BARACK OBAMA’S “SELECTIVE OUTRAGE”
By Ron Paul || President Barack Obama held a press conference last week to express his outrage over reports that the Veterans Administration was routinely delaying treatment to veterans, with some veterans even dying while on alleged secret waiting lists. The president said that, “if these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it, period.” He vowed that, together with Congress, he would “make sure we’re doing right by our veterans across the board.”The president is right to be upset over the mistreatment of U.S. military veterans, especially those who return home with so many physical and mental injuries. Veterans should not be abused when they seek the treatment promised them when they enlisted. But his outrage over military abuse is selective. He ignores the most egregious abuse of the U.S. armed forces: sending them off to fight, become maimed, and die in endless conflicts overseas that have no connection to U.S. national security.
It is ironic that the same week the president condemned the alleged mistreatment of veterans by the VA, he announced that he was sending 80 armed troops to Chad to help look for a group of girls kidnapped by the Nigerian Islamist organization Boko Haram. Is there any mistreatment worse than sending the U.S. military into a violent and unstable part of the world to conduct a search operation that is in no way connected to the defense of the United States?
As Judge Andrew Napolitano said last week, “Feeling sorry for somebody is not a sufficient basis for sending American men and women into harm’s way.”
We are naturally upset over reports that Nigerian girls have been kidnapped by this armed Islamist organization. Unfortunately, cruel and unjust acts are committed worldwide on a regular basis. What the media is not reporting about this terrible situation, however, is that it was U.S. interventionism itself that strengthened Boko Haram, and inadvertently may have even helped the kidnappers commit their crime.
Back in early 2012, just months after the U.S.-led attack on Libya overthrew Gaddafi and plunged the country into chaos, the UN issued a report warning about the proliferation of weapons from that bombed out country. UN investigators found — eight months before the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi — that, “Some of the weapons … could be sold to terrorist groups like al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram or other criminal organizations.”
The U.S., NATO, and the UN are guilty of creating the unrest currently engulfing much of northern Africa, as they all pushed lies to promote an attack on Libya that destabilized the region. Now the president is launching an intervention in Chad and Nigeria to solve the problems created by his own intervention in Libya. This pattern is the same in places like Ukraine, where the U.S.-backed coup in February has led to chaos and unrest that leads to even more intervention, including NATO’s saber-rattling on the Russian border. Has anyone in the Administration or Congress ever considered that interventionism itself might be the real problem?
As Americans celebrate the Memorial Day holiday, we should remember that though the VA’s alleged abuse and neglect of U.S. veterans is scandalous, the worse abuse comes from a president and a compliant Congress that send the U.S. military to cause harm and be harmed overseas in undeclared, unnecessary, and illegal interventions. The best way to honor the U.S. military is to honor the Constitution, and to keep in mind the wise advice of our Founding Fathers to avoid all foreign interventionism.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.
too easy. first the silly old fart says nigeria is none of our business, then immediately follows up with ‘we caused it’. i think this one was written by ron’s butler.
Your name “idiotwind” is very much akin to your reply.
As usual, Ron is spot-on with his remarks. I disagree with one thing in this post, though. The part the last paragraph where he refers to the “alleged” abuse and neglect of our veterans should omit the word “alleged”. No one is on trial (at the moment) and there seems to be more than enough evidence of abuse that the word “alleged” is out of place.
Where are all the hypocrites in the Left that were calling for the end to wars, Guantanamo, etc. with Obama having been in for so long and having done mostly nothing?
Where is their bitching about drone strikes, especially given that Obama has used them more than Bush?
Fuckers. I almost hate Lefties as much as Righties for their hypocrisy.
There are plenty on the left who are completely against the wars continuing, Guantanamo staying open, Obama signing the NDAA, the drone strikes that have killed countless innocents, etc. They are just ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment Democrats. Ron Paul pretty much gets the exact same treatment from the mainstream media and establishment Republicans for a lot of the same reasons, as does his followers.
I’d take Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders over Obama any day of the week, but those are actual liberals.
What Lil’ Barry is outraged about is that some of his ass-wipers aren’t using toilet paper on him anymore. He should get in his sandbox and scoot his ass around to clean himself – and not forget to cover that teeny-tiny pile, Barry.
Did you mean to refer to him as”Lil’ Benito” –?
Lindsey Graham will take care of the ass wiping chores. Then polish it off with “election have consequences.”
—–What the media is not reporting about this terrible situation, however, is that it was U.S. interventionism itself that strengthened Boko Haram, and inadvertently may have even helped the kidnappers commit their crime.—–
It is always America’s fault with Paul. No criticism for anyone but the USA. Paul is so disgusting that I have sunken to defending Obama. That is a new low for me. If Paul had won the Republican nomination I would’ve actually had to consider voting for Obama.
There aren’t any easy foreign policy choices. The US makes mistakes. If you scramble eggs, you have to brake some eggs. Surgery requires you to make a cut. There are always negatives any policy decision, even if you decide to do nothing.
When we continually set ourselves up for failure, as we have done time and again for thirty-something years now, perhaps a bit of self-criticism is in order.
We can criticize Russia, China, etc till the cows come home and we’ll see little in the way of results. What is the old saying about sweeping around your own door, first? That seems to be exactly what Mr Paul advocates doing.
The question is not whether or not the mistakes are made, but whether corrective action is done to prevent those mistakes from happening in the future. When I make a mistake, I blame myself and I take corrective action to produce change. Change cannot come unless a man (or woman or nation) is able to understand the mistakes they made.
The problem (in my eyes) is that some people do not like hearing bad news and will avoid listening until the problem becomes so severe that they are forced to listen. For example, a person may avoid going to the doctor because he knows the doctor will have something negative to say about his health. The person will avoid going until his health has become so bad that he has no choice but to go.
I’m sure that you disagree with my assessment, and that’s fine. I have only two questions for you, if you are kind enough to answer them. “How is it disgusting to point out a disgusting fact?” and “Is shooting the messenger disgusting?”
“How is it disgusting to point out a disgusting fact?”
Africa is awash in guns from many sources and corruption. To blame the US for the kidnapping of 300 girls, however inadvertently, is disgusting.
“Is shooting the messenger disgusting?”
Only if the message is false.
With the current interventionist foreign policy (not much different from Bush’s, I may add), by far more failures and disasters arise than do successes. If you disagree, please give some examples that outweigh the plethora of failures. I personally believe our interventionist foreign policy is driven by the multi-national corporations and the financial billionaires who have become Oligarchs.
You don’t include wars that were prevented. Has any power we have had a preconflict military alliance been attacked by a foreign power? I can recall only only once(the Falkland War) and that war didn’t put our soldiers in harms way.
The US has promoted democracy around the world and the number of democracies has expanded greatly. Have two true democratic countries(free elections and free press) ever gone to war against each other? I can’t recall any. Yes, we have defended autocratic states(Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) but it has been against even worse governments.
You gave no examples. “Promotion of democracy”? Are you kidding me??? Is that your label for the puppet governments we install around the world to serve the interests of the financial elite? So you embrace a foreign policy that includes our CIA overthrowing democratically elected governments?
Google Operation Ajax and see how in 1953 our CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran to steal their oil for British corporate oil interests. How’d that work out for “democracy”? …Iran now our enemy.
What about the CIA’s empowerment of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega. ..? How’d all that “pro-democracy” interventionism work out? Let me guess… you probably think the 9/11 attacks were because “they hate our freedom”!
WAKE UP!!! Our global bullying has NOTHING to do with spreading democracy and EVERYTHING to do with advancing oligarchic interests. Stop blindly waiving your flag, turn off the evening news propaganda machine, and start acting like a responsible American by educating yourself. Be part of the solution instead of the problem. God gave you a brain… USE IT!!!
Bible Thumper – Let’s just make you the next US mistake, your wife, your daughter your son all mistakenly bombed and killed wherever it is you live. Let’s say this actually happened to you – then how do you think you’ll feel about our stupid international aggression? You are the one who is totally disgusting and hateful not Ron Paul.
800,000 died in Rwanda.
150,000 died and dying in Syria.
In the Bosnian war 100,000 had died.
In Sept 1995 NATO began three weeks of air and missile strikes killing less than thirty people. The Dayton Accord bringing peace was signed soon after.
What if your wife, daughter or son were among the thirty? But what if they among the tens of thousands saved by lifting the Siege of Sarajevo?
There can be only one super power on this planet. Would it be better if it were US or whom else would you prefer?
How about we be a superpower and leave everyone else alone? Or do you prefer sticking our noses in everyone else’s business?
…whom else would you prefer?
Wil, find a better picture of Ron, I mistook the profile shot for Bush 43 for a few moments… must be the Texas air
Abusing veterans seems to be a bi-party exercise. I was reminded recently, by John Stewart on the Daily Show, that veteran abuse goes way back. I was reminded of how Reagan administration refused to recognized that agent orange had any ill affects on our veterans. Of course now we know better. It is also hard to ignore the god knows how many people in Vietnam that died or had severe health issues due to agent orange.
This is just personal musings, but what if one of the real reasons for bad care of veterans is that there are interests that do not want to see any form of public healthcare succeed? I am wondering if in the end veterans will get vouchers to get medical attention in the private sector, and that this was the plan all along.