes he is a racist. Ask the Austin Chapter of the NAACP Nelson Linder about those accusations. If that's all you have on Paul, you might as well give up. If you want to discuss his ACTUAL policies or stances on issues feel free. If you're going to make weak accusations, why bother?

      January 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Reply
      • Greg

        sorry, that's the Austin Chapter of the NAACP President Nelson Linder.

        January 3, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
      • ddblah

        Greg, I like to use my brain to analyze. What about you? One person's endorsement/opinion is so important that can decide the choice of who will be the most powerful person on Earth? I don't think so.

        Only robots would just listen to others and don't analyze. No wonder they call you guys "Paulrobots".

        January 3, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
      • Greg

        dblah- I've looked at the entire situation and analyzed it objectively. The newsletters aren't an indication of his beliefs. Until the NDAA passed I was actually backing Huntsman. Before I decided to support Paul I did quite a bit of research. I cite only one person because that was the one that finally convinced me that those accusations had no merit , but he's not alone. when you make accusations like that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and I just couldn't find anyone who could back up those claims. Paul's record, and his own words (the ones that have been recorded coming directly from his mouth for 30 years) do not support those claims. I'm not buying one person's endorsement, and I'm not an acolyte or a zealot. I am a pragmatist and a conservative voter (since 1990). They call Paul's supporters Paulbots for the same reason some people call Obama's supporters Obamabots. It is a way to demean and discredit. The candidates who inspire loyalty also inspire a backlash. Some of Paul's supporters (and Obama's) tend to be overzealous because they are passionate. If you see that as a negative thing, I feel sorry for you.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • jimmer

      its not you fault.....i blame your parents.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Reply
    • dmitris12

      Immediately the opponents of Dr. Magneto start to pop up.
      Anti-semithic anti black anti-latino anti AIDS anti-gay, this old freak will sure take america down.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Reply
      • Pawel S

        Yes, Dr. Ron Paul is very racist... oh wait.

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&w=640&h=390]

        January 3, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
      • marlow

        Truth is an alien concept to you,isn't it, smear artist?

        January 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Saladin

      It should be spooks and bigots hate Ron Paul and his views

      January 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Reply
    • mark

      Greg, we are free to believe whatever we wish. Is he racist, I don't know, and some of his policies I could relate to, but there are just too many that set off alarms – and he won't be getting my vote

      January 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Reply
      • Greg

        Of course you are free to believe what you want, and honestly I don't care if you support Paul or not. Up until Obama signed the NDAA I was backing Huntsman. To me the principled stance he takes on the NDAA and Patriot Act were the tipping point. I just find it irresponsible and unethical to make accusations about racism without having any way of backing it up. Most of the people repeating the accusation don't even know the source, they are just parroting someone else. If it goes unquestioned it appears valid, when it isn't.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Louis Nardozi

      Nice hate speech, Marcus.

      Ron Paul is demonstrably the only candidate who has stated with certainty he will stop our military presence overseas and not deploy our military unless an invasion is imminent or Congress declares war.

      So what you're saying is, MURDERING people is just fine by you, but if you happen to have owned a paper where less than .01% of its content has been judged to have been racist, but which he did not write and has repudiated, it's far better to vote for the guy that supports murdering innocent women and children?

      Do you even know what hate speech IS?!?!? What could possibly be more hateful than the position I have just outlined? Paul WILL STOP THE WARS. But maybe the wars are just fine with you, as long as brown people are getting killed.

      Paul is the only candidate who has advocated a halt in the Drug War, which disproportionately affects nonwhites. You could vote for him, or for any of the other candidates – who apparently don't care HOW MANY people of color are imprisoned, serving prison terms 17 times greater than white people that commit the same crime. Now who's the hateful one?

      Frankly, everyone knows this and I'm certain you know it too. What then might your motive be?
      We all wonder.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Reply
  36. onelovenowbreother

    http://presstv.com/usdetail/219170.html

    the Iowa caucus is fixed

    January 3, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Reply
  37. yeah I believe him

    Ok, let me get this straight... the ex-cia agent who was the lead person in looking for Osama and failed... is now supporting someone who doesn't think we should have taken Osama out.. Yeah... let's listen to him.. He sounds like a real winner.

    January 3, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Reply
    • onelovenowbreother

      A man has got to do his job and he did it. He is still entitaled to his opinion.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        Yes, of course. We, as tax payers, got to grade his job performance and also have our rights to express our own opinion.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Greg

      How do you figure he failed? Do you think the intelligence fell from the sky and analyzed itself? Just who do you credit with tracking down Bin Laden? Scheuer spent 22 years with the CIA, Ron Paul has spent decades serving his country with unequaled integrity. What exactly are your credentials?

      January 3, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        How do know he failed? Did he capture BLD, pointing his whereabouts? No.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
      • mark

        Served his country with "unequaled" integrity, JEEEZ what kind of arrogance are you smoking? who are you to say what is unequaled?

        January 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Kevin

      He did not fail. Several times his time was able to identify Osama's location with reasonable certainty, but were not authorized to act – 8 times, I believe, under Clinton, and additonal 2 times under Bush, before 2001. Can't blame his unit for this "failure" to take down our former ally, Osama bin Laden.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Reply
      • Kevin

        "several times his team", that is ...

        January 3, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
      • ddblah

        I was about to identify BLD's whereabouts 9 times before 911. After 911, I quit.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Josh

      did you even read the article – he was in charge of the Bin Landen unit from 1996-1999. Long before 2001, when the policy was working.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Reply
    • Rynosaur

      Well, you are wrong for one. He didn't fail. They had Bin Laden at Tora Bora and let him go to focus on invading Iraq. Now, everything you have to say has lost credibility.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Reply
      • mark

        No one knows if he failed or succeeded because no one knows if it was specifically his task to take him out, so why even bother? But the positions I'm seeing are very self-serving and only designed to bolster a Paul position.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
  38. Alex

    Ron Paul is brilliant

    January 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Reply
    • Alex

      Also good luck tonight to Ron Paul in the Iowa caucuses

      January 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Reply
    • Larry L

      @Chris

      "No surprise. Anyone who does any amount of research into Dr. Paul's foreign policy can see that he is 100% correct."
      ------------------------------------------------
      Disagree. Pon Paul said "we can defend America with four submarines". I assume he means those capable of carrying strategic nuclear weapons and yes, they are weapons of tremendous destructive capability. But our military might is often the very thing which prevents use of nuclear weapons and anybody who only retains that option is a complete fool. When our greatest threats are trans-national terrorism, disruption of energy supplies, and clandestine deployment of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are all but useless. Ron Paul offers simplistic solutions to very complex problems. Those of you who support him need to quit assuming you are the only people with the background to understand the "depth" of the man's vision. He will gather supporters from every profession – but the Libertarian message has been rejected before and will be rejected this time. All Americans aren't gullible.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Reply
      • marlow

        Considering his GOP opponents are hellbent on immediately bombing Iran it is more accurate to term them the ones with the simplistic solutions. Paul has always made clear he believes in intelligence gathering. The CIA's 9/11 report states the US intervention into the mideast will cause "blowback" in the form of terrorist resistance. Paul's opponents are the gullible ones, or simply the puppets of the military industrial elite who must always have an enemy to justify their fat government contracts that cost the American people enormous amounts in money, blood and hope for a better future.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
      • mark

        I would side with Larry. What makes Libertarians think they are the only ones with a opinion, or worse still, that theirs is the only that is right. Utter arrogance. As Larry points out, not everyone is so gullible, and the majority are quite capable of making their own informed choices. Id vote for Obama before I'd vote for a Paul.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
      • Larry L

        Marlow – you seem to only consider Republican candidates as your options. President Obama has handled clandestine activities masterfully as evidenced by the long list of dead terrorists. He is not a leader to charge forward into war as evidenced by his handling of the Libya situation. After 34 years of military service and many deployments you can rest assured I understand and deplore the casual use of our forces. Ron Paul was a physician in the Air Force and I suspect they don't train them for strategic warfare any better than we do in the Army. His comment about "four submarines" was stupid and reckless. I don't want a CINC with those credentials.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
      • marlow

        Mark and Larry – Obama's actions in the mideast are exactly the type that cause terrorist blowback. how many innocent Muslim families are blown to bits by drones? We read reports of new ones every week. Do you doubt those families survivors would then have aburning hatred towards the US? How would you feel about Chinese forces occupying the US for whatever alleged good reason, say the genocide of American Indians. Inevitably, they would kill, no doubt with sincere regrets as collateral damage. But US citizens would fight back and be termed terrorists by the Chinese. our actions in the mideast are no different and are inexcusable.

        January 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
      • Larry L

        Marlow – you didn't answer my question. Why do you have to pick a Republican? I'll point out to you that President Obama inherited these two wars. I'll also agree that US behavior certainly fuels hatred and makes us an easy target for terrorists trying to fire up the masses. I'll also point out that as long as we need oil we'll be in bed with leaders in oil-producing nations. Realistically, we can't maintain that relationship without a strong tactical and strategic military. Who has led the charge to remain hooked on oil? Certainly not President Obama. Republicans are the drill, drill, drill crowd and for the short term oil must remain available. Our economy is so fragile we could easily crater if fuel prices doubled – and now we have virtually no manufacturing capability to use for recovery. Ron Paul's radical approach can't work if we burn the barn to get rid of the rats. His solutions for healthcare are equally foolish – odd since he is/was a physician. It's absolutely impossible for healthcare insurance companies to survive if only the sick people pay premiums. No nation on the planet offers good healthcare where the government doesn't control the cost in some way. Can you identify such a place? It's simple, if corporations choose between health and profits they'll choose profits every time. Ron Pauls Libertarian (and free market) approach to health care might be good for a physician's income, but poor and working class people would never be able to get high-level care. His suggestion that churches and charities should bear that burden is ridiculous – and shows how out of touch he is with reality. How about environmental issues? He'd do away with the EPA and leave environmental protection up to the states. How well do you thing Texas would control emissions and ground pollution from the oil industry? Would the air and water cross state lines? Who would deal with international environmental issues? Marlow my point is also simple – Ron Pau;l is telling you what you "need" to hear – like a preacher. The hard-core reality is something much different.

        January 3, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • FactChecker

      For every problem there is a simple, easy, and wrong answer. Ron Paul's belief that things will take care of themselves is what keeps third world nations so backward.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Reply
    • zazu

      Look, it doesn't take a genius to be a cult leader. He is a nice guy but simply spouts Ayn Rand. Gosh, he even named his son after her–that is cultish. Libertarianism never worked; no evidence exists it does. It is like a doctor who wants to experiment an unproven, never tested drug on human beings. Can you imagine that. He is sincere. He has to be. He knows he can't win. He is mostly genuine. I like him as a person and I like some of his policies like the anti interventionism (that is easy adventurism) but not totally. In Ron Paul's word Hitler will triumph. It is a bit naive.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Reply
      • Abraham Lincoln

        Weird, because the constitution was doing just fine for us before banks bought and sold our government and essentially brainwashed the last generation of citizens into believing that the constitution isn't needed while taking our gold and giving us ever increasingly worthless chits.

        But you're right, the man wants to follow the constitution, that's crazy talk!!!!11

        January 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
      • Slow your roll

        Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, RANDALL Paul isn't named after Ayn Rand, and while I'll give you that a lot of libertarians like Paul got into libertarianism through Rand, Paul is much more specifically influenced by Murray Rothbard, who was kind of at odds with Rand. As for "cultishness", Paul doesn't want to send our kids off to die in some God-forsaken desert, ask us to submit to warrantless wiretapping, extra-judicial detentions, the evisceration of habeus corpus, and tolerate the executive power to assassinate U.S. citizens without trial, unlike all the other totally "non-cultish" candidates out there. As for the history of libertarianism, I'm not sure what you're talking about. In the times of the founding of America, Paul's ideas were pretty similar to what we now call "classical liberalism" and were the precepts on which America was founded. Finally, in the case of Hitler (!!!), were Ron Paul president in the 1910s, he probably wouldn't have allowed the US to be drawn into WW1 by running guns and ammo to the allies, which means that Germany and the allies would have simply fought to a standstill (which is what happened even when the US was in the war – Wilson pulled a bait and switch with the Fourteen Points to get the Germans to draw down and submit to what they thought would be conditional surrender), which means the Treaty of Versailles would have never happened, which means that Germany wouldn't have been subject to a "spoils of war" policy that left it in severe debt and eventually Weimar Republic's impoverishment, which means that the ultra-nationalist Hitler would never have had a foothold to exploit German resentment and misguided patriotism. QED, if he followed the policies he espouses, Ron Paul would have prevented Hitler.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
      • Andy

        Ron Paul didn't name his son after Ayn Rand. Rand is short for Randal, this just shows how misinformed you are.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  39. steve

    Could someone please send this article to Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, etc! Go Ron Paul. Good luck tonight!

    January 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Reply
  40. al in memphis

    If you are citing Paul stance against going to war with Iraq as his credentials, that's not much. Even people in Bush cabinet told him it was a stupid thing to do. Remember Colin Powell message –if you break it, you have to fix it. I really don't like it that America is policing the world, but I shutter to think what innocent civilians would be subject to if we had no military presence. Until we can become oil independent (actually using less), our economy and the worlds economy is dependent upon a unrestricted Suez Canal. Let some idiot from a oil rich country like Iran loose with a submarine and the canal would be closed for months.

    January 3, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Nobody is citing Paul's stance against Iraq as his only foreign policy credential, including Scheuer. He also made it clear that Paul's energy independence plan was a vital part of his foreign policy stance, as is his willingness to leave Israel to their own decisions.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Reply
    • Irfan

      You missed the eintre point! The government subsidies and regulation (which benefit the big pharmaceutical companies) eliminate competition in health care. When competition is eliminated the cost goes up! Hospitals have become so much more efficient due to the advances in technology yet, prices continue to increase! Why?? Did you not Dr. Paul say that before the government was involved when he practiced medicine, the cost was lower and people were taken care of!

      April 6, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Reply
  41. Get Real

    Wow, so the guy who never stopped or caught Bin Laden is backing the guy who wants to isolate America from the world. Whatever.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Reply
    • steve

      Could you please define your use of the word "isolate". I assume by "isolate" you mean "not Bomb".

      January 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        You don't know what "isolationism" is? That's Ron Paul's foreign policy.

        January 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • colt

      god you are ignorant.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Where do you think the intel came from? Scheuer was an integral government authority on terrorism and 22 year veteran of the CIA. You are a guy with an internet connection, I think I'll listen to Scheuer.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Reply
      • steve

        Thank you, Greg

        January 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • jimmer

      please go back under your bridge

      January 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Reply
    • Get Real

      Ronnie's a nut and so are all of you. And by "isolate" I mean install isolationist policies that didn't work in 1911 and won't work now. Part of the reason Ron Paul will never be elected is his rabid, rude and over self-righteous group of fanboys. You're far worse than the Deaniacs of 2004 and that's saying something.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Reply
      • Ravi

        Why can't you research the definition of isolationism?

        January 3, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
      • TXgal

        Bravo!! Couldn't agree more!

        January 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • mark

      Ahh, interesting pattern, any time the term "isolation" is used, PaulBots react quickly in an effort to blur the lines between isolate and non-intervention. Do you think we are incapable of picking up a dictionary? He IS an isolationist, period. I do not disagree with his actual positions – he is right to think the likes of Michelle would be itching to pick a war two days into office, but stop playing games with semantics.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Reply
      • Abraham Lincoln

        North Korea is an isolationist country, you're not allowed in, you're not allowed out. THAT'S Isolationism.

        Non-interventionalism is what most of the world practices. You don't see the Finnish or Swedish people screaming about how if they don't start bombing people soon that the people they're not bombing are going to attack them...

        There is a REASON that we're hated, and it's because we go into countries, destroy their governments, topple their elected officials, leave bases inside the country and set up checkpoints. If you'd be A-OK with China occasionally killing your neighbors and family members because the base that's parked outside your house occasionally finds a reason to ransack your town, can't help you.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
      • Slow your roll

        You apparently are incapable of picking up a dictionary.

        i·so·la·tion·ism ( s -l sh -n z m). n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries

        non·in·ter·ven·tion (n n n-t r-v n sh n) Refusal to intervene, especially in the affairs of another nation.

        The key difference there would be the economic component, which, contrary to the beliefs of the superhawks, is a very important distinction. Absent protectionism, sanctions, and the current refusal to do diplomacy (i.e. diplomatic contact is a "reward" that we withhold from rogue states), you can't call a country truly isolationist. When you engage in diplomacy and economic relations on the world stage, you exert positive influence internationally without suffering from the degree of blowback you do when you police other nations. Japan in the 18th century was isolationist. Switzerland today is non-interventionist. The distinction is there, and it's not even nuanced.

        January 3, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
  42. Phil in KC

    So he's been endorsed by a former spook. As the article mentions, I'm sure each of them could come up with someone from the intelligence community to support them. Personally, I think Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas are dangerous and would likely lead to disaster.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Reply
    • BetweenUnemployment

      Let's see who else supports Ron Paul:

      Ron Paul's Top Donors:
      1) US Air Force: $23,437
      2) US Army: $23,053
      3) US Navy: $16,973

      January 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Also, Rick Santorum's nephew, and Michelle Bachmann's former top adviser among many others.

      January 3, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Reply
      • Get Real

        Rick Santorum's nephew, and Michelle Bachmann's former top adviser? Really? Seriously? That's what you've got?

        January 3, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Greg

      What's dangerous about not intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations? He isn't saying we will dismantle our military and plant flowers where our bases used to be, only that our constant intervention is causing blowback. Which is exactly what the Pentagon and the CIA said. He isn't calling for isolation, he is calling for NON-INTERVETION, the two are very different policies. We would still aggressively defend our interests, we just would interfere in other nations affairs. We created the anti-American sentiment that has led to our own security being compromised by our meddling. Paul isn't alone in that position, EVERY authority on the issue has said over and over that our foreign policies have caused "blowback" in the form of terrorism. We created Al Qaeda. We gave Bin Laden training and weapons. We provoke and promote anti-American sentiment. We will be safer when we keep our nose out of every one else's business.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Reply
  43. james d

    No other candidate has the voting history, intelectual credentials and proffesional support regarding foreign policy matters as does Ron Paul. Some one please name ONE.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Reply
    • Get Real

      Zero, counet em ZERO bills in 30 years. Quite the legislative record.

      January 3, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Reply
      • Abraham Lincoln

        I want you to stand in front of congress and try to pass legislation that limits their power, stops them from getting a raise every year and removes the pork from future bills.

        See if YOU have the fortitude to try doing that for 30 years, never once wavering, because you were doing the right thing all along.

        I'm not concerned with his success record, I care deeply about his voting record, he voted against raising our taxes, against giving up our rights, against increasing the power of washington, against the bailouts, against the patriot act, against the ndaa. You cannot find a politician who is more sincere in his trust in the american people and what they can do if the government would just get the hell out of our lives like Ron Paul.

        So keep your "winning" billmakers who passed legislation that gives your money to bankers without your permission, and strips you of your rights. Just because they "Won" those votes doesn't mean those votes were any damn good.

        THINK!

        January 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
      • headude

        Perhaps you forgot about the bill he initiated and got support on so that it passed, authorizing the minting of gold and silver (eagle) coins by the US Mint to be sold to the public as legal tender. That is how we can purchase US Mint authorized gold and silver. My father now refers to these one ounce gold coins as "Ron Paul coins".

        January 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
      • Greg

        not even close. he has sponsored countless bills, many of which have gone through or had parts adopted into other bills. He has one of the best voting records, and he chairs or sits on a number of committees. Apparently you are completely unclear about how Congress works. He has been a successful Representative or he wouldn't keep getting elected without having any lobbyist or corporate sponsors.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:18 am |
  44. Steve

    Paul has more support than you would think in the brass. The brass do think more like Washington though. For the rank and file, he rules. He gets majority support from them as they know he's the only non chicken-hawk candidate who would not needlessly risk or waste their lives.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Reply
  45. orples

    All we need to do is look back on our invasion of Iraq and see that Dr. Paul was right when he tried to persuade his fellow Congressperson's NOT to go to war. Dr. Paul further went on to predict the outcome and financial downfall we would be facing if we did seek out WMD's that simply were not there. Now, we can go back and look at his floor speech and count our gains/losses and see that Dr. Paul was right way back when. I think his trying to avoid conflict with Iran is another wise choice. Note, Dr. Paul once again stands alone once again as Washington beats their war drums and imposes sanctions on Iran. And we wonder why we have enemies? Dr. Paul could no doubt bring peace to this Nation if we would do things his way.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      No. Use your brain. Just because invasion of Iraq was wrong does not in any way imply that Ron Paul's isolationism is right. Quite contrary, his isolationism is dangerous!

      January 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Reply
      • Greg

        How many times does this have to be explained. Isoltionism means NO foreign relations. He has NEVER proposed isolation. He is simply calling for an end to military adventurism, and intervention. He wants MORE trade, MORE diplomacy. Just less military involvement. Do you honestly wonder why so much of the world hates us when our own citizens think the only way to involve ourselves in the outside world is to send troops in. We need to engage the world in trade and diplomacy, and maintain a strong military to defend ourselves and our domestic interests. That is NOT isolation, it's just good common sense.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:24 am |
      • Burcu

        WINNING STRATEGY:In order for Dr.Paul to win, HE NEEDS THE PRIMARY. That's the toughest part.IF YOU WANT TO VOTE IN PRIMARY YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED REPUBLICAN! If you don't stwich parties in time, (3 months ahead in some states) YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!!Switch in time democrats and independents! Republicans:GET TO THE PRIMARIES!! ALL OF YOU!!! YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO NOW DO IT!!Please help spread this message, and also thumb it up when U C these.Thanks 2 all those helping

        April 5, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • Olaswale

        have to keep posting this if you live in a cesold /semi cesold primary state , you MUST register as a Republican in order to vote Ron Paul in the crucial primary election . I suspect RP has a lot of Dem supporters who may be disappointed when they go to the polls if they do not change party affiliations . The cesold /SEMI CLOSED states are : AZ, CO, CT,DEL,FL,MA,MD,HI,PA,NY,NE,SD,UT,WV,KY,LA,OK,OR. Let's do our part don;t let him lose the nomiantion.

        April 7, 2012 at 2:54 am |
  46. mitt romney

    Ron Paul it's about right on everything !

    January 3, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Reply
    • mark

      I'm sure he walks on water and parts clouds too

      January 3, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Reply
  47. Bluegilmaster

    That does it for me. I will be supporting Ron Paul after reading this.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Reply
  48. Independent Thought

    The troops and intelligence officers know the score. In fact, Paul often cites official CIA reports in his speeches, something no other candidate does.

    It seems to me like Paul's opinion is informed, and the rest are fear mongering.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Reply
    • steve

      I think that you are correct. However it is amazing how EFFECTIVE the media has been with the propaganda, flag waving, and fear mongering. The majority of our country is in the dark about what is real in the rest of the world. And if this election doesn't change things, I fear we have gone too far to gain out liberty back.
      How scary, right?

      January 3, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Reply
    • mark

      You call yourself "Independent Thought"...but dismiss anyone that has an opinion contrary to Paul's? do you not see the irony in that.

      January 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Reply
  49. buck kennedy

    amen

    RON PAUL 2012!!

    January 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply
  50. Chris

    No surprise. Anyone who does any amount of research into Dr. Paul's foreign policy can see that he is 100% correct.

    January 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.