Sunday, November 13, 2011

Glenn Greenwald on Ron Paul's Concern about the Killing of Awlaki's Son

Greenwald tweets:
Still can't believe that Crazy/Insane Ron Paul complained about the killing of Awlaki's 16-year-old American son - someone medicate him.
Before you send Greenwald a bunch of flame emails, I believe Greenwald is being facetious. Having followed Greenwald for some time, my guess is that Greenwald is in complete agreement with Ron Paul, that the killing of Awlaki's 16-year-old American son is horrific and unconstitutional.

Greenwald's real point is that Ron Paul was the only person on stage in the debate yesterday, who hasn't lost his marbles and the only one that understands that it is an outrage to be killing by drone in the first place, and further to be killing innocents like Awlaki's son.



  2. It's amazing how many morons failed to see the irony.

  3. GG was absolutely facetious. Those familiar with his Twitter habits are accustomed to his razor sharp wit.

    Additionally, GG blogged an excellent article today on the bipartisan foreign policy, Ron Paul insanity, and related items:

  4. The mentally deranged/public schooled/TV-watching Democracy Parasites have turned Amerika into just another violent terror state...What did you expect from a Dumocrazy?


  5. Ron Paul may be concerned about the US sponsoring torture and the use of predator drones in acts of military engagement, and rightfully so, but he has no problems with killing American citizens with his elimination of food stamps, medicare/medicaide and doing away with other elements of the social safety net.

  6. Hopefully by "believe", you mean "know".

    Anyway, here is Greenwald's full piece which was on the ICYMI RSS Feed with a headline of "GOP, Think Progress and Obama vs. Crazy Ron Paul".

  7. Quite right, Greenwald is very sound on foreign policy.

  8. @Glassgavin...

    If you're not purposely lying then I suggest you find some new sources of information since the sources you currently rely on are apparently misleading you.

    In fact, Ron Paul is the only candidate that is willing to cut enough military spending, corporate welfare and welfare to foreign governments so that the people that have been forced to rely on these programs don't get screwed.

    Your criticism would be accurate if directed at Obama and the rest of the GOP candidates -- although I'm not sure about Huntsman -- but it can only be dishonestly directed at Paul. On the historical left-right spectrum, Paul is the only candidate running that falls on the left.

  9. greenwald actually rarely namedrops the ronster, so its good to see him highlight ron here. id like to think that in the context of the whole piece its extremely obvious he agrees 100% with ron paul on foreign policy. i dont care much for his writing on other topics, nor for the rest of salon, but i keep up to date with greenwald as he is consistently one of the best journalists on foreign policy

  10. @Anon10;09

    Im with GlassGavin, I don't want to return to the 1930s when millions died for lack of food, Oh, that was the Ukraine then under a socialist government. Well what about China in the 1960s when millions more died under the noted free marketeer Mao?

    Seriously, what kind of person argues we will starve ` in a nation bedeviled by obesity?

  11. Food stamps or death? Do you really hold the lower class in such contempt, Glassgavin? You must think the poor dears belong in a petting zoo.

    It's also dishonest to accuse Ron Paul of threatening Medicare benefits for the elderly when he's among the only politicians to have never voted for bills which allocated Medicare funds for other purposes, say killing brown people. If you want a Dickensoniam villian to hiss, you might try President, who seems to love making life less affordable for the poor.