Why Ron Paul is Dangerous

He's right. On so many things. But there is one instance, one excessively important instance, in fact, the most important responsibility of a President, where Ron Paul is absolutely wrong. He is a man who refuses to accept the dangerous world we live in now.

And Michelle Bauchmann cut right through to the most important fact at hand: We don't need a Commander-In-Chief with views such as his. The woman knows how to make a point. Careful boys. She's pretty. But she's dangerous.



For any Paul supporters, let me say I wholeheartedly agree with his limited government, his Constitutional respect and adherence, his push back against the federal fingers in the economy. All of it. But the most important, most existential job of a President - in fact, you can take every other responsibility away from this office and leave this one and we'd survive just fine - is leading our American military in our nation's defense. At a time where maniacs, absolute insane individuals bent on world destruction (including their own) are obtaining power truly capable of world annihilation, we do not need anyone in office hesitating on when to call our military to action.

Are our military in places we shouldn't be? Yes. And no, I'm not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

But fixing our military strategy should never include degrading their importance overseas to keep us safe. Unless, of course, you'd prefer open war on your own neighborhood block. Then bring them home. And gird your loins. If Paul thinks 8,000 soldiers is a horrific casualty (and it is!), then wait until we start adding American civilians and children to that number. THAT is what those brave soldiers gave their life to stop. His refusal to accept that make him not only disqualified, it makes him dangerous.

UPDATE:
To get the full gist of the video, read the Q&A between the debate moderator and Ron Paul. Rush has the full scope of it. Bachmann's response came after Ron Paul basically said, "Hey, if Iran has nukes, we'll just give them more respect!" Then he uses Syria has an example, explaining how we successfully used diplomacy to remove their nukes. Theeeeen, we killed them.

Of course, he continues to ignore the fact Iran actually wants to die by killing everyone else. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can barely keep his short, little legs from doing a Fred Astaire number every time he speaks of eradicating the world of Israel. This isn't a nation arming themselves for protection. They are arming their plan to bring back the prophet by bringing the end of the world.

Hype? Ron Paul thinks so. But to believe him, you have to tune out the Iranian President, and the culture, entirely. Does Ron Paul really want to show them respect? Then respect their choice to become destructive lunatics.


Here's an excerpt of the transcript from Rush today. If you are looking for clarity on the Iranian situation, or on Ron Paul in particular, read the full segment. A caller puts things in perspective.

 PAUL:  You know what I really fear about what's happening here?  It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed.  We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked.  That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.

RUSH:  Now, you may have astutely noticed that Ron Paul didn't answer the question.  So Bret Baier, after the applause died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke.  We're not talking about being on the come.  "I'm asking you about solid evidence they've got one, and yet you still at that point would pull back US sanctions -- and, again, as a GOP nominee, be running to the left of Barack Obama on this issue?"


PAUL:  Yes. Eh, eh, all we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. They are surrounded! They have a desire -- and how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon?  With a lot more respect.  What did we do with Libya?  We talked to them, we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him.  So it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing that nuclear weapons are loaded over there.  Pakistan. India. Israel has 300 of 'em! We have our ships there.  We gotta get it in a proper context!