The following is a reprint By Joseph W. McQuaid – New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher

*******************

Ron Paul is a dangerous man. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.

Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.

A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”

Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.

This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.

Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.

We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.

He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.

Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).

His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.

*******************

Liberally Conservative and its author concur. (See related post directly below)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

This is nice (please notice my sarcasm) as I see a headline about Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy discussing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a microphone accidentally still on.

After a G20 meeting the tuned-in microphone picks up the private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama where Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ the Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

Sarkozy reportedly also told Obama that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

The conversation apparently began with Barack Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move. It’s nice to know where France really stands, cowards as usual.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared:

“I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”

 Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The press heard this conversation but forget freedom of the press as journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments.  A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

These politicians set up rules for journalists to protect their true feelings while pretending to side with one country or another or call someone an ally when they are not considered that in the bigger picture.

Sarkozy and Obama are nothing but liars and cowards. It’s now nice to have it on record how they feel about the Israeli Prime Minister who is the only one of the three that has respect for the United States.

I guess Sarkozy doesn’t recognize a liar when he’s talking with one.

Yes, it was an Obama campaign promise, but after personally shooting Osama bin Laden and Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi what else is left. Mission Accomplished!

Except for some major problems with walking away to the neighbor of the hostile Iran, which will undermine US interests in the Middle East in the long-run. However, this was a political decision with election 2012 coming up, to heck with national security.

“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” proclaimed the erstwhile Obama.

Behind the scenes a failure had taken place that is quietly being put aside by team Obama. The Administration tried and failed to negotiate with the Iraqi government to extend the US troop presence there in order to ensure the country’s security and stability. The sticking point for the negotiations was immunity for US troops in Iraq.

Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.

Up to now the public had been told that negotiations were indeed on track to continue logistical support utilizing a residual support group which would be necessary for Iraqi operations in key areas such as counterterrorism, air support, intelligence gathering, and training.

Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips writes:

Iraqi political leaders didn’t want to risk the political consequences of extending immunity for U.S. troops. And given the Obama Administration’s eagerness to withdraw from Iraq and unwillingness to confront Iran they didn’t want to put their political necks on the line. Now, as a result, U.S. security interests will suffer–bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias will be limited, and the ability to contain Iran will be weakened.

While now leaving a security vacuum in Iraq the Obama administration via Hillary Clinton at the State Department is already telegraphing warnings to Iran:

“Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey.”

Clinton is being burned in effigy in Pakistan and I’m sure in some Iranian quarter that same respect is being shown to the US Secretary of State. But talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. An America withdrawal of troops is the strongest statement sent by Obama and his minions so they can squawk all they want during the Sunday talk show circuit, facts are facts. This is demonstrating yet one more show of United States foreign policy weakness abroad.

I don’t wish to see America troops deployed around the world and particularly in hostile environments. However, after the long fight to secure Iraq, all progress made thus far may be jeopardized.

Barack Obama has now established one more talking point to shore up his feckless political base on the campaign trail but this comes at the expense of US national security.

Remember, in the last presidential election cycle Barack Obama promised he would negotiate with Iran and their terrorist leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How is that working out?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: