I like you. You have balls. I like balls.
Egyptian Terrorist Team America
Once again Ron Paul stands alone on stage speaking the truth regarding America’s interventionist foreign policy. And once again he is jeered by the audience. This is reminiscent of the debate in the 2008 presidential campaign when Paul corrected Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, who in turn demanded a retraction (1). Ron Paul didn’t retract then and he shouldn’t retract now.
It’s pretty interesting that Ron Paul was booed for condemning the interventionist foreign policy of the United States at a Tea Party debate when it was Paul who was the major force behind starting the Tea Party. The first Tea Party gathering was lead by Paul in Boston in 2007 on the anniversary of the original Tea Party (2). One of the major drives of that gathering, as well as Paul’s entire campaign, was the opposition to the War in Iraq.
The foreign policy question epitomizes my major objection with the Tea Party movement. While economically the movement has called for a more responsible approach, the foreign policy espoused from Tea Party leaders and candidates (excluding Paul) resembles the same interventionalism of the neo-conservatives. It appears that in less than five years the movement has been overrun by more neo-conservatives than libertarians.
From the 9/11 Commission report,
He (Osama bin Laden) also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel (3).
3. 9/11 Commission Report Section 2.1