Thread: Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul

Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul


By John Fout
TheStreet.com Political Correspondent
9/7/2007 1:51 PM EDT
Click here for more stories by John Fout

In an effort to boost his media exposure, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has tried to discredit Rep. Ron Paul's responses in the GOP debate Wednesday in New Hampshire.

Thursday, Huckabee called Texas Rep. Paul's comments during the debate "ludicrous" and "unacceptable." The former Arkansas governor conflated a previous debate comment with Wednesday's debate to suggest that Paul blamed America for 9/11.

Has Paul made "ludicrous" statements? I decided to look at what he's said in the debates and do some fact-checking.

It turns out Ron Paul had to set the record straight early in the debate after Fox News' moderators misquoted him, suggesting that he wanted citizens to be able to carry guns on airplanes to thwart attacks. Not true, said Paul. His actual words were: "Responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government, not the passengers." Paul favors small government and private responsibility.

Next came the question that prompted the comments Huckabee objects to so much. Chris Wallace asked Paul if he would pull troops from Iraq in spite of predictions of a bloodbath, al Qaeda camps and death for U.S. supporters in Iraq.

Paul's spirited answer: "The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them?

He was alluding to Vice President Dick Cheney's prediction that we'd be greeted in Iraq "with candy and flowers." Paul Wolfowitz, a former Bush aide, claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire war, and some estimates were as low as a few billion dollars. Larry Lindsey, Bush's former economic adviser, was severely criticized for saying the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. It has surpassed $700 billion to date.

How can Huckabee call Paul's statement "ludicrous" when the facts speak so strongly to the contrary? The Bush administration hasn't gotten anything right in Iraq: no al Qaeda connection, no weapons of mass destruction, no cost to the taxpayer -- the list goes on and on.

In that same segment, Paul repeated an assertion from a previous debate: "The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11." True or not true?

Al Qaeda did issue a fatwa -- a judgment on Islamic law -- saying the United States committed three "crimes": military occupation of the Arabian peninsula, U.S. aggression against Iraqis, and U.S. support for Israel and refusal to recognize Palestinians.

In a prior debate, Paul mentioned Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent and chief of the agency's bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999. Scheuer, a bin Laden expert whose books include Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America and Imperial Hubris, defended Paul's statements at a May 24 press conference and confirmed that al Qaeda's response is blowback from bad policy in the Middle East.

And yet, Paul's remarks are somehow ludicrous and unacceptable? I don't think so, and neither does his camp. I spoke with Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, who said, "It's unfortunate that Mike Huckabee would demagogue on such an important issue."

Paul commented further on the war in Iraq. First, he decried going to war without first declaring war. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president declare war by making a request to Congress. We haven't had a formal war declaration since World War II.

Second, he asserted that the Iraq war is illegal under international law. War may be waged if approved by the U.N. Security Council, if it's sought as a matter of self-defense, or if it's a response to an overwhelming humanitarian emergency. None of these apply in Iraq. The U.N. Security Council's nine members didn't approve of our invasion, nor was the war in self-defense. Humanitarian grounds also falls short as an excuse for the invasion.

So, were Paul's comment ludicrous and unacceptable? Hardly. The record from the debate is clear: Paul has his facts straight. I'm not sure this can be said for the other candidates on the stage Wednesday night.

http://link.toolbot.com/thestreet.com/89225

"Nucklebee" doesn't stand a snowballs chance you know where of becoming president. Not with his stand on SHAMNESTY. He is simply grandstanding!

The only problem I have with Paul is his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the invasion, http://grades.betterimmigration.com/...TX14&VIPID=787. He goes from one extreme to another on amnesty, border control, foreign workers, and interior enforcement. Other than those important issues I agree with his position on guns, small government, and I believe the war in Iraq is a distraction from securing our border (for the NAU).

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

"Nucklebee" doesn't stand a snowballs chance you know where of becoming president. Not with his stand on SHAMNESTY. He is simply grandstanding!

Yea, he's probably been chosen by the NRC to bash Paul since he and the NRC know that Nucklebee doesn't stand a chance. He's all eaten up with status quo.

Originally Posted by sturmruger

The only problem I have with Paul is his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the invasion, http://grades.betterimmigration.com/...TX14&VIPID=787. He goes from one extreme to another on amnesty, border control, foreign workers, and interior enforcement. Other than those important issues I agree with his position on guns, small government, and I believe the war in Iraq is a distraction from securing our border (for the NAU).

I agree with this. My problems with Paul have absolutely nothing to do with his views on Iraq, and foreign policy. I am closer to him than the other reps on the war, and several other issues. But immigration is actually where my support for Paul begins to fall apart. His comments in the previuos debates as well as interviews leads me to believe that they differ little from the Libertarian Party. And that is not good for us.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by sturmruger

The only problem I have with Paul is his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the invasion, http://grades.betterimmigration.com/...TX14&VIPID=787. He goes from one extreme to another on amnesty, border control, foreign workers, and interior enforcement. Other than those important issues I agree with his position on guns, small government, and I believe the war in Iraq is a distraction from securing our border (for the NAU).

I agree with this. My problems with Paul have absolutely nothing to do with his views on Iraq, and foreign policy. I am closer to him than the other reps on the war, and several other issues. But immigration is actually where my support for Paul begins to fall apart. His comments in the previuos debates as well as interviews leads me to believe that they differ little from the Libertarian Party. And that is not good for us.

this shows where he stands http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=477
As for his voting record, by now you should know that the first test of the Real ID is going on in North Carolina right now. The hologram on the back is barely different from the SPP's logo. On the surface it looks like a good thing against immigration, however, on closer inspection it is clearly a North American ID. Huckabee is all for it as can be seen from his parroting Gingrich with the UPS and FedEx illustration. However, it is just another way to sneak in the NAU agenda knowing full well that the majority of Americans would be opposed to the elimination of our borders. Tancredo did vote for the Real ID as well, however, in his case I'm sure it was with good intentions since he is very clearly against Illegal immigration. Paul voted against the Real ID act because it is a severe violation of: our privacy, state's rights, and a potential violation of our sovereignty.

I provided a link to one article above, however, there are many more articles and statements by Paul on this matter in the Ron Paul Library which only contains works by Ron Paul. Here is the link to the border security and immigration reform index.

Originally Posted by Wyurm

this shows where he stands http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=477
As for his voting record, by now you should know that the first test of the Real ID is going on in North Carolina right now. The hologram on the back is barely different from the SPP's logo. On the surface it looks like a good thing against immigration, however, on closer inspection it is clearly a North American ID. Huckabee is all for it as can be seen from his parroting Gingrich with the UPS and FedEx illustration. However, it is just another way to sneak in the NAU agenda knowing full well that the majority of Americans would be opposed to the elimination of our borders. Tancredo did vote for the Real ID as well, however, in his case I'm sure it was with good intentions since he is very clearly against Illegal immigration. Paul voted against the Real ID act because it is a severe violation of: our privacy, state's rights, and a potential violation of our sovereignty.

I provided a link to one article above, however, there are many more articles and statements by Paul on this matter in the Ron Paul Library which only contains works by Ron Paul. Here is the link to the border security and immigration reform index.

Well, Real ID is one of those issues that I agree with Paul more than other candidates running....Paul does seem to have the inside track on NAU, world government etc. IMO that is his main draw for people here. I am not really anti-Paul, and in fact he really excited me at first. BUT, that was what got me to search Youtube for his stance on illegal immigration, and I waited and waited for him to talk about it in the debates. In both instances, he said the same thing: "If we had a real free market economy, we would realise that we need them, and they would not be scapegoated." He also made a statement in favor of a guest worker program, and said that some illegals in their work ethic are more American than some of us. IMO, his only probelm is that they get welfare -- that is the typical libertairian view that I refered to above. Like I said, I listened and listened for Paul's views on immigration because I WANTED to hear him talk strongly and decicively. I just wasn't impressed with what I heard.

"Nucklebee" doesn't stand a snowballs chance you know where of becoming president.

Huckabee.....major wimp.