James Kirchick, Ron Paul's Slanderer, Is Funded By Neo Con Think Tanks

[Paulie]

Yes, it seems this guy isn't just some independent editor, he's been funded by neo-conservative think tanks.

I think at this point we should all realize that neo-conservative interests have no desire for a man like Ron Paul to have any high power in government, especially President of the US. Ron Paul is about as anti-neocon as it gets.

http://research.yale.edu/iss/news.php

James Kirchick on Overthrowing Mugabe

Tuesday July 17, 2007—James Kirchick, Grand Strategy '04, Yale College '06, published "Should Great Britain Invade Zimbabwe?" (subscription required) on July 17, 2007 in the New Republic Online. At Yale, James was funded by fellowships from the John M. Olin Foundation and the George Frederick Jewett Foundation, both awarded by ISS.

Upon digging deeper, this is what comes up:

John M. Olin Foundation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation

In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women's Forum, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "The Foundation also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country's most prestigious colleges and universities."[

All VERY PROMINENT Neo Conservative groups.

It appears there's an obvious agenda here regarding this Kirchick/Paul story.

It's not so independent and out of nowhere anymore.

 

[onedomino]

Yes, it seems this guy isn't just some independent editor, he's been funded by neo-conservative think tanks.

I think at this point we should all realize that neo-conservative interests have no desire for a man like Ron Paul to have any high power in government, especially President of the US. Ron Paul is about as anti-neocon as it gets.

http://research.yale.edu/iss/news.php



Upon digging deeper, this is what comes up:

John M. Olin Foundation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation



All VERY PROMINENT Neo Conservative groups.

It appears there's an obvious agenda here regarding this Kirchick/Paul story.

It's not so independent and out of nowhere anymore.

So what? Does that alter the fact that Paul is a blame America isolationist? Those groups mentioned above are anti Paul and rightfully so. Paul's hide behind our borders extremism would be an abject disaster for America and the West. And as underlined by the primary results, most people realize that.

 

[Paulie]

So what? Does that alter the fact that Paul is a blame America isolationist? Those groups mentioned above are anti Paul and rightfully so. Paul's hide behind our borders extremism would be an abject disaster for America and the West. And as underlined by the primary results, most people realize that.

No, MOST people don't even know about him. Don't speak for America. Funny though, how he has more votes so far than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani.

Second, what you just said has nothing do with the issue involving Kirchick and Paul. It has nothing to do with his policy. We're not talking about his foreign policy here, it's about a slanderous attack on Paul by Kirchick involving unproven allegations that Paul is racist. Kirchick has hurt the image of a man running for president, based on loosely connected circumstantial findings. Once labelled a "racist" in the eyes of people, it's very hard to reverse it, no matter how much proof you show. Case in point is Kathianne. She's got her mind made up already, and doesn't even have proof.

You don't go publishing articles to try and ruin someone's image or career in this way, if you don't have PROOF.

All I'm doing is pointing out an agenda which I've just recently come to find out about.

We already know you're a rabid war hawk, and wouldn't like Ron Paul REGARDLESS of his views on race. Now, do you have anything substantial to add to the ACTUAL topic at hand?

 

[William Joyce]

So what? Does that alter the fact that Paul is a blame America isolationist? Those groups mentioned above are anti Paul and rightfully so. Paul's hide behind our borders extremism would be an abject disaster for America and the West. And as underlined by the primary results, most people realize that.

1. Liberals blame America. Ron Paul blames neocons. Please don't confuse "America" with "neocons." They are two very different things... in fact, the latter hates the former.

2. Hiding Behind Our Borders is otherwise known as "living life in peace and prosperity in a sovereign country." Sounds cool to me. What's your plan, onedomino? Let a few illegals from Guatemala camp in your living room while you decamp to Iran?

3. The primary results in NH show Ron Paul waxing Rudy Giuliani, aka "the best candidate for Israel." Not sure that's a repudiation, exactly.

 

[onedomino]

1. Liberals blame America. Ron Paul blames neocons. Please don't confuse "America" with "neocons." They are two very different things... in fact, the latter hates the former.

2. Hiding Behind Our Borders is otherwise known as "living life in peace and prosperity in a sovereign country." Sounds cool to me. What's your plan, onedomino? Let a few illegals from Guatemala camp in your living room while you decamp to Iran?

3. The primary results in NH show Ron Paul waxing Rudy Giuliani, aka "the best candidate for Israel." Not sure that's a repudiation, exactly.

What a load of crap, racist. Do not attribute things to me I have not said. I am not surprised you jump into a post defending Paul. Paulitics says I am a war hawk. He is a liar. But I agree that Islamic radicalism should not overrun the Middle East, Central, South, and SE Asia. And if we have to fight to prevent that from happening, then that is will happen in the future, and what is happening now. America will continue to engage with the world, regardless of the irrelevant views of extremists like you, Paulitics, and Ron Paul.

 

[William Joyce]

Islamic radicalism should not overrun the Middle East, Central, South, and SE Asia. And if we have to fight to prevent that from happening, then that is will happen in the future, and what is happening now.

Such a tough guy! But I'll bet that while you've got yourself hyped up to fight "Islamic radicalism" in places you've never been to and can't even spell, you have no problem with open borders or the public funding of Muslim-only schools in the U.S., no? And what goddamn business is it of yours how foreign countries arrange themselves? Do you think China has a right to stamp out "radical Christianity" in the U.S.? America can't keep simple illegal aliens from crossing the border, but we're going to "stop" an ideologically fierce foreign movement with billions of followers that, absent Israeli involvement, poses almost ZERO threat to the U.S.?

Typical neocon crap. You guys are 500 times more of a threat to America than any "racist".

 

[Paulie]

What a load of crap, racist. Do not attribute things to me I have not said. I am not surprised you jump into a post defending Paul. Paulitics says I am a war hawk. He is a liar. But I agree that Islamic radicalism should not overrun the Middle East, Central, South, and SE Asia. And if we have to fight to prevent that from happening, then that is will happen in the future, and what is happening now. America will continue to engage with the world, regardless of the irrelevant views of extremists like you, Paulitics, and Ron Paul.

You're never going to stop individuals with an ideology. And certainly not by invading countries and shoving a gun barrell down the citizens' throats. You can't see that our aggression has caused some people to hate us?

How do you think us invading countries and overthrowing governments is going to stop that one individual who is determined to mount a surprise attack somewhere? No matter what, there will always be another one of those individuals with that same idea. It'll never stop.

I'll never understand how aggressively invading and intervening in another nation's business, or economically sanctioning a nation, or dropping bombs on foreign cities, or covertly overthrowing and installing governments is going to somehow make the ideology of hatred disappear.

I've never seen one instance where anyone who advocates our current foreign policy could explain how they would feel if the whole situation was reversed. If China had been intervening in our nation for 30 years in one way or another, and our standard of living had been dramatically decreasing, and their troops were going in you and your neighbors house, you wouldn't eventually gather together with others and decide how you'd like to plan some type of revenge? Or, if not you personally, you wouldn't at least understand if others would?

My biggest problem is that we are too arrogant in this country. We think we're the best because that's what we're told. Even if that's true to some extent, it doesn't give us the right to spread America throughout the world. Especially at the expense of other innocent people.

We'll never stop the ideology of terrorism. It's been around since the beginning of time, and it'll be here until the end. It's not a new concept, no matter how much our government would like us to feel it is.

If we care about AMERICA'S security, why are our fucking borders wide open? "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here". What a bunch of bullshit. We'll ALWAYS be fighting them over here as long as we open our front door and say Come on In!

Two words: ARMED NEUTRALITY.

 

[onedomino]

Such a tough guy! But I'll bet that while you've got yourself hyped up to fight "Islamic radicalism" in places you've never been to and can't even spell, you have no problem with open borders or the public funding of Muslim-only schools in the U.S., no? And what goddamn business is it of yours how foreign countries arrange themselves? Do you think China has a right to stamp out "radical Christianity" in the U.S.? America can't keep simple illegal aliens from crossing the border, but we're going to "stop" an ideologically fierce foreign movement with billions of followers that, absent Israeli involvement, poses almost ZERO threat to the U.S.?

Typical neocon crap. You guys are 500 times more of a threat to America than any "racist".

Of course it's all about being anti Jew with you isn't it. All of your excretment on these boards always boils down to that. And regarding places I cannot spell, I have lived in China and visted almost every country in Asia. I have lived in Germany and visited almost every country in Western and Eastern Europe. I have spent weeks in St Petersburg. So do not tell me about places I cannot spell, assbreath. And it is certainly our business when radical fanatics produced in the Middle East, Central, South, and SE Asia attack us and our allies around the world. If you do not think we are in a war with radical Islam, then you ought to cut down on the Stormfront poison so you might have a moment of clarity.

 

[pegwinn]

So what? Does that alter the fact that Paul is a blame America isolationist? Those groups mentioned above are anti Paul and rightfully so. Paul's hide behind our borders extremism would be an abject disaster for America and the West. And as underlined by the primary results, most people realize that.

Actually RP isn't an isolationist. I thought he was until I did a bit more homework. More accurately he is a noninterventionalist. So far as I know, he hasn't called for repudiating treaties. That would be isolationist for certain.

Hiding behind the border is not inherently a bad thing. It's the reasoning you need to look at. His reasoning appears to be a mix of "avoiding foreign entanglements", "live and let live", and a stance that there is no Constitutional basis for intervention in other countries affairs.

Finally, I never heard him "blame" America. I did hear him explain his ideas of cause and effect with a historical basis. I don't fully agree with him, but, if he were to blame America we'd have not seen him openly disagree with the 911 Truther crowd.

 

[Annie]

Actually RP isn't an isolationist. I thought he was until I did a bit more homework. More accurately he is a noninterventionalist. So far as I know, he hasn't called for repudiating treaties. That would be isolationist for certain.

Hiding behind the border is not inherently a bad thing. It's the reasoning you need to look at. His reasoning appears to be a mix of "avoiding foreign entanglements", "live and let live", and a stance that there is no Constitutional basis for intervention in other countries affairs.

Finally, I never heard him "blame" America. I did hear him explain his ideas of cause and effect with a historical basis. I don't fully agree with him, but, if he were to blame America we'd have not seen him openly disagree with the 911 Truther crowd.

Yet he's appeared time and again on Alex Jones over years, not disabusing the listeners that he feels differently. It's only been recently, on MSM programs when asked directly that I've heard him say, "Of course not." He's the candidate that keeps using the Gulf of Tonkin as an analogy for 9/11-that to my way of thinking is a 'blame America' for 9/11. Just my opinion.

 

[Paulie]

Yet he's appeared time and again on Alex Jones over years, not disabusing the listeners that he feels differently. It's only been recently, on MSM programs when asked directly that I've heard him say, "Of course not." He's the candidate that keeps using the Gulf of Tonkin as an analogy for 9/11-that to my way of thinking is a 'blame America' for 9/11. Just my opinion.

WRONG. Absolutely positively WRONG, Kathianne. Why don't you get your damn facts straight before you post, huh?

Appearing on Alex Jones doesn't make you a 9/11 truther who blames America. That's spin, and you damn well know it. He's been asked by truthers, and he has never stated that he feels 9/11 was a government plot. I've once heard him say that a lot of times, government investigations are in one way or another, coverups, but that's as far as I've heard him go. He never referred to 9/11 as a government plot.

And you're also either just wrong, or LYING about his reference to Gulf of Tonkin being related to 9/11. He has said before that he doesn't rule out the possibility of a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident in the persian gulf region to justify engaging Iran, but then again, so has Zbigniew Brzezinski in a testimony to the US Senate. Would you like to call HIM a conspiracy theorist as well?

For all the research you apparently do on Ron Paul, you don't seem to be very well armed with the facts a lot of the time.

Do the board a favor, huh? And check your facts before you make incriminating posts please.

This is what happens when you get your information from biased reporters and pundits like Michelle Malkin.

 

[pegwinn]

Yet he's appeared time and again on Alex Jones over years, not disabusing the listeners that he feels differently. It's only been recently, on MSM programs when asked directly that I've heard him say, "Of course not." He's the candidate that keeps using the Gulf of Tonkin as an analogy for 9/11-that to my way of thinking is a 'blame America' for 9/11. Just my opinion.

I haven't been following him over the course of years. I only know what I have read and heard and seen recently. BTW, the Gulf of Tonkin is an excellent example of the .Gov using an incident as a pretext and finding out later that it was a fraud.

As to 911, I've heard him use historical anology more often in the context of us propping up the shah, then propping SH, and providing what he sees as inordinate support to Israel.

Like I said, I don't fully agree with him. But if one can seperate the wheat from chaff......

To bad he isn't able to make that seperation simultanious with the speeches. Most folks won't look past the soundbyte.

 

[Annie]

WRONG. Absolutely positively WRONG, Kathianne. Why don't you get your damn facts straight before you post, huh?

Appearing on Alex Jones doesn't make you a 9/11 truther who blames America. That's spin, and you damn well know it. He's been asked by truthers, and he has never stated that he feels 9/11 was a government plot. I've once heard him say that a lot of times, government investigations are in one way or another, coverups, but that's as far as I've heard him go. He never referred to 9/11 as a government plot.

And you're also either just wrong, or LYING about his reference to Gulf of Tonkin being related to 9/11. He has said before that he doesn't rule out the possibility of a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident in the persian gulf region to justify engaging Iran, but then again, so has Zbigniew Brzezinski in a testimony to the US Senate. Would you like to call HIM a conspiracy theorist as well?

For all the research you apparently do on Ron Paul, you don't seem to be very well armed with the facts a lot of the time.

Do the board a favor, huh? And check your facts before you make incriminating posts please.

Pauli, when was the last time I swore at you? Seriously dude, you're attempts to discredit what I've written, trying to speak for the board, are becoming more and more ludicrous over time. The crazy uncle has been shown without clothes. Your rants that he is clothed are just shared paranoia. The loony stuff is rubbing off, beware.

 

[Paulie]

It's also intriguing that you stayed out of this thread's original topic, and didn't bother to come in until you could ride the coattails of the topic being strayed, so you could post more anti-Ron Paul rhetoric. I believe you were the one who originally posted about the Kirchick thing here, weren't you? Nothing to say about his obvious biased and partisan agenda?

 

[Paulie]

Pauli, when was the last time I swore at you? Seriously dude, you're attempts to discredit what I've written, trying to speak for the board, are becoming more and more ludicrous over time. The crazy uncle has been shown without clothes. Your rants that he is clothed are just shared paranoia. The loony stuff is rubbing off, beware.

I cursed in the other thread with an actual foul word, and apologized for it.

All i said THIS time was "damn". Did that burn your eyes?

You don't expect people to get upset when you post inaccurate details or lie?

Come on.

 

[Annie]

It's also intriguing that you stayed out of this thread's original topic, and didn't bother to come in until you could ride the coattails of the topic being strayed, so you could post more anti-Ron Paul rhetoric. I believe you were the one who originally posted about the Kirchick thing here, weren't you? Nothing to say about his obvious biased and partisan agenda?

That's the flip side of the coin you've been using to defend Paul from Black, Stormfront, etc. I was trying not to go negative on you, which is why I was warning about sounding like some of the company you've been keeping.

I've yet to check out what you wrote about Kirchick, as I doubt the New Republic hasn't, since they've had so much problem recently with Beauchamp. In any case, I've been trying to get some school work done and don't have time right now, maybe later.

 

[onedomino]

Two words: ARMED NEUTRALITY

And that is completely immoral and nicely reflects Ron Paul. It sounds like Sweden in WW2, as it let the Nazis ship stolen Norwegian iron ore across Scandinavia to build Tigers to terrorize the rest of Europe, and kill allied soldiers. They, too, were armed neutrals. Guess what Paulitics? We are not going to standby and allow radical religious extremists to drive countries back into the 8th Century and oppress women like domesticated animals. We are going to help eliminate the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and those like them, wherever they are found: Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Western China, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. You do not negotiate or hide behind your borders from malignant cancer. You deal with it; you excise it. What do you suppose would have happened to Sweden had the Nazis won?

 

[William Joyce]

Of course it's all about being anti Jew with you isn't it.

No. If Jews weren't ardent architects of white genocide, I wouldn't care a whit about them. But they are. So I do.

And would you listen to yourself for a minute? You're blaming Muslims for all your problems in life. How, exactly, is that so different from the all-awful "anti-Semitism"? Did you ever learn that both Jews and Arabs are "semites"?

 

[onedomino]

No. If Jews weren't ardent architects of white genocide, I wouldn't care a whit about them. But they are. So I do.

And would you listen to yourself for a minute? You're blaming Muslims for all your problems in life. How, exactly, is that so different from the all-awful "anti-Semitism"? Did you ever learn that both Jews and Arabs are "semites"?

That's a lie. Something you are quite adept at. I do not blame Muslims for anything whatsoever. We are, however, in case you have not noticed, at war with radical Islamic extremists. Let me put it in terms that even someone like you, Joyce, can understand: they want to kill us and we are not going to let them. Would that be alright with you?

 

[eots]

That's a lie. Something you are quite adept at. I do not blame Muslims for anything whatsoever. We are, however, in case you have not noticed, at war with radical Islamic extremists. Let me put it in terms that even someone like you, Joyce, can understand: they want to kill us and we are not going to let them. Would that be alright with you?

then why do we occupy iraq and bomb the hell out of them and kill their woman and children ?