Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ron Paul Again Attacks Obama Foreign Policy

August 31, 2011 by  

Ron Paul Again Attacks Obama Foreign Policy

In a statement issued by 2012 GOP contender Representative Ron Paul of Texas earlier this week, Paul attacked the Administration of President Barack Obama for its seemingly expanding imperialistic foreign policy in the Middle East following the announcement of a victory in Libya.

“The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress — and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate. It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress,” Paul said in his weekly Texas Straight Talk address.

Paul contends that the ousting of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi — once referred to as the “mad dog” of the Middle East by former President Ronald Reagan — has done little more than offer the country up for grabs by al-Qaida and other militant Islamic groups. Paul referenced the U.S. “victory” in Iraq several years ago as an example of the unintended negative consequences of meddling in Mideast affairs.

“Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements,” Paul said. “Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion. Will Libya be any different?”

Iran is are determined to ascertain the rights to nuclear holdings, and Iranian officials say any U.S. and/or NATO intervention in the matter will result in bitter stalemates such as those witnessed in Afghanistan over the past decade.

“[The] nuclear issue is just an excuse for the West to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran and if it is resolved, the US and its allies would impose more sanctions against Iran under the pretext of human rights violations,” said Iranian Atomic Energy Director Fereydoun Abbasi in a report from The Islamic Republic News Agency on Monday.

As mainstream media and mainstream Presidential candidates call for tougher sanctions on Iran, the Iranian and Middle Eastern attitude toward Western intervention — as witnessed in the aforementioned quote from Islamic media — is very bitter. Currently, Iran is working with Russia to develop a “step by step” plan regarding the country’s nuclear issue. Though, Iranian officials continue to assert that any agreement must recognize Tehran’s nuclear rights.

As Middle Eastern leaders promise NATO aggressors bitter stalemates, faceless enemies, military occupations that can neither be won nor ended and “economic Jihad,” Paul calls for an end to American interventionism and a focus on national security and economic recovery at home.

“Neo-conservatives continue to dominate our foreign policy, regardless of the administration in power. They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid,” said the candidate in his statement.

Paul considers Syria to be the next target of the Obama Administration, U.S. neoconservatives and their NATO counterparts:

“They have set their sights next on Syria, where the U.S. moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the U.S.  Already the U.S. president has called for ‘regime change’ in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime. Are U.S. bombers far behind?”

Some people see any military advancement by the U.S. in Syria as a step toward an inevitable military occupation of Iran under the current foreign policy norm, considering the close foreign relations between the countries since the beginnings of the Islamic Republic.








Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ron Paul Again Attacks Obama Foreign Policy”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Richard Wicks

    Obama’s foreign policy?

    Isn’t it Bush’s foreign policy?

    There’s no difference between the mainstream parties. We have the exact same things we had under Bush.

    * Warrantless wiretapping
    * Patriot Act
    * Wars
    * Guantanamo

    What has changed?

    • Janice M Cullen RE Broker

      Pretty much. A man who thiks for himself and does not swallow all this garbage is a good think!

    • Morduin00

      If you want to paint it that broadly, yes, it is Bush’s foreign policy per se although wiretapping and patriot act are unconstitutional domestic programs. However, there are differences you neglect to add because they take away from your argument.
      1) Bush was not a conservative nor a neo-con.
      2) He did not do it without the consent of congress.
      3) We were already in a stated war that was funded through congress. You cannot say that about any of Obama’s “wars”.
      4) These programs were a result of a direct attack on the US.
      5) Being the president with a democratic congress in his first two years, Obama could have ceased and defunded everything Bush did. However, he did not. So therefore, they are truly Obama’s policy now.

      Although I don’t think Ron Paul as a good grasp of the motivators in the middle east, I do agree with him that we have no business against most of those countries… and this is where I differ… unless they act in a manner detrimental to us or our allies. Case in point – Iran. Iran wants to be a world power and the US and Israel would stand in their way. Dr. Paul does not seem to understand this. While I understand his non-interventionalist tendencies, I think he takes them too far.

      • s c

        M, can you educate us? Out of the blue, we’re expected to believe that GB isn’t a neocon. Do you think neocon is another term for a neocom?
        I don’t know what a neocom is, but at this point, if you think GB is not a neocon, I’d sure like to know where you get your ideas.
        If you surveyed politicians in the DC area, the vast majority of them will tell you that GB is a neocon. So what makes you a johnny-come-lately expert on the topic? Please tell me that you don’t rely on reading books or surfing the internet to get your info.

        • Morduin00


          Other than his giving full reign to the commanders on the ground and his profession of his faith Bush did nothing so show he was a neo con or a conservative. This is indicated by his financial and immigration policies as well as the doubling of the size of government.

          I see Bush more as a moderate. If you think a moderate is a neocon, then we agree.

          • s c

            Earth to M, GB is not a moderate. By definition, when you spend so much so fast that you make a drunken sailor seem like an improvement, you’re no moderate. A ‘neocon’ is an oxymoron – in more ways than one. It’s intended to sound like a new-and-improved version of an old product. A neocon is someone who wants to be seen as a ‘Republican,’ but has surrendered to NWO politics.
            No, we don’t agree. I’m a conservative, and I have no use for ‘Republicans,’ ‘Dems,’ moderates, neocons, socialists, communists, fascists or ‘religious’ types who sold their arses (and whatever else was convenient) so they can have access to political bunkmates.
            Frankly, I can’t tell if you like GB or if you don’t. If you think GB is not a neocon, then this is a matter of definitions. Even GB will admit to being a neocon, so your slant is skewed for no good reason. Got it?

          • Morduin00


            Seriously? What does matter whether or not I “like” GB or not have anything to do with it? Besides, which GB are you referring to?

            When I make judgements on people (politicians) it matters not what party they are in or say they are in. What matters to me is whether their actions match their words and vice versa. In addition, I try to look at history to make sure I have the proper context when I comment.

            In addition, I try to keep my comments civil while hoping to inspire a healthy debate.

            While I have found several videos of GB 1 talking about the new world order, most are edited to seduce the viewer in taking the comments out of context. You really need to start listening to things in context instead of choosing only the bits and pieces that fit nicely into your world view.

            Besides… you are going to trust what politicians say about one another? Hell. You cant even get liberals to call themselves liberals! NeoCon was a term made up by politicians and pundits as a slur…. just as liberal is to progressive.

          • Jay

            There is no difference between the two. What is, different, is that the ruling elite, that both B&O are part of, are becoming more brazen! That’s all.

      • Henry Cameron


        “these programs were a direct result of an attack on the US”

        When exactly did Iraq attack us again?

        • Morduin00

          While Iraq as a nation did not perpetrate the attack on the US on 9/11. There is sufficient evidence that Hussein not only allowed the terrorists to train on his soil, he also funded them. Prior to that, his attack on US planes during the enforcement of a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone and an attempted assassination of a US president can also be considered attacks.

      • Randy Huffey

        Israel can and will deal with Iran if and when it becomes necessary. Because of US intervention (behind the scenes, I’m sure Obama told Israel not to) they haven’t done so already, and now it’s too late.
        Obama (since his election) has never quit campaigning. Remember his trip to all the Muslim countries shortly after his election. He also was all over Europe. Nobody sees this for what it was and is. Obama is campaigning for President of the World. He can’t be President of the World unless it (the world) is in total chaos. Obama’s policy of overthrowing western friendly or neutral dictators has only agitated world unrest. This selective interventionist policy is no accident; rather Obama has a specific agenda! When Obama had the chance to stand up for democracy in Iran (a totally anti-American dictator), he was “out to lunch”! Obama could have stood up and said something, yet when pro-western Mubarak of Egypt was besieged by “revolutionaries” Obama praised them and immediately said Mubarak must go! Obama’s policies are to create world havoc and his action (war) in Libya (through the UN, snubbing congress) has effectively transferred the power of the military out of the hands of “We the People” (congress) and has placed it directly under the presidents every whim (with the anti-American UN approvals). So in effect, President Obama is now Commander in Chief of the (One) World Army (the US military) and NATO to send wherever and whenever he (and the UN) sees fit.

      • Patriot1776

        Morduin00,Can you explain to me how it is better to impose our idea of how Isreal and others should handle their terrorist problems? Or how lording over them when it comes to how they handle these threats to THEIR security is somehow supporting them? I beg to differ. I believe we are truly supporting Isreal when we let them handle their OWN security and be there when they ASK us to help them. Do you really think that if allowed to handle the situation w/out our intervention they wouldn’t take care of it? Iran is NOT our problem. Isreal is plenty capable of stopping those nutcases themselves and we should let them do it.

        • Morduin00


          I am not suggesting that we lord anything over anyone. I am all for taking the leash off of Israel. I was there and I know they are more than capable of handling themselves.

          However, if the UN is going to play their games with their anti-semetic posturing, I see nothing wrong with backing up and sometimes being the calming influence for a country whom I consider to be our strongest ally year in and year out.

      • James

        Bush was surrounded by neocons. After 9/11, Bush conned Congress into thinking it was Iraq that was behind it, at least, most Amricans thought that. What pushed Congress over the brink, was the made-up WMD claim. And previously, the claim that the hijackers were Afghan Al Qaeda members, was blown out of the water when it was disclosed that 9 of the supposed 19 hijackers are still alive, working their jobs in the Middle-East. The FBI Chief has stated publicly that they don’t really know WHO was flying those planes.

    • BRH

      The block heah excuse we hahe for a president.To dislike Obama and his policies is not to approve of Bush.

  • FlaJim

    So now, al Qaida rules Libya. What an accomplishment!

    The boy can claim all the laurels he wants. The fact remains that he’s in bed with the moslem brotherhood.

  • s c

    JMC, slow down. For a ‘retired teacher,’ you don’t express yourself very well. I don’t mean that to seem like pure criticism, but PLEASE, if you have problems with a keyboard, get someone else to do it for you.
    As for the Ron Paul article, he’s basically right, and part of the cure for America is to get America’s long nose OUT of international problems. We have in-house traitors, multiple-faced politicians, union wackos, moronic academics and generational parasites who are self-made victims. If we could ship a third of those scummers to another country (or another planet), America would be a better nation in a hurry.
    We need REAL leaders, and we need them NOW. Try some people who aren’t ‘connected.’ Try new faces. If you think leaders come from political parties or come with years of ‘experience,’ you might as well give up. Pick names out of a frickin’ phone book. At least they won’t be pre-damaged goods before they get to Washington.
    Leaders, yes! Proven failures who are ‘pre-blessed’ by a political machine, NO!

  • s c

    The T shirt the woman is wearing in the article’s photo is quite a statement in itself. I’ll bet that many women in Muslim countries don’t know that Muslims backed Hitler in WWII. Hence, the T shirt’s design is confusing and hilarious at the same time. It’s safe to say that whoever dreamed up that design won’t be selling those T shirts in America.
    Can anyone figure out what’s so wrong with the T shirt?

    • 2WarAbnVet

      I wonder how many people know that Hitler had a Muslim SS Division (13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar) during World War II. Himmler thought that Muslim men would make perfect SS soldiers as Islam “promises them Heaven if they fight and are killed in action.”

      • s c

        2WarAbnVet, it’s obvious that Muslims never ran out of ‘religious scholars’ who aren’t above manipulating people to do their bidding. It didn’t take much of a stretch for modern Muslim leaders to morph their WWII strategy and turn it into a scheme where ‘volunteers’ could sacrifice themselves, get an immediate ticket to ‘Heaven;’ and get a bunch of virgins at the same time. Sure sounds POLITICAL to me.
        Hitler had two faiths backing him for a while, and historical revisionists will keep Muslim connections with Hitler out of the history books. It wouldn’t seem quite right for ‘THE’ faith to have ties to an idea that had no use for God. It sure is amazing what ‘religious’ types will do to get more friends, eh? It answers a lot of questons about true religious faith on one hand, and types of various schemes that have more in common with Ponzi than God.

    • Papa

      That’s not a T shirt, and the entire picture has been photo-shopped. It’s not a “photograph” at all but a constructed montage…

    • Dave B.

      Haha I was thinking the same thing LOL. Muslim hypocrisy frankly knows no bounds, and relies on ignorance of history.

      BTW I wouldn’t assume she doesn’t know the history – I’m sure when they’re brainwashing their children with the Koran they’re pointing to Hitler as a hero…

  • s c

    P, chill out, dude. Someone went to the trouble to try and make a point. Did you consider the meaning or the intent of that photo? Are you having a ‘what is is’ moment? Most people won’t look twice at that photo. Did you?
    I know some of our Washington quislings want us to stop thinking, but we don’t have to surrender to those yahoos. Would you want to be around someone who doesn’t THINK?

  • Lois Manning

    sc: The original “what is ‘is’” moment came from the Bible: Moses asks god “What are you?” God answers, “I am what I am.” I ask, “What in the world does that mean? What IS god”? Answer: That depends upon what your definition of “is” is. Because god(s) exists ONLY in the minds of His/Her/Its/Their believers, anyone’s definition of god is as valid as anyone else’s. That’s why the majority of the world’s people…Jews, Christians, and Muslims…will always be creating hell on earth for the rest of us with their violent bickering about who owns the “true” god: No one does because God doesn’t exist outside their own minds.

    • Helen M Nanney

      Lois, you have a big surprise coming. And that quote is,

      “I AM that I AM”, KJV GEN: not I AM WHAT I AM. Huge diference.

      I AM creator of the universe, not evil, not matter, not the idoltry of Adam.

      I AM THE ONLY POWER,(industructable, creative power) Not the destructable adam beliefs, which are deceptions, apearing from their choice to be as a god, (via idoltry)

      I AM THE ONLY TRUTH, (The perfection of creation)not the adam deciets

      I AM THE ONLY LIFE, (mankind in His image) not the temporal adam man.

      I AM LOVE, (pure, unadultred Love) not the unstable and unsastified love of idoltry.

      I AM ALL INTELIGENCE, (not human knowledge which is unstable, and changes.) ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH NO VEARIBLES.

      He is beyond discription from any of our frail beliefs, but He appers to many like me, in many ways, and you also, if you open your limited mind, and hear HIs call. Helen

  • Chris K

    Some think Mr/Dr Paul takes non-interventionist policies too far? Ok, yet I would argue. We are not in the 1950s when the United States had a strong currency. Wars are expensive and we are incredibly in debt. We don’t have the money to play around in these foreign policy misadventures. R. Paul has said some of the most intelligent things about the Iran hype. People leave the facts out that Israel has upwards of 300 nuclear weapons. Iran does not have a air force that can deliver attacks to the United States. Pakistan, Qatar, Afghanistan, Iraq are all under United States military attack or subjugation.

  • s c

    I need to offer an apology of sorts. To keep in line with this article’s topic, I just want to add that ANYBODY who disagrees with Obummer’s “foreign policy” is someone who has a functional brain and should be complimented.
    For those of you who don’t yet know, there is a holdover from the days of Vietnam and Henry Kissinger in the White House closet. And his name is . . . Zbig. Yep, you guessed it, folks. Zbig Brzezinski.
    Now, does anybody feel better about Obummer’s talents in foreign policy matters? I wouldn’t want advice from Zbig on how to take out the trash, let alone what is foreign policy or how to conduct foreign policy. You are known by your FRIENDS.
    Obummer is surrounded by space cadets, America-haters and scum of the earth. Those who support Obummer can and will support ANYONE. Thank God it’s not possible to dig up Lenin or Alinsky or Hitler and have them run for office in America.

  • oldgringo

    The United States has become a Pawn for the War Mongering G8/05/G20 Imperialist who want control of the World…..Lock, Stock, and Barrel…..To be filled with abundant Oil and Rare Earth Minerals…..Why else would Obama be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and handed a cool One Million Dollars as a reward for his support to the Whims of the One World Governance Groupies?….Obama is their Puppet!

    • Helen M Nanney

      You are so right. Ron is right. He has sent our troups in to help Al’quada take over the five countries that have been working with us not AGAINST US IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. RON IS RIGHT, OBAMA’S POLICIES SUPPORT THE NWO GROUPE WHICH WANTS ALL OF THE RESOURCES, AND COMPLEAT CONTROLL of the Middle East and Africia. WE HAVE LOST MORE TROUPS SINCE OBAMA LIED HIS WAY INTO THE WHITE HOUUSE, then all of the last ten years. We have 200 plus Military bases over seas, and most of them should be here to protect our borders. Some built right on our
      By the time the 2012 election comes around, Obama, via the Natzi exterminator, of 5, million people, Soro’s, his top advisor, will
      have America destroyed. All of the oil spills, flooding of the Missouri, Mississippi, and three Rivers Montana, and the emissions from the downed Ft cahloon, plant, (after the rains, the mass flooding of all of the crop lands was delebrate) and the letting go, of the uncontroled fire near the Los alamos plant, causing mass emissions of nuclear waste about ready to be transfered, our country is close to physical ruin, and economic collasp. Economic collasp, due to printing money with no back up reserves, and most of that sent to the muslem countries, and the UN, and to buy up banks, and to build underground cities for the elite, and camps for the usless, (us)etc, Other then that OBama has done a good job.

      Iran was and will be a threat to nuclear war, as Russia is arming them with nuclear power, and no matter who is in, they will attack Isreal, as the destruction of Isreal and America is the NWO groups agenda. Obama was financed and trained to take America down.

  • http://personallibertydigest Gregory Hickey

    Someone sited the strong valuation of the US dollar during the 1950′s. During the 1950′s income of one million or more was taxed at 51%. The US debt was 80% of the GDP. Today the debt ratioo is 62%, far less, but we are taxing million dollars plus at practically nothing and in some cases the government is returning taxes. Ron Paul is absolutely corect the government is nearly, if not bankrupt, but keeps borrowing. During the 1950′s Dwight Eisenhower was president and spent money (we did not have) on infrastructure, such as roads, bribdges, post offices, and yes, the interstate highway system. We need to tax as in the 1950′s and spend on infrastructure for jobs as in the 1950′s!

    • http://Personalliberty Tony

      To Mr. Hickey:
      Well stated. Also, Ron Paul is right, we need to pull out of other
      countries’ affairs. We don’t have any business being the policemen of the world. Furthermore, our country has an overbloated military budget
      we don’t need. All our nation needs is troops to protect our borders
      and a missile defense system. In addition, it’s not worth dealing with
      these Arab muslim nations in general. They still practice slavery. They make women wear veils, and heavy robes. They consider black africans as “monkeys” and call jewish people “yahuds”, which is an anti-semitic slur. Overall, they have the worse human rights violations of any nations on this planet. Time to pull out and allow the Arab muslims to their own devices. Thanks!!

    • r.p.

      Mr. Greg:
      You are right to a degree. Ike used the military appropriations to build our highway infrastructure. It was the only way he could put a damper on the massive expansion of the “MIC” (Military Industrial Complex). Of which he warned us about them twice when addressing the nation, and in his farewell address.

  • http://google Sandra Henley

    Kudo’s to Ron Paul. His analysis is right on. US gov. is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, except the wolf’s tale is hanging out and we can begin to see what is really going on. NWO advocates want to destabilize mid east so that Israel will be more vunerable and so that the Arab nations can be controlled under one leader. It may appear US is against Iran but has not sent NATO, UN, EU, US forces in there to deal with nuclear agenda and to remove dictator Amenajad (misspelled)from power. So maybe Iran will rise as head of Arab league. We all are waiting to see how things play out. God help us.

    • Marlene

      I agree with you, Sandra. Ron Paul seems to be the only one who is truly aware of what this Master-Wannabe is all about. As far as your misspelling, I find it easier to call him ‘that squinty-eyed midget’ rather than trying to spell his weird Iranian name.

  • Marlene

    Could it be that, with the help from Al Queda, Obama hopes to be dictator not only of the US but of the Middle East countries? Isn’t that why, without the blessings of Congress, he volunteered this country’s help in destroying Gadhaffi’s rule. We still don’t know who is behind the rebels but because Obama has put our military resources at their beck and call, it most likely IS the Muslim Brotherhood behind the rebels. Everything this half-breed does is suspect and is never without black (not racial, but bad) reasoning.

    • James

      Marlene, And let’s remember Obama had no congressional mandate to wage that war. Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.

  • Rosco1776

    I have only one thing to say, Ron Paul 2012!!

  • Bill wright

    Theres a lot of voices in the world,Expressing thier opinions,and each of them have a degree of merit.WE know what has to be done to clean up this mess.,But we have to be damn careful of who s advice we take to do it.Its going to be hard to find the honest people needed to bring this about.(and that just about cleans out Congress)

  • Chris

    I agree with what you said Mr .Bill ,There is so much crap going on that like you said ,its going to be a hell of a long battle to get this country back on its feet again.And as far as ron paul goes he comes across like another Jimmy carter,Sorry if you don’t agree,but this is after all america,where people have the right to express thier opinions.

  • Progressive student 4 Paul

    Progressives should be open minded to support Ron Paul, at least in the Republican primaries.

    It should be welcomed that we’ve found common ground with a Republican who is for ending the wars and occupation. Ron Paul is the only candidate who even acknowledges the civilian lives lost that we claim to go and protect, and acknowledges our mistakes in antagonising other nations in history.

    On domestic policy I have my differences with him, but he’s right that the country is broke, and it can’t be fixed with more spending and taxation (which is essentially what Obama and the Democrats were arguing in the debt ceiling debate).
    Ron Paul has the right priorities in cutting spending (unlike most Republicans) in cutting military spending first. And the money saved from that he said half should go to reduce the deficit, and the other half he concedes on domestic spending (as you seen in interviews like with Anderson Cooper) despite his personal preference to cut both.
    I don’t agree with everything, but on balance I agree with him on what I feel is the most important and practical thing to prioritise, being domestic concerns over needless wars.

  • Jason

    Ron Paul is right, as always. This foreign policy is tearing our country apart and strengthening our enemies. We are creating hate and empowering our enemies by putting them in power and giving them more control. We are also bankrupt. We can’t afford this and the people of the United States are going to pay dearly for this, both financially and with lives.

    To argue whether this is Obama’s foreign policy or Bush’s foreign policy is irrelevant. Both parties are at fault, but as an independent looking at this from the center, I would have to say that Obama has taken it as farther than Bush did, not to say that if Bush remained in power, he wouldn’t have.

    Obama has no intentions of getting out of Iraq. Don’t think for a minute that he was serious about that. He wants to build the empire.

    If you don’t vote for Ron Paul, you might as well kiss this country good bye. We don’t have time for any more mistakes. Ron is the only one with enough understanding of economics and foreign policy to save this country in it’s current state, with the help of God.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.