The establishment media is once again attempting to smear Ron Paul as anti-American following Paul’s simple observation during the debate last night that foreign occupations increase the risk of terrorist attacks, when in reality the Texan Congressman’s views are endorsed by US military personnel more than any other Republican candidate
“Republican Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul was booed at last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate while explaining his view on why America was attacked on September 11, 2001,” reports ABC News.
The corporate media instantly seized on the boos, made by a gaggle of neo-con “Tea Party” members, as a tool through which to portray Paul as un-American, with one acerbic headline even asking whether the Congressman was defending Al-Qaeda.
It’s a common smear to equate not supporting foreign occupations as anti-American or against conservative principles, despite the fact that the founding fathers consistently warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.
But like a lot of the myths circulated by the establishment about Ron Paul, reality reflects a very different picture.
Given the fact that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself, his views on foreign occupations are supported by the very U.S. troops that neo-cons constantly invoke to support maintaining such foreign occupations.
Paul’s contention that the troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that US bases around the world should be closed, is supported by those very same troops.
“Paul’s campaign told Politifact that Paul raised $34,480 from people in the military, compared with $19,849 for Obama and $13,848 for the other GOP presidential candidates,” reports USA Today.
“The Center for Responsive Politics says $11,350 of Paul’s military donations come from people who work for the Army. In the 2008 campaign, the center found that individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul’s top three sources of campaign donations.
But it’s not just military service people who are growing tired of America’s unaffordable foreign empire. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, conservatives in general are losing their appetite for war.
Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.
Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.
In addition, a mere 13 per cent of Republicans support US military intervention in Libya to topple Colonel Gaddafi.
The myth that Republican candidates must not deviate from the neo-con dogma of supporting America’s unsustainable foreign occupations and the ludicrous policy of pre-emptive warfare in order to be electable is disappearing fast.
Although a gaggle of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” who in reality have nothing in common with the founding fathers, may have booed Paul’s explanation last night, the majority of Americans, and indeed the majority of US Military servicemen and women, were applauding him.
