Pages

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Ron Paul: ‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust


TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2011

DALED AMOS

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro writes that in 2009, in answer to a question, Ron Paul responded that he would not have sent troops in to prevent the murder of 6 million Jews in the Nazi Holocuast:
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”


Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.

When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.

I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.

When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.

“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned."

I suppose that kind of isolationism is consistent with how Ron Paul views Israel, as described by former assistant Eric Dondero:
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Similarly, in the same context of describing Ron Paul's isolationaism, Shapiro notes a 2007 interview on Meet the Press where Paul said that Lincoln should never have gone to war to free the slaves:


Whatever else you may think of Ron Paul's argument about the ease with which the government could have bought all of the slaves and freed them, it is disconcerting to hear Ron Paul say there is no longer any slavery today.

According to E. Benjamin Skinner, writing last year in Time Magazine about South Africa's New Slave Trade and the Campaign to Stop It:
Despite more than a dozen international conventions banning slavery in the past 150 years, there are more slaves today than at any point in human history.
Someone should tell Ron Paul that ideology does not trump the facts.