Title: My title: Comparing Ron Paul with George Washington, Netanyahu, and Israel's Mossad Chief Source:
Various URL Source:[None] Published:Dec 30, 2011 Author:Various Post Date:2011-12-30 06:34:24 by GreyLmist Keywords:Ron Paul, George Washington, Netanyahu, Mossad Chief Views:89 Comments:3
During the 2008 presidential campaign, I bought into the conventional wisdom on Ron Paul. He was pretty good on domestic policy, but a “nut-job” when it comes to foreign policy. But as I’ve really listened to what he says, as opposed to the media spin, and studied the world I live in today, I find he makes much more sense. Do I agree with him 100 percent? No. But I can no longer simply discount his foreign policy as quackery. I hear this mantra all the time today. “I like that Ron Paul feller, except for his foreign policy.” I’m not even sure many who say that really understand his foreign policy positions. In fact, they line up pretty closely with stated positions of another president revered by most Americans – George Washington.
I wonder if Washington could get any traction in American politics today with this kind of foreign policy thinking? The following comes from his Farewell Address, delivered on Sept. 17, 1796. [Cont. at site]
Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel.
By Barak Ravid
December 29, 2011 "Haaretz" -- A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't necessarily constitute a threat to Israel's continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.
On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.
"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."
The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.
"But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel," one of the envoys said. [Cont. at site]
Paul senior adviser Doug Wead: on Wednesday dismissed the idea that the candidate was to the left of President Barack Obama when it comes to war.
"I totally disagree with that idea that he is to the left or the right," Wead told Fox News host Megyn Kelly. "He's pro-Constitution. He's in favor of taking the idea of war -- he's not against war."
"He was the only public figure in 1981 to stand up and defend Israel's right to defend herself and take out those Iraqi nuclear facilities," he added. "He's not against war. He's in favor of going to the U.S. Congress -- as the Constitution says -- and debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it and then getting out."
"He's against these endless wars that happen at a whim because somebody believes that someone is a threat to the United States."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC