Share This Article with a Friend!

The Smackdown the Mainstream Media Ignored: Ron Paul Nails Michele Bachmann on Iran

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s attack on Congressman Ron Paul’s principled non-interventionist foreign policy provided one of the most substantive policy discussion during the FOX News Sioux City, Iowa debate, but you would hardly know it from the post-debate media coverage.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier set the stage for the discussion on Iran by stating that Congressman Paul “would be running left of Obama on the issue of Iran." Baier supported that proposition by noting that Ron Paul proposes removing economic sanctions against Iran, including the sanctions that Obama had imposed.

Congressman Paul replied by noting that the current anti-Iran propaganda reminded him of the lead-up to the Iraq war, a war he opposed because he discounted exaggerated claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Observing that there is no evidence Iran is near to completing a nuclear weapon, Paul said "That’s how we got involved in the useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq."

Ron Paul drove home his non-interventionist policy toward Iran and radical Islam by rejecting the claim that Islamic theology is founded upon killing non-Muslims, "To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that's the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said they come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was quick to attack Ron Paul by claiming, "We have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off face of the earth.”

Bachmann bolstered her argument by claiming, “We have an IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”  To which Ron Paul retorted, “There is no U.N. report that said that… They produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence that there has been enrichment… It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”

A variety of news media sources, including CNN's "Truth Squad" fact checkers concluded that Paul — and not Bachmann — was factually correct and that as Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons, but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann serves on the House Intelligence Committee and should know what she is talking about when it comes to such a sensitive topic as Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program – yet she was strangely wrong about the IAEA report, an unclassified public document.  Does she know something the IAEA doesn’t?

Determining the intentions behind Iran’s nuclear program and crafting a response to its bellicose pronouncements toward the U.S. and allies such as Israel, are among the greatest challenges facing the next President of the United States.  Whether you agree with Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy or not, Republicans need a presidential nominee who will at least start formulating policy by getting the facts right on this important challenge.  If Bachmann has information beyond the IAEA report she should work to get it unclassified, because even if you agree with her conclusions, as things stand now her credibility on national security has been damaged.

Share this

Libertarianism and Conservatism are Not Compatible

Congressman Ron Paul is a Libertarian weasel.  Conservatives are fools to support him. He would be the worst kind of leader – one who calls good evil, and evil good.  His foreign policy is at best irresponsible, if not outright suicidal.  His isolationist ideas are the playground of the dangerously naïve. It would be charitable to state that he is in denial about the realities of human nature and world history.  He twists history to his own bent, so to support his perversion of ordered liberty.  That so many here, whom claim the mantle of conservatism, buy into Paul’s Libertarian insanity is disconcerting at best.   Since when do conservatives support libertarian principles?  Do any of you truly understand what a Libertarian is?  A Libertarian is nothing less than a liberal in sheep clothing. Libertarianism is more accurately defined as moral indifferentism; to wit: anarchy -- No rules, no transcendent principles.  Just do as you please – and be your own “god.”  Moral corruption and social chaos are the end result of such foolish pursuits, but the minds of those who hold libertarian ideas are already decayed beyond any hope of restoration.  They are basically incorrigible reprobates looking to corrupt as many as possible so to not have the reflection of true virtue constantly before them.  In short, Libertarians are agents of the Devil.

Rep. Paul believes that abortion is a "state rights" issue ... Really?  Murdering innocent defenseless human beings is now an act that can be decided by popular vote?  And you who support this outrage claim to be “conservative?”  Just what on God’s green Earth do you think worthy to “conserve” if you are willing to entertain such insanity under the color of law?  Have you no understanding that some matters are transcendent of human deliberation?  You who adore the Constitution, as though it were inspired by God, at the same time dare to propose that you have a “right” to decide who lives and who dies?  No one will be safe when such abominable thinking is given the pretense of “responsible individual liberty” by the twisted logic of Libertarian charlatans.  Those who support Ron Paul have not a clue what responsible governance truly entails. 

 Oh, but Congressman Paul also insists that the realm of marriage is within the purview of the state too.  God has something different to say about that -- since it is He who ordained and defined the institution -- marriage is known as "holy matrimony" for reason it is a Sacrament, not a dissoluble “social contract” to be perverted or casually dismissed by those who have neither fear of God nor respect for humanity.

Those of you here who defend and support Congressman Paul should at least have the honesty to declare yourself Libertarians, and stop perverting the tenets of conservatism.  Not one of you may claim to be conservative and simultaneously hold to Paul’s warped ideas of individual liberty.  This site, which boldly claims itself “Conservative HQ” had best decide whether it truly is such, or is merely flying the masthead for disingenuous cover of a truly perverted agenda.

Ron Paul/Libertarianism

So in other words, you are saying that our founding fathers were irresponsible weasels?  Ron Paul is far closer to the views they held and our Constitution than any of the so called Republican candidates.  He knows that true freedom and liberty must allow people to decide for themselves on personal issues. 

Ron Paul does not defend abortion, he just does not want it to be a federal issue either way.  Even if he wanted to make it illegal, it would never pass and they all know that.  None of the other candidates are suggesting making abortion illegal either, so how is he any less pro-life than they are? 

Abortion has NEVER been illegal in this country.  It was always a state issue prior to Roe vs. Wade, and he said he will work to overturn R v W, so how do you conclude he is deciding who lives and who dies?!  That's absurd talk from a wacky, liberty hating, extremist which you obviously are. 

Our nation is not under the rule of the Christian Bible, it is under the rule of the U.S. Constitution, which does not regulate who is allowed to marry who.  I find it far more worrisome and controversial for states to have the ability to decide to allow 12 year olds to marry than whether 2 men or 2 women chose to marry. 

Marriage is only "Holy Matrimony" if the couple decide to be married in their church or synagogue or temple or whatever religion they practice.  The "sanctity of marriage" is a joke, if it were truly sacred, Christians would not be getting divorced at the same rate as non-Christians.

libertarian vs conservative

you been watching to many Faux news broadcast. I don't think that labels mean anything in the world. Your pronouncement that Dr. Paul; should not call himself a conservative, and just admit he is a libertarian misses one point. With the situation what is in the world, it's no longer a matter of left and right, conservative or liberal, libertarian or conservative. It's a matter of what's right and what's wrong. In this particular case, you are just wrong.

Who should we believe?

Both Representatives know more about what is actually going on than they can discuss in a non-classified setting. Of the two, Ron has the experience and the voting record to back up his campaign positions and promises. The lady does not. So, if we vote for Ron Paul we can be assured that we will get exactly what we voted for because he has established that pattern of credibility. Not so with the lady.

For Ron Paul, his record may be his undoing. There are so many Big R republicans that feel we must be the boss of the world that they won't vote for him because they know exactly how he will act.

Paul to left of Obama???

Wow! That's a stretch.   I guess that puts Bachman's support of Obama in all the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and soon Syria and Iran to the right of Obama.  That characterization by FOX's moderator Bret Bair was snide and illogical.   Calling a libertarian viewpoint "to the left" shows Fox's Neocon influence.    Someone should ask  the Neocons (Paul has at times) how we pay for all these illegal and undeclared wars.

Smackdown YES, but it was Paul who was out for the count!

Wow George, how odd it is that you would come away with that false perception? You are quite predictable however in your attempt to twist the obvious outcome with your "Liberal logic" on view above, for all to see.

For Ron Paul to continue to deny that Iran wants a nuclear weapon one minute, and then to argue that they are trying to get one for responsible and reasonable reasons seconds later, is ridiculous at best.

It was quite humorous in a sadistic way I admit, to listen to you first try to deny that Bachmann knows what she is talking about. Then end up whining that she knows more than you, and should release classified information, for the sole purpose of beating back your editorial attacks, and minimizing Ron Paul's embarassments.

Why don't you spend some time analyzing Paul's off the wall comment that Bachmann and the USA wants to "declare war on 1.2 Billion muslims"? Mature, honest & intelligent American adults realize that Iran is not a democratic republic governed by the peacefull will of it's people. We realize Iran is ruled by a relatively small group of terrorists tyrants hiding behind the political arms of Islam.

I sincerely sympathise wth Ron Paul for being shunned by most members of his own party for some of his embarrassing remarks, but his quest for a little love from others, has left him dependent upon the secret little hugs of foriegn affairs solidarirty he gets from Pelosi in the halls of Congress.  Dr. Paul needs a little help from Dr. Phil to overcome this fetish.



libertarian vs conservative

you are wrong. He is not being ignored by his own party, as demonstrated by his popularity. As far as the press (faux news for example) attempting to marginalize him, that's another story. Afterall they have so much to lose if he should win the election. If he does, it will be because their message was marginalized. Not Dr. Paul's.

So just wondering

Did you manage to read the fact checking part or are facts to "liberal" for you? 

Why don't you attack those who are lying to you instead of those who tell the truth? Would be much better for the party and the country. 

just plain wrong


Which are you, neo-con, rino, or just plain liberal?

Wait, I know, I know! It's none of the are just plain wrong.

Paul versus Bachmann

I believe that we had better understand that Iran is a  country with a very dangerous government. Whoever is the candidate for president should know this. Though I am not happy with what we have to chose from I think that Backmann is the most fit for the job.

Ron reads books,big boy books.

Michele Bachman is the opposite of smart.A vote for her is a vote for endless war and a miserable 4 more years of Obama.