Ron Paul's opponents within the ever-shrinking, pro-war GOP base are intimidated by the success of the Ron Paul campaign. During last night's CNN/YouTube debate [
1][
2] it was John McCain's turn to embody that distinction.
Readers might recall McCain's false bravado interjection toward Ron Paul during the CNBC debate on October 9. The jab was negligible — Paul didn't react to the edgewise remark — but it was blunt and intended to jostle nonetheless. [
3]
Well, last night McCain managed to expand on his showing as a pompous bully. In the middle of explaining why he opposes getting rid of the federal income tax in favor of a "fair tax," the spiel came to an abrupt end — not unlike the last two seconds of a slow, 20-second, downhill train wreck — immediately followed by a totally unrelated but familiar focus on Ron Paul's position on the war on Iraq.
"If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.
"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed."
That particular ego spasm was preempted by what Paul said a few minutes earlier when he revisited a hackneyed McCain cop-out to why the Republican-majority Congress has sucked at being Congressional Republican all these years. (Note the decision
not to call McCain out by name.)
"Yes, and I would like to state that, to the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me; Washington did not change me.
"I would like to change Washington, and we could . . . . [W]e can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home."
Picking up on McCain's response minutes later, we see him emerge from the caboose, scratched-up, guns errantly a-blazin' in the general direction of Paul's constitutional, non-interventionist approach to foreign policy:
"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
"And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II."
Sure, John, if what you mean by "that . . . isolationism" is "the . . . status quo": sanctions; asset freezes; trade and aid embargoes; other, general, economic and political shakedowns; support of enemies against other, common enemies, including the use of US-designated terrorist groups; occupying peoples of foreign states and confiscating their land and resources; and other military-industrial ventures costing lives and treasure here and overseas. You know: the stuff that is ushering in another world war. But of course it's only isolationism when
they do it, right?
McCain continues:
"We . . . allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement."
No, John. He was an aggressive, preemptively-warring tyrant. But like our chosen enemies today, he was incited and engaged through the type of offensive and threatening rhetoric, interventionism, and unlawful isolationism displayed by this era's neoconnivers, only on a smaller scale. FDR and cronies found a way into the European conflict, and eventually got their pretexts. We're still looking for monsters to slay today; only now, we're waging war against ideologies and tactics, at the whim of the Executive and his advisors. Back then, we at least declared war against malignant states — not stateless bands of thugs and their m.o. — and thereby had the people's consensus through the Legislature as per the US Constitution. We therefore had the ability to claim an official "victory," thus allowing the troops (almost all of them) to finally come home.
That process is one of the ways the Constitution limits McCain, Paul, et al., in their legislative roles, thus empowering the people and preserving life, liberty, and property. But apparently, it's not McCain's cup of tea; he voted in favor of the unlawful Iraq invasion and continues to rubber-stamp the gratuitous funding for the occupation. And to reason away his defiance of the rule of law through undeclared wars and nation-building, he uses emotional exploitation of the already physically and politically exploited US troops in Iraq:
"And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, 'Let us win.'"
That was way too easy a pitch for
Sir Paul:
"Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
"What John is saying is just totally distorted.
"He doesn't even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationism. I'm not an . . . isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live."
Perhaps the most revelatory tail-whoopings administered to John McCain were entirely self-delivered. In one instance, he blamed the American people for defeat in Vietnam. In another, he asserted victory in Iraq while equating the anti-occupation position of Ron Paul, "the Democrats," and ≈70% of Americans polled, with "surrender."
Mr. McCain,
"Surrender" assumes we're
losing, yet you insist we're
winning. Armies don't "surrender" when they're "winning"; they give control of the country back to the people and come home after "mission accomplished." In terms of the war on Iraq, that was four-and-a-half years ago.
One day you might come to realize that undeclared wars of aggression, occupations, and gratuitous spending are unsustainable; until then, however, I suggest that you step aside and let a more competent man lead. Ron Paul is so much your ethical and intellectual superior; you should consider an advisory position or retirement. You're certainly not fit to be a Legislator or Chief Executive.
Notes:
[1] cnn.com, "Part I: CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript," 11/28/07*
[2] cnn.com, "Part II: CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript," 11/28/07*
[3] youtube.com, "Ron Paul on supporting the GOP nominee," 10/9/07 by user
WaxLionTV (The remark of note,"You don't want me then, pal," occurs at 00:13.)
*Footnotes 1 and 2 are the sources for all McCain and Paul blockquotes.
