Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's past statements are coming back to haunt him – and this time it's about the US' role in ending World War 2 and the Holocaust.
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
"I wouldn't risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn't do that," Shapiro wrote.
Shapiro added that he later contacted Eric Dondero, Paul's former top aide, who said that he had heard his boss make similar comments on various occasions.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
12 comments:
I suppose this is how TPTB and the Republicats are planning to neutralize him.
The Republican Democratic Party AKA RINO is scared of common sense and Constitutionality and are throwing everything into the fan to stop Paul. . Hopefully, it won't work.
Ron Paul This Time Around, or it's pretty much over...
I'd rather have a President who looked for reasons NOT to invade, subdue, "protect", and otherwise venture into ANOTHER *undeclared* war against some third world nobody nation where only two things get done --- the military industrial machine gets even richer, and two, American kids get killed by the thousands. CONGRESS declars war, but that has a MINOR technicality in the fact that the Constitution spells those powers out. Which are then ignored by every politician who SWEARS to UPHOLD the Constitution. The more they try to smear Ron Paul, the stronger he becomes. He is the ONLY candidate that actually thinks the Constitution still exists.
The question I would ask those that oppose Dr. Paul would be thus: If the Iraqi Shites started slaughtering millions of Iraqi Sunis; would you send your son or daughter to die for them?... and remember how many 100's thousands of US soldiers died in WWII...consider your answer carefully...try to keep your focus on the context of the question at hand.
and remember how many 100's thousands of US soldiers died in WWII.
Different time. Different technology. Different weapons. Different war.
What does that war, and all it entails, have to do with today's conflicts?
Well, 847, now that you ask, absolutely nothing. back then, it was country against country, man up in your face. Now, it;s not a country, but generally a religious idea which has commonality in several countries, and not in others. Y\that's what throws us off sometimes. The only way we can defend or attack a belief is to state our own belief. Unfortunately, our current "belief" seems to be to attack people who have been at war for thousands of years. A new policy would be nice, but not expected.
Thank you, 931 for your opinion. It is totally correct and represents what we are up against.
At the risk of being argumentative, I don't think the current and most recent 'wars' were based on religious beliefs.
They claim it was in response to a 'terrorist' attack by some religious fanatics. I don't believe that is entirely true.
I think it goes much deeper than that. I think our own country has practiced terrorism long before this came to the forefront of people's conscience.
The reasons given for the war in Iraq were neither valid or proven.
I believe now as I believed then it was Bush seeking revenge and over control of oil and the profits to be made off of that and war materials.
I don't think there is any one easy answer. There are a multitude of factors in play regarding that and other wars. Most of which I suspect we don't know and may never know.
I no longer trust our government. I never have totally and now I always view them with a suspicious eye.
I don't believe many of them, if any, have our best interests at heart. They are focused on wealth and power and would sell any of us out for either.
I'm not saying roll over and be invaded either. But it takes two to tango.
We can no longer blindly follow whatever they wish to tell us. I think more and more Americans are finally beginning to realize that.
Is it too late? Time will tell.
paul is great domestically; scarey internationally especially regarding our defense....
So if Shapiro posted the 2009 interview, where is the accompanying audio? I haven't heard Paul ever speak badly about race/religion issues. Sounds fishy to me that a modern day journalist wouldn't use something more then a pen&pad in 2009.
I have'nt read all of this,but I heard a lot of war stories as a kid.The guys who fought in WW2 assured me that Hitler intended to take over the world.According to each and every one of them the US had no choice.
206-So Hitler couldn't invade successfully invade Britain(or even bomb it into submission), but he would've taken over the world? Just look at errors of Hitlers' strategy. It's no suprise he couldn't even conquer Europe, let alone take over the world. He stupidly opened a 2 front war when he went after Russia, and those krauts didn't do well in their summer uniforms in the middle of a Russian winter. While I agree that Hitler was a menace, and had to be taken out, a President does not need that same point of view. It's the Congress that decides. Check out the decision to lend-lease warships to Britain during WWII well before we got involved in the European war. We were involved in it well before Joe Public realized it.
Post a Comment