1 vote

October 18 Debate - The Obvious Iran Question - How Should Ron Paul Approach It?

Hillary Mann Leverett, a former official in the Bush administration says the supposed plot makes no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yJlvc...

Mann Leverett was Director for Iran, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council in the Bush administration, served as Middle East expert on the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff, and Political Advisor for Middle East, Central Asian and African issues at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

“Ms. Leverett has published extensively on Iran as well as on other Middle Eastern, Central and South Asian, and Russian issues. She has spoken about U.S.-Iranian relations at Harvard, MIT, the National Defense University, NYU, the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs, and major research centers in China,” her bio states.

http://www.raceforiran.com/authors/hillary-mann-leverett-bio...

From the video above, Ms. Leverett says the following...

"Have the information examined and critically important - CROSS examined, because we should not be going to war AGAIN on false pretenses."

In other words, proceed with a lot of caution and examine the evidence very closely.

No crime was ever committed. It was an, 'alleged plot.'

Allegations do not constitute a crime. Uncle Sam has to prove those allegations in a court of law, AND in the court of public opinion as well.

I do not think that it is right for the Obama administration to be imposing economic sanctions against Iran before any trial has even taken place.

We have to be a country that respects the rule of law, not the lawless....if not, America will become a dictatorship.

If we simply respect the rule of law, and conduct ourselves accordingly in government, this case should be a slam dunk.

But this case doesn't even hit the rim. It's an air ball.

It simply does not make any sense. Qui bono? NOT IRAN!

Who benefits by having some Mexican drug cartel whack a Saudi US Ambassador? Iran? In what way does that make any kind of logical sense?

It's like watching a bad movie over and over again.

Thanks for reading.

Comment viewing options

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

He can't just dismiss the allegations

This is too new.
Given some time, the truth will emerge.
coming out now and proclaiming everything a lie could be a problem later.

"Iran is full of scary terrorists. U-S-A, jobs, jobs, babies"

wait for applause to subside.
bow for the standing ovation.
"U-S-A, jobs, jobs, babies."

He should keep it simple,

He should keep it simple, Just state that he doesn't believe a thing that comes out of this administration anymore, focus on how convenient this is with holder in a sling.

That is a brilliant, simple

That is a brilliant, simple idea...

"I take everything that comes out of Obama's mouth with a giant rock of salt."

"Do I trust him? No. No I do not. Do you trust him?"

"I don't think you should either. The president does not have a very good track record when it comes to respecting the law or his campaign promises to end the war in Iraq."

"Why should America trust the president?"

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I hope the advisors sit him down for a long talk about this

prior to saying something on cnbc, fox or cnn. Ron has to tread very carefully on this as it is a ticking bomb.

Probably the safest answer would be "until all of the evidence in the indictment is made public it is hard to know just how serious a threat this was " and leave it there.

What Ron should decidedly *not* do is to say it is in response to stuxnet or other issues. We do not know that and it will most definitely not play well with the vast majority of the Republican primary voters.

Ron should also avoid being trapped into a war/no war type of response. There is a lot which can be done between nothing and dropping bombs. Ambiguity is the way here. Something like "A president can never say war is not an option but he can say it should never be the first option." That would torpedo neocon pacifist crapola.

What RP supporters need to remember is that there are certain issues which can sink a campaign instantly if the wrong thing is said. This is one of them. Do not ask RP to commit suicide in the name of purity.

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

Ron Paul & Current Iran Situation

I agree, Ron needs to be very prepared for this when it comes up directly to him in question form. I think your safest answer is the best way to go, esp. in the debate. It is too volatile at this stage of the game. Could even be deliberate bait for Ron!!

I agree, I think Ron has to

I agree, I think Ron has to tread very carefully in these neocon waters....

BUT, at the same time...Ron Paul has a chance to really distinguish himself here.

But even if Ron hit's another home run of an answer out of the park, you know the old media will not give him any credit.

So yes, I agree. It's a no win situation for Ron Paul. He should simply state that until he sees more evidence and more information in the form of some public trial, he cannot give an honest answer...

"Whatever we do, we should not jump to any immediate conclusions before the evidence has been presented."

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

On second thought, I think

On second thought, I think this sounds weak.

Seize the opportunity, Ron Paul...

Play it safe? Is that what the old media wants him to do?

The bases are loaded. Ron Paul is at bat. He's down by 4 runs and it's the bottom of the 8th inning.

Swing for the fences, or play it safe?

The choice is obvious.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.