Neal Boortz has repeatedly hailed Ron Paul for his libertarian/Constitutionalist views but makes one exception to Paul’s policies: the war on terror. Boortz thinks Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy is dangerous to America. We would like to reach out to Boortz’s listeners (and Neal himself) to reconsider this view. Here is the way we see it:
We currently have troops stationed on 700 military bases in 130 countries. Ron Paul advocates removing these troops from around the globe and repositioning a number of them around our borders to stop illegal immigration. The current administration’s policy is to leave American borders unsecured and therefore open to terrorists to infiltrate our country. This is the Clinton/Bush policy which has been in place since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the 15 years since the first major terrorist attack on American soil the border has been left wide open to would-be terrorists! It is the current policy, not the Paul policy, which is putting America in danger.
Until 1987 it was perfectly legal to carry a gun onto a commercial airplane (subject only to the airline’s own rules). Disarming the pilots and passengers by federal decree made possible the 9/11 suicide hijackings. This policy remained in place until after 2003 when the Bush administration began to allow, on a very limited basis, federally trained pilots to carry weapons. From the time of the 1993 WTC bombing until the limited arming of pilots was implemented, official mandates put Americans at great risk. Ron Paul has repeatedly championed the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, thus allowing the airlines to determine their own security measures. The current practice is putting Americans at undue risk; Paul’s policies would assure a much greater level of security.
In 2002 President Bush stated his intention to capture Osama Bin Laden "Dead or Alive." The President could have had Bin Laden in custody merely by presenting evidence to the government of Afghanistan as they had offered to accept for this purpose, but he refused, opting instead for a war which has resulted in the death of hundreds of American servicemen and women in Afghanistan. Ron Paul in contrast has repeatedly stated his intention to negotiate and talk with other countries in such circumstances. (And President Bush has since stated that he is not that concerned with Bin Laden!)
Later when Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora it was the Bush administration’s decisions which resulted in this mass murderer escaping over the border into Pakistan. Ron Paul in contrast introduced legislation to authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal to aid in the capture of Bin Laden.
All of the other candidates — both Republican and Democrat — endorse continuing the subsidies handed to tyrannical and decent governments, alike. Many of these regimes are despised by their people. A U.S. subsidy to these states results in the people of these countries despising the U.S. in turn for propping up the government which they despise, and needlessly makes new enemies for Americans. It is the current procedure, not the Paul policy of ending all foreign aid, which is needlessly endangering Americans.
All of the other candidates endorse the massive functions taken over by the federal government. In trying to do so much the Congress and the President have little time to focus on vital national security issues. Paul’s strictly limited federal government would allow the proper focus on vital national security issues.
With our troops stationed in many, many far-off lands, America itself is left relatively defenseless. As Paul has stated, Seoul, South Korea was better defended than Washington, D.C. on September 11th! It is the current policies, not the Paul plan which leaves Americans under-defended. Additionally, the misdirected war in Iraq has so depleted American military reserves that we are probably in the greatest danger ever from foreign attack.
The President and presidential candidates endorse the very strategies which provoke terrorist attacks against Americans. Bin Laden specifically cited American troop presence on Arabian soil as one of the provocations for the 9/11 attack (as did former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, as did the former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA, Michael Scheuer).
In contrast to the current practices and those endorsed by the other candidates for president, Ron Paul’s approach to dealing with terrorism is based on following the U.S. Constitution. Every one of the policies endorsed by Ron Paul conforms to the standards established for our government under the Constitution. Nearly every one of those currently enacted or proposed by the other candidates is in direct violation of the Constitution.
With all of this in mind is it any wonder that of all of the presidential candidates it is Ron Paul who leads in campaign contributions from former and current military personnel, soldiers who swear to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic and to protect the U.S. Constitution?
For a long list of veterans who have endorsed Ron Paul, see his campaign website.
We hope and trust that these considerations will convince Neal Boortz himself, and his many patriotic listeners, to reconsider their position on this vital matter.