Ron Paul’s Credibility: A Wrap-Up

In December 2011 or a little earlier, on the occasion of the Republican presidential primary debates, I began monitoring seriously Congressman Ron Paul’s statements. I did it because I am small-government Republican, someone who could be a libertarian, (but not easily.) For those who follow us from a foreign country: Mr Paul is a long-time Representative from Texas. He is running to be the Republican presidential candidate.He is favored by libertarian elements within the Republican Party and by many members of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party does not seem to have a candidate of its own in this round of presidential election.

BY THE WAY, IF A DEMAND WERE EXPRESSED FOR EXPLANATIONS OF AMERICAN POLITICS, OR OF AMERICAN LIFE IN GENERAL BY NON-AMERICAN READERS LIVING ELSEWHERE THAN THE US, I WOULD BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO IT ONCE IN A WHILE. JUST SPEAK UP.

Following Paul’severy word, I soon discovered that there was almost (see below) no debate when Mr Paul didn’t make some strangely false declaration. I am not referring here to the usual politicians’ exaggerations or to spontaneous ridiculous answers to unexpected gotcha questions. I mean false information volunteered by Mr Paul that happened to support his quite consistent line of reasoning, his doctrine, in other words. I have reported periodically on some of Mr Paul’s misstatements. Paul followers have responded. My comments and the responses, all unedited, of course, are available on this blog, arranged by date. If you want to look for yourself you might also conduct a search of my postings using the key words “Ron Paul.” The comments are appended to each relevant essay. Below I review the Paul statements to which I took exceptions and I summarize what I think are the replies or explanations by Paul followers. Some responders/commentators will complain that I betray their thought. It’s all there for anyone to judge.

Here is a little political introduction: I generally agree with the congressman’s ideas regarding domestic policies. However, I think Dr Paul would be a foreign policy disaster on the scale of an President Obama or worse, if he ever became president. His isolationist ideas on foreign policy, I think, are based on false perceptions and tightly chained to adherence to a libertarian doctrine hardly troubled by simple facts. Incidentally, I know well that Dr Paul and mainstream libertarians object to being described as “isolationists.” I don’t mind that they mind. Let me admit, also incidentally, that I do not dispute the general libertarian analysis on the disastrous consequences that war has for the autonomy of civil society, for individual freedom from state oppression. However, this recognition does not require that I close my eyes and shut my ears to the nature of the world I which I live. Neither does this consciousness command suicide.

In brief, as I have said repeatedly, I believe Mr Paul listens to a different drummer. Or rather, he hears a whole bunch of drummers in his mind that no one else can hear. The mainstream press ignores his many failed grapplings with reality because it thinks (correctly) that Mr Paul will not be president, no matter what. Mr Paul’s followers don’t mind his missteps either. Some are too busy or too ill-informed to notice. Many, I suspect, don’t want to notice because the Paul group is largely (not completely) a cult. Some of his embarrassed rational followers cite his age (my age, as it happens) as an excuse for his missteps. That is, they argue implicitly that a man too old to avoid talking nonsense at debates is young enough to have his hand on the button. Congressman’s Paul’s followers are simply not inclined to look too closely into his pronouncements; I mean, the way I look into every single presidential candidates’ statements, for example, and no mercy given. After all, if I have my way, one of them will have his index finger on the same red button. Better I give each of them the middle finger first.

Dec 31st 2011

Below is a paraphrase, not an exact quote from Mr Paul. The number though is exact.

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not only very wasteful, they are stupidly wasteful. So, for example, the US armed forces spend 20 billion dollars each year in those war theaters on air-conditioning alone.

The number if absurd on its face. One frequent critic of mine affirms that he proved right the figure or the statement in which it was embedded. I have no idea what he means. Someone else referenced a general that may well have been Paul’s source, if he had a source. Read the general and decide what he, the general, is up to. Ask yourself if you have ever heard of anyone doing cost accounting the way the general does.

January 8, 2012

Paul said that (American) minorities suffered more in war than whites. That’s not true. In current wars, since Vietnam, they die less, and they get wounded less often. Whatever else could “suffering” mean, lower pay raises?

In connection with Pres. Obama’s then-recent speech on cutting the US military budget, Paul also said clearly that those are cuts in increases to military expenditures, not absolute cuts. As one who has been reading the Wall Street Journal for the past thirty years and also for the past thirty days, I tell you that this is not true. I think it sounded good at the time so, the Congressman just said it, irresponsibly.

In rare form that day, Paul also said in New Hampshire that if the Straight of Hormuz were closed (by the Iranians or, presumably, by anyone), Eastern Europe would be “de-stabilized.” Makes no sense at all. Why Eastern Europe? He gives the impression that he knows something we don’t. Not in this case, for sure.

January 17^th 2012

In the Republican presidential debate that took place January 17^th or 16th in South Carolina, Ron Paul said, “We are still in Iraq.” Don’t bother to check, he said it, with exactly those words. Only one problem: “We” are not there unless you decide that contractors are “us.” Most people would think he meant “our military is still in Iraq.” It, the military, was already not in Iraq at the time the statement was made. This is at least a grossly misleading statement. misleading in a direction that happens to promote his isolationism.

January 2th^d 2012

Ron Paul did it again at the Tampa debate on Monday night 1/23/12 or 1/22/12. I mean he spread some information that only he, Congressman Paul, is privy to. Mr Paul declared clearly, under his own power, with no prompting whatsoever, that this country, the United States of America, is presently conducting a blockade against Iran. He used the word four times at least, both as a noun and as a verb. And, no, he was not speaking prospectively ( “If we conduct a blockade, in the future ….”) but declaratively and in the present tense. There was no blockade, there is no blockade, except in Mr Paul’s mind.

On February 07 2012, I challenged the Ron Paul website by email to give the source of declaration of Dr Paul’s about the Mossad, the Israeli CIA. Dr Paul had stated that the head of the Mossad had declared that an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose no “existential threat” to Israel. I received no answer from his campaign. Instead, a reader guided me to an interview by the same head of Mossad.

The head of the Mossad did say what Congressman Paul had reported he said. I was wrong to doubt it. I WAS WRONG. It was all my fault. I did not think long enough about the word: existential threat. See my mea culpa and explanation following on Feb 14th.

February 16th, 2012

A quaint statement issued by the candidate himself that he, Ron Paul, received more money contributions from the military than other Rep. candidates lead to a striking demonstration of the absurdity of the figures on which the claim is based. It highlighted the shocking lack of criticality of his shock troops. No one is watching; the candidate is allowed to run wild, quite wild if in his quiet way.

February 22^nd 2012

Dr Paul pointed out that Iran was “surrounded” by “forty-five bases.” I assume he meant American military bases. This “surrounding,” I understood the Congressman to argue, would justify Iran’s nervousness and therefore its apparent bellicosity. I protested that the encirclement statement was pure invention.

In response, Paul supporters produced, first and second, a map showing patently false information. Of course, this fact in itself, re-enforces my impression that Paul supporters are not serious about facts. It’s not difficult to eye-check a map, after all. Following this false start, there was much back and forth. And then, I agreed that the Paul statement was not false and not an invention if you only stretched the meaning of the word “base,” of the word “military, “and, especially, of the word “surrounded.” (There was no need to stretch the meaning of the word “American,” fortunately.)

Looking back on the exchange, I am inclined to take back my admission. There is a kind of Bermuda triangle logical problem involved: How far does the alleged triangle extend? How far can you go and still declare that a base contributes to “surrounding” Iran? One Paul supporter included Djibouti. Why not the much more significant military bases in Germany, I ask? And how about military installations in New Jersey?

I will agree though that the Paul “surrounded” statement is probably more true than I thought it was at first. This discovery makes me more optimistic about the future, from a military standpoint, than I used to be.

On Feb 29^th 2012 in the Michigan primary. Paul said two memorable things :

1 The wars we have had for ten years, he said (I assume he means Iraq and Afghanistan), have added four trillion dollars to the US national debt ($4,000,000,000,000). The statement surprised me only moderately. (It amounts to about $13,000 per American. )My problem is that again, I have no idea where the information comes from. I even doubt the contribution of the wars to the national debt can be calculated. Yet, I would be happy if this figure were merely a pretty good approximation. I would say it’s fine even if the order of magnitude were right. How demanding is this? At any rate, I sure hope this large amount included the 20 billion dollars per year just air-conditioning American forces in the two relevant countries Paul said it cost. (See above!)

2 The congressman announced that there was a “transfer of wealth from the middle class” to the rich. That’s not a surprising statement since it’s also the basis of the Obama class war. What is surprising is the way this transfer takes place, according to the congressman. It is through the erosion of the currency, the US dollar’s value, says Dr Paul. I don’t know how this could be. I have no quarrel with the idea that the US dollar has lost much value in say, 20 years, relative to something, to gold in particular. What I don’t know is how what is lost by the “middle-class” through loss of value of the currency (whatever that is) comes to accrue to the benefit of “the rich.” Here again, I am open-minded. Please, help.

There was no response to my second question, the question regarding the transfer of wealth. Another Paul dream, I guess, a nightmare, in this case.

Libertarian economist Fred Folvary of NotesOnLiberty suggested an interesting answer to my question regarding the origin of the Paul figure about the cost of the wars. He referred me to Paul Stiglitz, Nobel winner and idol to the American Left. I have not read the Stiglitz book of reference and Prof. Stiglitz’s status with leftists does not make his calculations wrong. (I did read another one of his books which convinced me  never to read another one because it contained so much intellectual dishonesty. But that’s a subjective personal response, of course.) Why am not surprised that Mr Paul gets some of his information from left-wing sources? (Does not make the info false, again.)

I am fair: On January 27^th 2012, I stated:

I am glad to report that during the second Florida Republican presidential debate, I did not hear Ron Paul make a single patently false, invented statement.

Maybe, by that time, I had got to him after all!

Now, of course, there remains the really important issue of whether Congressman Paul ever accused the Bush administration or parts thereof of being complicit in 9/11. I keep dismissing this allegation in my mind and forgetting it but it keeps coming up and don’t mean coming up through liberals or “progressives.” A couple of weeks ago, a local talk-show host in my area of Santa Cruz, California ,brought it up again. I have listened at least to 500 hours of this man’s show and I have never found him in significant error about anything important. He is a small-government conservative I know to be scrupulous with facts.

The apparent origin of this suspicion is that one of Congressman’s Paul’s former staffers accused him squarely of having been a “truther.” Dr Paul denied the whole things just as squarely:

“That’s complete nonsense … I never bought into that stuff and I never talked about it,” Paul said of the accusation made by former staffer Eric Dondero, who wrote in a blog post last week that Paul “engaged in conspiracy theories” surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

From Post Politics retrieved 03/29/12, here is part of the post:

“Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”

Paul also denied the same assertion unambiguously in Wikipedia.

Real Clear Politics of December 27^th 2011 describes how incomplete and unsatisfactory the Paul denials are on this matter.

Me, I understand the idea of a “disgruntled employee” trying to do harm and it’s not absurd, not by a long shot. But an evil little voice keeps whispering in a corner of my suspicious mind: Why did the disgruntled employee attack Paul on this issue rather than on the many others probably available to him as a former aide?

Why is my mind “suspicious” about this almost certainly good man? Several reasons. Here is one, a concrete and tangible reason. It’s something undebatably authored by Congressman Paul, not a rumor, not an indirect report, not spur-of- the- moment fallible ejaculation.

Shortly after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced a piece of legislation he called: the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.” Look it up; read a few lines of it. Reflect on the concept of a “letter of marque” applied to 21^st century conditions. You are not going to believe what you read. Then, wonder why Paul’s followers did not call him on it. As I said, no one is watching the Paul farm. And why would that be?

And, if you believe the “Act” is a serious defense proposal, please write me a note. I am willing to learn but it’s not going to be easy.

Israel Attack; Gaza: The Background

The Gaza micro quasi-state is at war with Israel. Here is how it happened: In 2007 the Hamas organization took over the tiny Gaza strip in elections that were considered fair by the many observers on the scene. It’s true that there are constitutional technicalities that make the Hamas government of Gaza illegal. Again, that’s a technicality. The fact is that it’s a legitimately elected government by the standards of most civilized countries. It’s one of the most legitimate governments in the Arab world again, according to democratic criteria.

Hamas did not take anyone by surprise. It has had a clear if somewhat tedious charter from its inception in 1987. The charter contains a well-publicized program for action. The heart of the program is the establishment of an “Islamic state” over an ill-defined region extending from Egypt in the South to, and perhaps including, Lebanon in the north, as well as Syria, or maybe not. To the East, it would reach the Jordan River and possibly, maybe again, absorb the current Kingdom of Jordan. The boundaries of the projected Islamic state are vague but not that vague. The area clearly includes all of the territory of Israel, with the big cities of Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, of course, etc. That’s all of Israel. Hamas does not have territorial claims against Israel as say, France had against Germany between 1870 and 1914. (In 1870, Germany had taken the eastern province of Alsace and half of Lorraine which France regained in 1918.) Hamas has no such claims because it simply wants to eliminate the sixty-year old political entity, the state of Israel.

An Islamic state is a sovereign entity that is explicitly undemocratic and under the rule of sharia, a body of law largely developed in the eight century. There are diverse interpretations of what constitutes proper sharia. Some versions allow for the stoning of adulterous women and they define an adulterous woman has any woman who has sex outside of marriage. Of course, that would be almost all my female neighbors and friends. The concept of an Islamic state especially excludes any notion for what we call separation of church and state. There is no church under Islamism because the church is the state.

What of the millions of Israeli citizens, you might ask? Here again, Hamas is clear. First, let me say that contrary to a common perception, to my knowledge, neither the Hamas Charter nor any high-ranking Hamas leader has ever announced any intent to exterminate the population of Israel, or even parts of it. Again, the charter is specific. Hamas would separate current Jewish inhabitants of Israel from its large Arab minority (25% of the population). It would further split the Jews between those who have roots in the region, and those who do not. The region is ill-defined but about half of Israeli Jews have roots in Arab and Muslim countries. Most of the other half are Europeans in origin (Ashkenazis). Israel was created though their vision and their tenaciousness. Middle-eastern Jews came in later, pushed by Arab persecution (Egypt, Iraq), or simply by the inability of Arab states to protect them (Morocco, Yemen). The Ashkenazis would be deported by force to the region of their origin, presumably.

What would happen to Israeli Jews of middle-eastern origin? Well. Hamas explains limpidly how they would be treated as “dhimmis,” second-class citizens of the Islamic state with restricted rights and forced to pay special taxes. It sounds fair to Islamists because that’s exactly how other non-Muslims would be treated, as long as they were Jews or Christians. (No pagans of any sort allowed.) So, the many Christian Arabs now living in Israel, all full citizens of Israel, and the few remaining in the West Bank, would have the same status as the remaining Jews. That would include the Christian Arab population of Bethlehem, for example.

Those are the political-legal intentions of Hamas. If you think I am making this up, please check. There is a link on this blog to an English version of the Hamas Charter. It’s been up for two years and no one has ever protested so, I have to think it’s a valid translation. Reading recommendation: It’s almost impossible to go through the whole boring, poorly written charter. I made myself do it once because I am a scholar. I found myself plunged into the mental world of the ninth century. The part about the Islamic state and the treatment of religious minorities is toward the end. Jump straight to it; you won’t miss much.

The Hamas declaration of permanent war on Israel is not the only proof that Gaza is actually at war with Israel. After all, Hamas might just have a big mouth like many others in the area. (By the way, I have been listening to Hamas for years. I have learned to take the organization seriously. Hamas leaders are the furthest thing from hypocrites and blow-hards.) When it comes to ascertaining war, facts also speak: Hundreds of missiles have been shot at Israel from the Gaza strip since the Israel evacuated it totally, unilaterally, without conditions in 2005. The fact that they are mostly low-quality missiles does not make their launching less of an act of war. Missile are not flowers; they are not even rocks. And the quality of Gaza missiles shot at Israel might change tomorrow. Iran has good short-range missiles. Its President has declared publicly several times that he would like to kill Israelis. He is a friend and protector of Hamas.

Three years ago, (might be four; it does not matter), someone from Gaza entered Israel, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped a third. That third soldier is still held in Gaza as I speak. What would I do if someone from Watsonville, California, came into Santa Cruz, California, seven miles away. killed two local cops, took a third back into Watsonville and held it for three years, I ask myself? I might be in favor of the fire-bombing Watsonville after a while, just to encourage the return of the kidnap victim. I think that would be fair.

That’s the problem, someone always says, whenever Israel does anything to punish Hamas, innocent civilians suffer. First, of course, that’s not true, plenty of finely targeted Israeli killings of Hamas leaders. (By the way, I don’t want to distract you, but how do you think the Israelis get the precise information necessary for individually targeted assassinations?) Second, remember not-so-far-off history. After being attacked, the United Kingdom and the United States fire-bombed Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo. Messina in Sicily was razed to the ground. Then, the US destroyed two mid-sized Japanese cities with atom bombs. Many innocent civilians died horrible deaths. They paid a huge price for having allowed blood-thirsty, aggressive political elites to gain power in their countries. Those who died under Allied bombs probably included some who had tried to oppose the villains’ rise.

The present Gaza population is no more innocent of Hamas’ acts and intentions than were Germans, Italians and Japanese of WWII of those of their monsters. War is very bad. That’s why you shouldn’t start it or even threaten it. Electing a group that trumpets that it will annihilate your neighbors is stupid; it’s also criminal. It gives the neighbors a moral right to do you much harm if they can. If you want war and act on it, your children will suffer. It will be your fault.

Against this background of war, Israel’s actions appear remarkably mild. It maintains a blockade at sea against Gaza. It enforces a selective embargo on goods entering Gaza by land. It’s stopping weapons and ammunition but also a broad range of materials that can be used both for aggressive purposes and for innocent purposes such as fertilizers (that can be made into explosives). There is also a punitive intent: flour gets trough the embargo but instant coffee and several spices don’t. Good thinking, I say.

Pro-Palestinian “pacifists” have never been able to explain rationally what is wrong with this restrained, moderate, modulated act of war. If you were young and uninformed (largely a redundancy) you might think the Israelis deprive Gaza of some supplies because they are mean. The fact is that the British blockade of Germany is what finally put and end to the murderous World War One. Another fact, one little remembered is that its forces where in France when Germany submitted to an armistice in 1918. The threat of starvation is what did it. The blockade saved the hundreds of thousands of lives a continuation of the war to a finish would have required. That would have included many German lives.

As I write, it’s possible to imagine that international pressure, or the Turkish Navy, will dismantle the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza. What will come next?Will Israelis throw up their hands and agree to be eradicated? Will they kiss and make up with the Hamas leaders who have sworn on their faith to expel half of them and to turn the other half into second-class citizens of an oppressive, medieval polity? And , by the way, if you were the most pacifist of Israeli pacifists, and given how it runs its micro-state of Gaza, would you trust Hamas to put you peacefully on the ship to Miami or Marseilles? This is a real question. Don’t skip it.

You are just not thinking, pacifists and sweet-hearted liberals. That goes for you, Professor H. R.

There is little comment on the liberal media about the fact that Egypt also maintains an embargo against Gaza on the part of the border it controls. Egypt is a large, powerful Arab nation that is at least 90% Muslim. How can this be?

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal today by a high-level Israeli military analyst. (Ronen Bergman,“ Siege Fatigue and the Flotilla Mistake,” WSJ, p. A1, 6/2/10 .) He argues that Israel has already lost completely the public relations battle on a world-scale and that it might well focus on its armed defense. Make sense to me. Maybe, there is a lesson for the US in this.

Addendum 6/4/10 The great Charles Krauthammer plagiarized me today in his column. I am flattered although he gave me no credit! His column was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel of 6/4/10 but also in hundreds of syndicated papers nation-wide