Ron Paul’s View On America’s Foreign Occupation Supported By U.S. Troops

13 09 2011

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.





CONFIRMED: Libya War is CIA Op 30 Years in the Making

28 08 2011

Tony Cartalucci 
Prisonplanet.com
Aug 27, 2011

D. Icke

Alternative media activist David Icke , who has been warning about the false nature of the “Arab Spring” since it began over six months ago, has pointed out an astounding “flashback” regarding an August 3, 1981 Newsweek article titled, “A Plan to Overthrow Kaddafi.”
‘The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a “disinformation” program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a “counter government” to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third — potentially the most risky — was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force.” Quite obviously this plan has been executed verbatim with the necessary addition of a NATO intervention to rescue the above stated “paramilitary” campaign from Libyan security forces – a contigency plan explicitly spelled out in another Wall Street-London subsidized, signed confession, Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): ”Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it.” ”This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred. Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.” The disinformation campaign began in February as overt, now verified lies were told to the publicregarding both the nature of the uprising and the Libyan government’s reaction to it. As tank driving, jet flying battle hardened LIFG Al Qaeda mercenaries waged war against the Libyan army, the corporate media in tandem with NATO member states preparing to intervene, portrayed the uprising as peaceful placard waving activists being mowed down by machine gun fire and strafed by Libyan warplanes. Evidence now confirms no such atrocties took place, however the UN citing this intentional disinformation authroized NATO intervention. The very nature of the Benghazi rebels has been deceptively presented to the public. In fact, they are a collection of extremists and mercenaries, many of whom had been fighting recently in Iraq and Afghanistan against US forces. These mercenaries, who have been backed by the CIA and MI6 for the last 30 years (see time line), are being portrayed as an “an indigenous political force” opposing Libya’s government. It has just been recently revealed that the rebel commander attempting to seize Tripoli is none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj, an Al Qaeda asset who was previously captured by in Malaysia, tortured by the CIA in Bangkok, Thailand in 2003, before being release back in Libya where he is now fighting on behalf of NATO. Additional disinformation comes in the form of media attempts to portray Qaddafi as a rambling madman who despite the disparagement, has turned out to be one of the few heads of state speaking any truth at all regarding the conflict besieging his nation. From his earlier claims that the uprising was foreign backed Al Qaeda, to now verified claims that the rebellion was nothing more than a means to usher in a foreign occupation and the despoiling of Libya’s resources, he has been spot on. As rebels loot his home and his compound in central Tripoli, he is now being disingenuously portrayed as an opulent tyrant who hoarded state resources at the cost of his population. Betraying the duplicity of this lie is the UN’s own Human Development Index which lists Libya as one of the most developed nations in Africa and is ranked higher than many other nations including Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. Quite obviously Libya’s oil wealth was put to good use, and as Libya has ensured the West’s nefarious corporate-funded NGOs were excluded from Libyan society, no other explanation for Libya’s development exists beyond the government’s own initiatives. What we are witnessing in Libya is a concerted, admitted war of aggression by corporate-financier interests who have openly conspired to carry out a campaign of military and economic conquest throughout the Middle East (and beyond), including Northern Africa and specifically including Libya. From

W. Clark

Wesley Clark’s 2007 speech, to Newsweeks’ 1981 article, we have been handed a signed confession that “our” governments are the true enemies of free humanity, masking their agenda with the thinnest veneer of moral justification, almost as if to insult the intelligence of so many who eagerly continue to empower them as they maliciously move forward. Once again, we must commit ourselves to identifying the corporate-financier interests truly driving this agenda, lurking behind the military and political leaders paraded before us as the executors of “international policy.” We must also commit to boycotting and replacing these corporate-financier interests as well as ending the recognition of any of the legitimacy they endlessly heap upon themselves.





Obama to Approve ‘Al-Qaeda Embassy’ in Washington: State Department sympathetic to recognizing rebel terrorists who killed U.S. troops

1 08 2011

Paul Joseph Watson, writing for Prison Planet.com

Thursday, July 28, 2011 The Obama administration is preparing to follow Britain in recognizing the rebel National Transitional Council as the official government of Libya by approving an embassy in Washington DC, which given the fact that the rebel army is spearheaded by Al-Qaeda militants who have killed U.S. troops would equate to Obama handing terrorists a diplomatic outpost on U.S. soil. “The United States said Wednesday it was reviewing a request by Libya’s rebels to open an embassy in Washington, following Britain which expelled diplomats from Moamer Kadhafi’s regime,” reports AFP. State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters that the U.S. would be “sympathetic” to the request, after which rebel supporters unfurled their flag outside the embassy where Gaddafi’s regime is still in control. The United States formally recognized the rebel council as the country’s legitimate government earlier this month, despite the fact that the rebel army is spearheaded by Al-Qaeda terrorists who are supposedly the target of a multi-decade “war on terror” that is now in its tenth year and has cost the U.S. a staggering $5.4 trillion since 9/11. Shortly after the start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al-Hasidi described the fighters as “patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” adding that “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. The Telegraph confirmed that Al-Qaeda fighters had joined with anti-Gaddafi rebels in a story entitled, Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side, in which Richard Spencer writes how, “WikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi’s regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah.” Although NATO and the U.S. admit that “flickers” of Al-Qaeda members have infiltrated rebel ranks, in reality, they are leading the anti-Gaddafi forces in several areas of the country. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a piece entitled, Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels, Al-Qaeda terrorists who worked directly for Bin Laden are recruiting, training and acting as front line field commanders for the rebel army. Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher and high-school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters from Darna. Mr. Hasady’s field commander on the front lines is Salah al-Barrani, a former fighter from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which was formed in the 1990s by Libyan mujahedeen returning home after helping to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan and dedicated to ousting Mr. Gadhafi from power. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden’s holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city’s rebel recruits. Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview with the Washington Times that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya. Referring to the fighters as “freelance jihadists”, Benotman said that the men were part of a North African terror cell known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), and have completely infiltrated the rebel army. A 2007 West Point report indicated that the Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk area of Libya is a world capital for Al-Qaeda or mujahideen suicide bomber recruitment. Author Webster Tarpley details this intelligence in his excellent analysis piece, The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq. Western intelligence agencies have also utilized their links with Libyan Al-Qaeda cells to target Gaddafi in recent history. In 2002, French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Osama Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gaddafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan. Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, allowing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Some of the very rebels now being funded, trained, and offered embassies by Britain and the U.S. were part of the Al-Qaeda cell that tried to kill Gaddafi on behalf of the United States and Britain 15 years ago. On Wednesday, Britain expelled Gaddafi’s diplomats and announced that it would be unfreezing $150 million dollars in Libyan oil revenue that would be used to directly fund the rebel army, abandoning any pretense that the intervention of NATO powers had anything to do with “humanitarianism,” which was the reason provided for the war back in March. In recognizing Al-Qaeda led Libyan rebels who don’t even control the majority of Libya, and have virtually no control over key areas, as the official government, both Britain and the US are completely rewriting hundreds of years of diplomatic protocol. While producing fearmongering videos which characterize white middle class Americans as the primary terror threat, the federal government is simultaneously about to hand an organization infiltrated and in some cases led by Al-Qaeda terrorists its own embassy inside the United States. Having violated the constitution by ignoring his own lawyers in launching the war without congressional approval, Barack Obama is now directly aiding and abetting Islamic terrorists, breaking his oath to protect America against foreign belligerents by literally inviting the enemy within the gates. If this isn’t a solid case for the impeachment of Barack Obama, then nothing is.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.