5 votes

Allen West's Past Rears Its Ugly Head

“I would take these gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion.” - Allen West, referring to Ron Paul and other Congress members who supported ending US involvement in Afghanistan.

Allen West firmly believes that the best way to resolve an argument is to subject your opponent to gunfire. Before you turn away and suggest that this statement is merely hyperbole, there are some facts you may want to consider.

When West made the above statement, he was responding to the recent bi-partisan effort in Congress to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. West, a former Lt. Colonel in the Army is no stranger to the effects of persuasion at gunpoint. His military career ended in infamy after he fired his sidearm at an unarmed Iraqi policeman suspected of being involved in an assassination plot..


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Questions about Ron Paul and Allen West

I'm new here and have questions.
I like Ron Paul, I think he's a good moral man but then he threw me for a loop. In a recent debate, he said he wanted to pull the US out of everywhere and just secure our own borders. That's sounds good but don't we need to be in some countries, mainly our countries of our allies and not just to protect them but our own security and interestes as well? I don't think pulling the US out of everywhere would be good so that threw me a bit. Then he said our military shouldn't have killed bin Laden. That really bothers me. I know Ron Paul stands on the side of Liberty and our Constitution but I why wouldn't he want justice done? I am glad we killed bin Laden. The world needed to be rid of him, he murdered 3,000 people here in the US on 09-11-01. Ron Paul also said he'd legalize heroin....what??? That's crazy! I understand that by legalizing it that taxes could be collected on it but I don't think letting people use heroin is a good idea. Sounds whacko to me but maybe he's right? Maybe I'm not understanding. I like Ron Paul but some of the things he's talking about are a little hard to swallow.

As for Allen West, I like him too but I don't know. As for his military service, I'm confused because I thought they held a hearing on that and didn't charge or convict him of murder but basically said that altho he broke some rules, he did it to protect his men. I don't think there was a cover up and I don't think they found him guilty of any serious charges. Thanks if anyone can answer my questions, I am trying to keep up on things and do my homework, glad I finally signed up here! I'm not sure yet how to get any auto replies but will check back. Thanks!

reedr3v's picture

to see replies to your comments, look at the

left column of the DP homepage, near the top after the ads/ guideline/business links: you should see your nick,Boots, in bold blue type, and a list of links in red. click My account to find your posts and replies, etc.

I see good answers to your other questions below. And welcome, it's always wonderful to meet a new liberty seeker.

I'll be happy to clear some things up.

Ron Paul didn't say we shouldn't have killed bin Laden. He said he would have asked the government of Pakistan to arrest him and turn him over to us, just as they've done with other prominent terrorists. Ron Paul didn't like the idea of us disrespecting the Pakistani government by pulling a sneak attack.

Concerning the size and scope of our defense presence around the globe, Paul points out the purpose of our armed forces is for the defense of Americans in America, not to be world policemen. He says we would be safer if we stay out of the affairs of other nations and concentrated on actual defense.
Further, our overseas operations are spending trillions we don't have and hastening the bankrupting of our economy. How safe will America be when we are in a deep economic meltdown, when the dollar goes into steep inflation, millions more jobs are lost and homes foreclosed?

Paul didn't say he'd legalize heroin, only that, as president, he would veto any federal bill to over-ride the states from passing drug laws, including laws that legalized them. He says there is nothing in the constitution that gives power to the federal government to regulate drugs; it should be a state's right to decide.

What Paul pointed out in the first GOP debate was that most people don't live a decent life because the law makes them do so. We are guided by values and logic for the most part. Those who have a weakness for drugs will find ways to obtain them while the majority of us know to stay away from them. If a state were to legalize one or more drugs there might be a few more people who would try them to see what it's all about, but on the plus side, the crime associated with the drug trade would vanish, just as it did when our sorry experiment with alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. Good intentions sometimes create horrific results. Just ask those who live on both sides of the Mexican border how drug prohibition is working out for them. It's a bloody war zone created by our laws that create the black market in drugs.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


Thanks for replying to me! I've liked Ron Paul but the issues I noted in my post kind of bother me however, I am reading up and your reply helps too. I wonder tho if others are going to be confused or bothered by where he stands on those things. I don't know if he's going to be pallatable enough but he's certainly a good candidate!

Well done Sir!


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Ahoy mate! Welcome aboard.

Set your bags on the deck. Allow me to introduces to around.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Your postcards go here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/MyComments/35018 - Your post cards

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Great references Mark!


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Hello, and welcome Boots.

I don't believe that being in other countries, at least with military bases is Constitutional, and it annoys the other countries. Do you not think that we would be annoyed and outraged if another country set up bases in our country and started telling us what to do?
Ron Paul did NOT say our military shouldn't have killed Bin Laden. He did say however, that they did it wrong. They should have first tried to enlist the help of Pakistan, rather than just barging into another sovereign country. Ron Paul feels that we should have caught Bin Ladin years ago, and put him on trial. That is the point, he wanted justice done!
Ron Paul never said to legalize heroin, that was just said by the idiot newscaster at the South Carolina debate. He has however said that he wants to decriminalize marijuana. People will use marijuana or heroin whether legal or illegal. The drug war has done nothing but cause huge bits of taxpayers money, and hasn't stopped drug use. Prohibition caused more alcohol abuse. Doesn't work.
So, what exactly did you like about Ron Paul?

Thanks for replying. While I

Thanks for replying. While I understand where he's coming from, I still don't know if I like the idea about his stance on illegal drugs. I do believe in State rights tho. I'm just afraid that if one State bans illegal drugs but another doesn't, we'll have people going from state to state high on drugs just to move where it is legal and not sure citizens would like that. I also agree we shouldn't go poking our noses in the business of other countries or tell them what to do for instance, Obama's recent demands placed on Israel. I found that utterly disgusting. And speaking of Israel, that's an ally we should be on board with. As for the national debt and not affording our military to be everywhere, I agree, there are probably some places we don't need to be but others where we should be, for all practicality (security for us and our allies). I think budget cuts need to be made but just pulling our military out of everywhere I don't think is a good idea. They need to cut out all the frivolous spending in Wash and all the entitlement programs and leave it up to each state to take care of their poor, etc...
Other than these issues, Ron Paul is very good. I'm a little undecided about him being president but I do think he'd make a great Secretary of Treasury, I do think the Fed needs to be audited. We'll see...I'm keeping tabs.

As for villains: investigate, determine suspects & charges.

Then follow the evidence with due process. Release innocents with no charge, no case, nor conviction. Convict & sentence the guilty. That work still lies ahead.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Important addition,Welcome Boots!

Ron wants to end the war on drugs at the federal level and return the options to the states as it should be.It is simply a states rights issue.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I like Allen West.

I really do. He is a good man and also quite learned on history. However, he naively attributes naivete to those, like Dr Paul, who fully understand that most of the negative reactions to the US from foreign lands are a direct result of our contradictory policy actions in those foreign lands in the first place.

I also spent 20 years in the US military. I've lived for 10 years overseas and have seen "ugly Americans" in action and have embarrassingly been one myself at times. It is of little more concern than a minor consequence of a clash of the cultural customs and courtesies, and we were all advised that we were like mini "ambassadors" of our country. That's a heavy load for young GIs, many of whom are away from home for the first time in their lives and are seeing things they've never seen before. But those indiscretions are minor in general, and failing that, I do believe most foreign citizens understand that most Americans have good intentions and their beef isn't with individual Americans and our ideas. The things that drive them to actions against us to the level of 9/11 is the partisanship of our foreign policies and the constant meddling in local affairs. Such policies are what caused the Philippines to ask us to leave our permanent bases there after the fall of Marcos because our country supported Marcos against the people and the people eventually gained control of the nation, wresting it from the dictator we supported for so long.

Now in Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban out of power and we killed bin Laden. Those were the goals of the effort set by George Bush when he made the ultimatim to the Taliban to turn over bin Laden to us or we were coming in to get him, and those goals were accomplished. That was the very same George Bush who campaigned in 2000 on a solid platform that included a non-interventionist and no nation building foreign policy. The goals for initiating the conflict were achieved, therefore, it's time to come home. If the Taliban regain control and reconstitute the terrorist network they supported before, there's nothing to prevent us from going in and retaliating again against any aggression they initiate against us.

Mr West needs to come to that realization that continued involvement beyond that will lead to nothing but increased animosity as it fuels perceptions that those original goals were nothing but a false pretense to permanent basing desires. The rhetoric is already heating up against Pakistan and the government there is being regularly attacked by Taliban/al Qaeda forces. Dr Paul is right to be concerned that may lead to a US invasion of Pakistan next. Allen West has good points from his personal experiences and I do admire him on his support for Israel, but he is just plain wrong on the overall issue. Those countries need to be left alone to their own self-determination and we need a strong defense to answer any attempts at aggression against us with a proportional response, not to initiate or perpetuate aggression indefinitely.

there is no misrepresentation

West scuttled his career and the man his men beat and threatened provided no substantive information. What West did was criminal and it ended his military career in dishonor and disgrace. The aclu reference is the actual CID report that they obtained via FOIA. West's penchant for threats is a matter of record.

Taking incidents out the context of how and why.

I am a 100% disabled veteran, who served our country honorably. Allen West has proven his love for our country countless times laying his life on the line during SIX tours of duty in the Middle-East.

The quote from West was intended to make "armchair quarterbacks" in Washington less out-of-touch than they are about the exigiencies of warfare.

And I see rick.fisk has a nasty unfair misleading habit of misportraying the facts, when it suits his agenda. Such as mis-labbelling a HEROIC deed by Allen West as "ugly past."

The fact was that, at the time, engaged in war, Col. West was confronted with the task of extracting information from a suspected terrorist working for Iraqi police, in time to save the lives of his men and others.

West put PC military protocol aside by firing one live round next to the suspected terrorist's head, scaring him sh*tless, so that he "gave up the tapes," so to speak. And West used the info he obtained in that manner to save lives.

You have to put the statement made by West also in the context of his purpose for trying to wake up bureaucrats about what goes on in war, and also because West is very much opposed to the "politically-correct" sickness that has infected military operations regarding "rules of engagement," which "idiot-illogically" required our troops to unnecessarily put themselves in harms way by waiting till the enemy had made the first move.

Don't get it confused. West has NOTHING to be ashamed about. So raise his past all you want. Patriotic Americans are proud of the Colonel.

Even *if* this were so, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY HIS

MOST RECENT ACTIONS! To boast on your site that you offended the 'Tea Party' (with no mention of concern for the issues raised by them, especially concerning the Fourth Amendment) and would do it again: "Because the security of this nation nation is 'top priority'", shows you are recklessly driving in reverse without even a glance in your rear view mirror!

*( I have a valid reason for caps for this phrase, but if Michael or a moderator calls me on it, I will follow their decision)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


"West put PC military protocol aside by firing one live round next to the suspected terrorist's head, scaring him sh*tless, so that he "gave up the tapes," so to speak. And West used the info he obtained in that manner to save lives."

This never happened. It is the story put out by WND and NRO but in fact the man interrogated said he just blubbered nonsense because he was scared and in fact he hadn't heard or known about any such plot to assassinate West. If there was such a ploy (doubtful) West wasn't saving anyone but himself.

Nothing to be ashamed of?

I'm sure that you meant besides: participating in the aggressive invation of another country that possessed NO threat to us based on lies, which has resulted in the killing over 100K innocent civilians (documented), and turning the lives of millions more into a living hell where they wake up in fear to the reality that they are living in a war zone with little security, little liberty, and little hope.

Yeah, I'd say he has nothing to be ashamed of... except that whole bloodthirsty warlord thing he has going on.

You have been a member here

You have been a member here for almost 2 years and never made a single comment or post but yet you decide to come out and defend West for your very first comment EVER??

You are suspicious in my eyes.



Columbus, Ohio

West tried to cover this up!

From the Army's official investigation (PEF):


Q: After the incident, did LTC (West) tell you not to tell anyone about the incident?

A: Yes, after he was finished talking to Col. (West) we headed back to our living quarters. He then told us to keep this incident to ourselves and to people we trust. (CID Report: Page 22).

LT. COL. (West) said that this night stays with 2-20 and 2-20 only. We all gave a Hooah and continued to walk to our rooms. (CID report: Page 48 - See 4 of 11).


The fact that you cite the leftwing commie group of despicable lawyers who badger Boy Scouts of America and others, the ACLU, as your reference for assessing the truth, says it all when it comes to exposing your agenda.

You said that as to say what?

You said that as to say what? You innuendo that the honorable man Allen West did something sneaky and shameful is disgraceful on YOUR Part.

Bottomline: West was hampered by "politically-correct" military protocol handed down by bureaucrats in Washington. So he bent the rules, knowing ahead of time what he would face if it got back to headquarters the method he used to achieve the honorable goal of saving lives.

So you're implying that West should have not kept it from those who should have formulated other rules?

If Washington, Patton, or MacArthur had reviewed West's action, they'd probably have given West a medal.

West is a mental case,

and he never "protected" anybody.
All he ever did was kill and torture people in a foreign land where he had no business even being.

It's merely politically correct not to threaten people?

I'm sorry but you're way off base. The only reason that West wasn't subject to a court-martial was that he agreed to resign. Conveniently his plea-bargain resulted in the retention of his pension. He lied to his superiors and tried to keep the incident secret. It is not a matter of political correctness, it was against the law for interrogators to threaten prisoners and this is not a new law. He compounded this by letting his men beat the prisoner and instructed them specifically to do so in a way that left no marks. Then he instructed them to keep the incident to themselves.

World Net Daily and National Review spent an inordinate amount of article space misleading the public about the incident and spinning it in his favor. This is in itself very interesting since it was some years prior to his Congressional run. Turning him into some sort of folk-hero was a bit odd.

Furthermore, the NRO looked to be deliberately obfuscating the fact that this assassination plot was actually alleged to be against West himself. To portray his actions as purely unselfish is beyond disingenuous. West was not seeking information to "save his men". He was seeking to punish and intimidate somebody he erroneously believed was out to get him. Turned out that the plot was nonsense and all he did was turn the man who had previously cooperated fully with the military into somebody who distrusted them and never cooperated with them again.