Ron Paul Blames America For Bhutto’s Death – Says Al Qaeda “Annoyed” At American Intervention

Okay – at what point will Americans wake up and realise this guy is a complete embarrassment to the country and the Republican Party?? Even the Democrats had more sense in their comments today!

It’s absolutely disgusting that in the hours after Al Qadea assassinated former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Ron Paul automatically assigns blame on American ‘interventionist policy’ for her death, and goes on to criticize our efforts to keep Musharraf on our side in the war on Jihadists when they are growing in number in his own country.

For a guy who when taken to task as an Isolationist, always tosses up his support of going into Afghanistan to war on Al Qaeda for perpetrating 9-11, how is it that he now says we should not get further involved when Al Qaeda is now IN Pakistan, trying to take the country over???? Clearly his idea in this case is as Isolationist as one could ever define.

No matter what happens on the planet – it somehow is either automatically America’s fault for existing or intervening, or it’s America’s fault because we did NOT intervene (ala Darfur)???

Ron Paul needs some serious excoriation and repudiation from the GOP. The guy is certifiably WHACKED, and I am growing to abhor every time he shows up on camera.

He is about to cross into the realm of Michael Moore as far as I am concerned.

Ron Paul Blames US Policy for Bhutto Killing

Ron Paul blames the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on the “interventionist” policy of the United States, and says Al Qaeda is justified in being “annoyed” at us.

CNN Video at link.

About these ads

6 Comments

Filed under News, Politics

6 responses to “Ron Paul Blames America For Bhutto’s Death – Says Al Qaeda “Annoyed” At American Intervention

  1. Andy

    Like it or not, Ron Paul is absolutely right. I would even go as far as to say this assassination was hatched up by the Neocons in Washington in order to create a situation in Pakistan whereby they could justify sending US troops to secure the nukes and create a launching pad for influence and control over Southeast Asian countries and natural resources. Think about it!

  2. Fluffy

    Paul does not advocate intervention in Darfur and doesn’t give a damn what happens there one way or the other.

    We have been propping up and aiding Musharraf, but have grown impatient with him, and so we sought to replace him with Bhutto. Secretary Rice has made no secret of the fact that she has pressured Musharraf to step down and become a figurehead civilian President, while allowing Bhutto to become Pakistan’s Prime Minister.

    Only maybe Musharraf didn’t want Condoleeza deciding who would run Pakistan.

    So now we have the entire US foreign policy establishment running around today trying to decide if we love Musharraf and need to support him now that this crisis threatens to bring anarchy to Pakistan, or if we have Musharraf and need to pressure him to step down. And no one is asking the truly fundamental question, which is “Who told us that we get to decide who is going to run Pakistan?”

    As long as we need to rely on puppets to run Middle Eastern governments, there will be no stability in that part of the world. As long as we try to pick winners and losers in internal Mideast politics, our interests will not be safe, because our interests will be tied up with individual men and women and subject to critical failure at every moment.

    It’s time to wash our hands of the entire mess. If it’s not already too late for that.

  3. Sicoflibs

    “sending US troops to secure the nukes”

    And would you rather have them in the hands of Islamic terrorists?
    Um….a little bit of reality here….please?

  4. invar

    And would you rather have them in the hands of Islamic terrorists?

    Um….a little bit of reality here….please?

    Sorry, but reality and Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy are oxymorons.

    Ron Paul and his mob are perfectly fine with Islamic terrorists having nukes. They will either tell you that Jihadists have no ability to use them on us, or that if we do not provoke them, we have nothing to fear from Jihadists.

    We have been propping up and aiding Musharraf, but have grown impatient with him, and so we sought to replace him with Bhutto.

    Do you have concrete PROOF beyond the typical “Blame America First” crap you people spew that this Administration sent Bhutto back to Pakistan??

    Secretary Rice has made no secret of the fact that she has pressured Musharraf to step down and become a figurehead civilian President

    AFTER Mushy declared Martial Law and arrested dissidents.

    Mushy was in a rock and hard place, he has Al Qaeda getting ready to take his country over among the populace and military, and pressure from the US to get tougher on them. The reason Bhutto was replaced TWICE, was because she sought to take down the Taliban inside Pakistan.

    Mushy, being pressured by the US to get tough on Al Qaeda – suddenly saw himself in Bhutto’s shoes, and he was walking a tightrope.

    Only maybe Musharraf didn’t want Condoleeza deciding who would run Pakistan.

    Listen you DOLT, our focus is Islamic Jihadists – who now enclave within Pakistan and Afghanistan – Rice was pressuring Mushy to do something about them regardless of the domestic turmoil it would cause.

    And no one is asking the truly fundamental question, which is “Who told us that we get to decide who is going to run Pakistan?”

    Well, if we follow your messiah’s prescription of Isolationist non-interventionism, we should not care if Osama Bin Laden himself becomes president of Pakistan with nukes at his fingertips should we??

    This is why you people and Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are dangerous as hell.

    As long as we need to rely on puppets to run Middle Eastern governments, there will be no stability in that part of the world.

    Until what? The Caliphate seizes control and establishes an Islamic empire as they wont to do??

    There never HAS been stablility in the Mid East, even long before we arrived on the scene.

    It’s time to wash our hands of the entire mess. If it’s not already too late for that.

    Hello Jihadist nuclear blackmail and $20 a gallon gasoline. Which I am sure you have no problems with.

  5. Christian

    He never said America as responsible. He said our foreign policy has major issues, and is far off what it should be. He is 100% correct. I can’t think of any other area that makes more sense to me and many others that use our brains. Your website is only out to attack ron paul and his american supporters. You are a discgrace! God bless you.

  6. invar

    He never said America as responsible.

    Yes he did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s