Video: Ron Paul spins for Iran, of course

[Fantasy Chaser]

Who needs permission when Paul has advocated a very strong missile defense system. And they don't historically attack us with planes from beyond borders.

The only problem with this is that we're not their only target.

There's no such thing as a perfect can-detect-and-destroy-every-target system. Fake airline flights are just one way.

[Arion45]

I guess this isn't Left v. Right, but more along the lines of "Paleo-con v. Neo-con" or "Lunatic v. Mainstream Conservative", but here you go:

Video: Ron Paul spins for Iran, of course

“It’s hysteria. It’s warmongering.”


A follow-up to my post last weekend about what a disgraceful, denialist crank this guy is. Let me go in chronological order, as there’s so much here that’s either dumb or dishonest that I’ll overlook something if I don’t.
1. Who are the mysterious “neocons” who forced poor Barack Obama to disclose the secret Qom site, which Paul would have you believe he didn’t want to do even though he’s been preparing to do it for months? Or have I misunderstood and he’s actually suggesting that Obama’s been duped and that there’s no secret Qom site at all, even though other western intel services have been keeping tabs on it for years? Give us the names of this nefarious Jewish — sorry, I mean “neocon” — cabal, please.
2. According to The Only Man Who Can Save America, Iran actually disclosed the existence of the Qom site to the IAEA before Obama disclosed it, ergo it’s not actually a secret. True. What he doesn’t mention: They only disclosed it a week ago, in the vaguest possible terms, after having kept it a secret for at least three years, and only because they realized that the west knew about it and was about to blow their cover. Nuance, Ron Paul style.
3. An excellent point: He notes that U.S. intel apparently knew about the secret Qom site even before the infamous 2007 NIE declaring that Iran had halted its weapons program was released. Not so excellent: The conclusion he draws from this, apparently, is that the Qom site is nothing to worry about rather than the much more likely conclusion that evidence of Iranian weaponization was withheld from the NIE in a politicized bid to deny Bush any reason to take military action against Iran. Oh, also? No mention here that classified portions of that very same NIE declared that Iran had an estimated 10 to 15 secret nuclear sites. How come, Doctor?
4. “What does the law say?” wonders our hero, declaring Iran innocent of any international violations. In fact, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei acknowledged just this morning that Iran had broken the law. (In Paul’s semi-defense, this clip was recorded three days ago.)
5. He asserts that the IAEA has never found Iran’s nuclear program to be at fault, which (a) overlooks point 4 above and (b) ignores the fact that the IAEA has been credibly accused by western intel agencies — and not just America’s — of suppressing evidence that incriminates Iran in order to avoid military conflict. In fact, ElBaradei himself is an Iranian stooge of such longstanding that we’ve been writing about it since practically day one of Hot Air. The fact that even he’s been forced to get tough-ish is all the proof you need that Tehran’s in flagrant violation of its international commitments.

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Ron Paul spins for Iran, of course

IRAN: Secret nuclear plant broke transparency law, says IAEA chief | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times

"I do not think, based on what we see, that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Whether they have done some weaponization studies, as was claimed by the U.S. and others, this is one of the issues that is still outstanding. But I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that Iran has an ongoing nuclear program today. I hope that they are not having one."
ElBaradei

[Susanna]

So you take the word of a UN official?

[RET423]

Ron Paul is the GOP's version of Obama.

Lots of illogical ideas that cannot stand up to even moderate scrutiny or common sense, an interpretation of the Constitution that ignores all the words he does not like and a fan base that will deify him and never question him.

[Caroline]

please. Not even the republican party wants this guy. Conservatives want him even less. I kissed this guy off as a fruitcake early on....maybe the right's equivalent to an Al Franken?? But his remarks have GOT to be causing heartache to libertarians and conservatives who supported him.

[Brett]

Lots of illogical ideas that cannot stand up to even moderate scrutiny or common sense, an interpretation of the Constitution that ignores all the words he does not like and a fan base that will deify him and never question him.

What specific standpoint does he go against the Constitution? That's one of the most vague anti-Paul statements I've ever read.

please. Not even the republican party wants this guy. Conservatives want him even less.

Other way around. Conservatives want him more then party-line-voting Republicans, but still not a lot.

But his remarks have GOT to be causing heartache to libertarians and conservatives who supported him.

Except he's not. One bad stance isn't enough to discredit someone completely. Especially when you look at the other candidates in the GOP.

[Fantasy Chaser]

What specific standpoint does he go against the Constitution? That's one of the most vague anti-Paul statements I've ever read.

Other way around. Conservatives want him more then party-line-voting Republicans, but still not a lot.

Except he's not. One bad stance isn't enough to discredit someone completely. Especially when you look at the other candidates in the GOP.

Sorry. Not buying it.

[Brett]

Sorry. Not buying it.

Look at the polling for his son, then. Other then foreign policy they're nearly identical. Kentucky Conservatives prefer him 40/20 over his opponent, but Kentucky Republicans are split 30/30 (with 40% undecided in both).

[Arion45]

So you take the word of a UN official?

The OP did. Then what institution knows whether or not Iran are building nuclear weapons? The U.S. governments intelligence has the same position.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Look at the polling for his son, then. Other then foreign policy they're nearly identical. Kentucky Conservatives prefer him 40/20 over his opponent, but Kentucky Republicans are split 30/30 (with 40% undecided in both).

Kentucky is one state out of 50. What polling, by the way?