Ron Paul to Haaretz: Israel can get by without American aid

[bemildred]

The slight wound to Ron Paul's pride was visible as he recalled the decision by Fox News not to invite him to yesterday's Republican debate, but he hopes to gain even from his absence. "When there's an exclusion, it energizes the supporters," Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, said. He'll use the time freed up in his schedule for more appearances, more speeches. He was in Nashua, New Hampshire, yesterday, speaking to the Liberty Forum. No venue could be more fitting for this extraordinary Republican candidate. He stood out from the field in Saturday night's ABC news debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, particularly where U.S. foreign policy is concerned.

The Republican candidates are careful not to be too highly identified with the administration that will be leaving office in a year. Still, when it comes to terror and the war in Iraq, they give President George W. Bush considerable credit.

"The president got the big decision of his presidency right," Rudy Giuliani said. He meant the decision to "go on the offense" against terror. John McCain agreed, Mitt Romney agreed, Mike Huckabee agreed - albeit with slightly less enthusiasm - and Fred Thompson noted that this was a "global war." Afterward, the five began arguing with Paul, a Republican candidate who blamed American foreign policy for inviting and encouraging terror. Paul rejects the "isolationist" label, but it's difficult to describe his positions in another manner. In Iowa he took 10 percent of the votes, way ahead of Giuliani's 3 percent and slightly behind McCain's 13 percent. No one believes he can win, but nevertheless in the final quarter of 2007, he raised the amazing sum of nearly $20 million, allowing him to remain in the race. The vast majority of the money came from hundreds of thousands of people who each gave less than $100. Most of them are young - allowing Paul to compare his draw to that of Democratic candidate Barack Obama - and very devoted. In New Hampshire, a state whose citizens have a strong tendency to believe that that government is best which governs least, and are among the most anti-tax people in the country, Paul hopes to do well - at least as well as he did in Iowa.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942091.html

[ingac70]

1. Another point on which Ron Paul is right....

What does that make? 2 or 3?

[Benhurst]

2. Good for Paul on this.

Israel provides universal health care for its citizens, something the World's Only Superpower is too impoverished to do.

If anything, Israel should be giving us foreign aid.

[Shaktimaan]

6. I love posts like these.

Whenever someone is able to so succinctly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of two or more important issues in as many sentences I'm impressed.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Unfortunately, from all I know of Paul..

he would definitely not be spending the money on universal health care. In fact, he would probably withdraw any existing government aid for health care. He has said in so many words that it is an error to think that just because someone 'needs (medical) care, he is entitled to it.'

The USA is not too impoverished to provide universal health care - its governments have not been ideologically committed to it. The UK was much poorer in the late 1940s, a period of postwar 'austerity', than the USA is now; but our government introduced the NHS because it, and the people, strongly wanted it.

[Benhurst]

8. I couldn't agree with you more.

I only threw in the "too impoverished" to cut through all the bluster of "The World's Only Superpower," a nation which won't even take care of its own. Billions for bombs, nothing for health care.

:hi:

[Vegasaurus]

10. Ron Paul has no intention of instituting universal health care

He doesn't like the "US welfare state", and would be reducing all federally funded "entitlement programs", were he to be elected.

[Benhurst]

9. ...

Obviously the :sarcasm: icon was needed.

As for our "aid" for Israel, most of it comes back to our military/industrial complex. What's good for Israel in that respect, is good for the U.S., or at least its Merchants of Death.

[Vegasaurus]

3. He also says that he supports ceasing all aid to the Arab countries

which is a good idea, since we are propping up awful regimes in order to keep the oil flowing to the US. I'd be in favor of cutting off all aid myself (on edit...to both Israel and the Arab nations).

No other presidential candidate will cut off aid to either Israel OR the Arab countries, because the US is far too dependent on ME oil.

[bemildred]

4. Yep, he seems to have a consistent position about these things.

Not saying I agree with him, but he is not just a weathervane pointing in the latest wind direction.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Before reading the other posts...

I was about to respond with, "yes, it probably could if the Arab countries weren't getting it either!" Then I saw that this was addressed.

I actually agree with Paul that military aid - everywhere - should be reduced. Then again, I would advocate using more of that money to help the many in the world who are truly starving; and I suspect Paul would not support that.