Erik Paulsen and the MN GOP apparently share John McCain’s foreign policy prescription for Iran…
The MN GOP, acting as a shill for the Paulsen campaign, attacked Ashwin Madia today because he’s been endorsed by the Council for a Livable World. This attack comes just weeks after the MN GOP attacked Madia for saying this:
“On Iran I have been very concerned by some bellicose language that the administration is using and some democrats are using to describe Iran. I think that they are a concern but I think we can deal with them diplomatically. When I think we use their language it puts us on a foot that we don’t want to be on.”
Apparently, this is too much of a left-wing position for the MN GOP and Erik Paulsen. Nevermind that diplomatic approaches successfully convinced Libya and North Korea to abandon WMD programs. Nevermind the fact that the global community is virtually unanimous in its belief that diplomacy, tied to the threat of sanctions, is the best course for confronting Iran. Nevermind that the Bush Administration itself (hardly a bastion of liberalism) recently reversed its position on diplomacy with Iran and sent a top official to negotiate with the country. Nope, Madia is a liberal for wanting to use diplomacy when dealing with Iran.
In fact, this whole episode says a lot more about Erik Paulsen’s worldview than it does Ashwin Madia. Paulsen has been eager to hide his far-right extremist foreign policy views. Even today, less than 100 days before the election, a search of Paulsen’s website reveals no items containing the words “Iraq” or “Iran.” But judging from the Paulsen campaign’s fierce condemnation of Madia’s position on diplomacy, we can conclude that Erik Paulsen is in fact more conservative, more hawkish, and more insane than even the Bush Administration. And that’s saying something.
Loading ...
Noted, also, on Paulsen’s website is the absence of any mention of GOP. Paulsen is singularly exempt from any attack by anyone for receiving endorsements from anyone - he has none! There isn’t an endorsement listed on his website - from either the GOP nor any other group!
All you need to know about Paulsen is that he has no position, or if he does, he is not able to articulate it. In his interview on WCCO TV last week he gave three diferent approaches to dealing with Iraq. His campaign is also mailing out misinformation about Madia and his staff, although the only ones to read this dribble are folks he thinks are supporters.
You know what’s sad, it’s the fact that you’re calling Erik Paulsen’s views insane and say nothing about Iran’s views, which ARE insane. Here is a report from the AP dateline June 3, 2008:
On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his call for the destruction of Israel. He first made the comments in 2005, fueling international outrage. Taking aim once again at Israel and the United States — -Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated inflammatory comments that he’d made three years ago. Saying Israel would soon disappear. Ahmadinejad first made the remarks in 2005, fueling international outrage AND speculation that he was threatening the Jewish state with a nuclear weapon…But while speaking at a ceremony honoring the late founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic Monday — - Ahmadinejad told an audience that — - quote — - “this origin of corruption will soon be wiped off of the Earth’s face.” Ahmadinejad also called the U-S a satanic power… that with — God’s will — would be annihilated. Iran cut ties with Israel and the United States in 1979 after their revolution toppled the nation’s government. On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad arrived in Rome for a U-N summit designed to help combat skyrocketing food prices worldwide. His attendance at the meeting was denounced by both Jewish leaders and a host of political and activist groups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
So Zack, do you agree that Israel is an origin of corruption that will soon be wiped off the Earth’s face? Or do you just agree that the U.S. is a Satanic power that, with God’s will, will be annihilated? And you have the gall to say that Paulsen is insane???
Does Iran’s insanity excuse the insanity of Paulsen’s views?
Randy,
Are you actually equating Paulsen with Ahmadinejad?
Chris, I agree 100%,
Nobody has ever heard that Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel. This new information no moonbat has ever heard before should definitely help take these moonbats down, that’s for sure.
I enjoy you telling these moonbats what their opinion is, and spinning that to an absurd extreme. Telling these moonbats what they think about the issues is also an effective way of taking moonbats down. That technique also makes the moonbats feel stupid, in comparison to your massive intellect. I hope you keep doing that.
There might be some people here who are in disbelief that a grown adult could act the way that you do. Well they just don’t get the fact that if we Republicans do not continue to exagerrate all the issues to our favor we will lose elections. Winning election is, after all, the only thing that matters to the Minnesota Republican party. That excuses all the stunningly immature behavior we right wing bloggers who stalk liberal blogs display for everyone to judge.
Great Job Adult-Like Minnesota Republican Chris
Chris, the whole world is onto Iran’s case… with an understanding that we all need to deal with these people. And basically we need to keep as many of the hotheads out of this as we possibly can.
Trying to paint the Iranians as anti-Jewish state is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. So what check out what the Saudis say about Israel… same shit, different channel. Why is it always black or white with you people.
The issue is do you want to be represented by a provincial hothead like Paulson who can barely articulate position or a rational former soldier who has seen the issues up close and personal? You obviously want the small town politician with nary an international trip under his belt, while more rational people want an educated and proud American citizen who also understands that the world can not be an us versus them proposition. It is called real politicks and we can only hope that Ashwin Madia gets elected. Radical right-wing hotheads need not apply for representing the USA in world diplomacy. That is not going to get us ahead in the world nor keep Israel safe.
amuseinc,
I want a representative who isn’t going to let a bunch of crazies with an Armageddon complex acquire nuclear weapons. You ask why it’s black and white with “you people.” I’ll tell you why it’s black and white. It’s because we take these threats seriously and “you people” don’t take them seriously. You think you can negotiate and placate and be nice and they will reciprocate. That was the course Jimmy Carter followed and what did we get? We got the Islamic Revolution that got us in trouble in the first place and also got 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days. It’s the same naive foreign policy Obama wants to put America through.
The sad thing is that you think “radical right wing” Republicans are more dangerous than Islamic Armageddon types. By the way, you’re right that factions in Saudi Arabia don’t like Israel and teach really bad things about Jews. The difference is that Saudi Arabia isn’t trying to acquire a nuke and threatening to use it against the free world.
Chris, George Bush and his merry band of “crazies with an Armageddon complex” already have nuclear weapons.
And yes, I think they are more dangerous that the Islamist nutjobs of Iran. Same channel, different program. I voted for Jimmy Carter and lived through his administration… wasn’t bad at all for me. Even made more money than I have with the Bush recession.
You obviously know not one whit about your friends the Saudis is you think it is just factions. I suggest you get back to me when you have a true understand of Wahhabism, madrass/terror funding and the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers… might put a little perspective on your fears. Why? Because Bush’s best buddies in the whole wide world have done more to kill Americans and foment terror than the Iranians have done since BEFORE the Carter administration. Check out who Bush holds hands with before you go off on your fear rant.
“I want a representative who isn’t going to let a bunch of crazies with an Armageddon complex acquire nuclear weapons.”
Too (cheney)in’ late, Chris - Boy Blunder And The Plunderers already are in office.
Fortunately, January 20th, 2009 will be The End Of An Error.
But, back to Erik “The Hustler” Paulsen - doncha just love the way he took that dough from the Vegas Strip-Club Fundraiser?
That oughta go over real well with The Missouri Synod Crowd he hangs around, doncha think?
“So Zack, do you agree that Israel is an origin of corruption that will soon be wiped off the Earth’s face? Or do you just agree that the U.S. is a Satanic power that, with God’s will, will be annihilated? And you have the gall to say that Paulsen is insane???”
Chris -
What a stupid comment. This is a classic example of the “hey look over there” distraction tactic. I’m not going to fall for it. Paulsen’s foreign policy viewpoint is far outside of the mainstream. Its so far outside the mainstream, even Bush disagrees with him. Every one agrees that Iran is a major issue in the world today. But abandoning diplomacy for no particular reason (especially when we’ve had success dealing with similar regimes in Libya and North Korea) is just asinine.
“It’s because we take these threats seriously and “you people” don’t take them seriously. You think you can negotiate and placate and be nice and they will reciprocate. That was the course Jimmy Carter followed and what did we get? We got the Islamic Revolution that got us in trouble in the first place and also got 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days. “
Oh, and Chris? Thanks for proving, once again, that not only did you flunk World History, ya moron, but ya flunked MnPublius History, too - it’s been discussed here many times that the seeds of the Islamic Revolution were sown when the CIA led the coup to put the Shah back on The Peacock Throne.
But, I appreciate your proving, once again, that republiCons simply cannot be believed, about anything.
On the bright side? You’re the base, and the GOP is destined for Permanent Minority Status.
Zack,
We had success in Libya precisely because we showed force elsewhere in the world and Col. Qaddafi didn’t want to be next on the list. As for North Korea, we’ve had success because we’ve had other countries pressuring Kim Jong Il as opposed to when Madeline Albright went over for a champagne toast with the dictator. We hopefully will have progress with Iran but it’s not going to be by pleading with them ala Carter. What’s ridiculous is how you’re anxious to label Paulsen but you never say anything about how terrible it is for Iran to want to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews. Let alone comparing the U.S. to Satan.
Two Putz,
Nice diversion but Carter did nothing to prevent the Islamic Revolution from happening. He did just about the same to get our hostages back. What an embarassment and a dangerous situation that was left behind for us to deal with thirty years later. Of course Obama just said a few months ago that Iran wasn’t really that dangerous.
P.S. Two Putz,
I love how once again you’ve said that everything is the fault of the U.S. — whether it be the reasons al Qaeda attacked us, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, etc. I hope you’ll continue to blame your country for all the evils in the world. Of course, that’s exactly what Ahmadinejad says.
Chris, I agree 100%,
I think you should get more specific on how TwoPuttTommy broad brushes everything as the fault of the US.
Such absolute terms are a great way to take moonbats down. There is no doubt among the readers of MN Publius that the statement shows how stupid these moonbats are, and how highly intelligen you, Minnesota Republican Chris, are.
For some reason you really have the vapors today, and lordy lordy, is it wonderful.
Keep stalking the websites of people you disagree with. If you don’t keep taking down moonbats, then we Minnesota Republicans will lose our election.
Great Job Smartest Man In The Room Chris
How are we going to attack Iran? Nuclear weapons or ground forces?
Use of nuclear weapons would have devasting effects on the region; are we prepared for that?
Should we even consider use of nuclear weapons to end the threat of nuclear weapons?
If we use ground forces, who do we put in charge of leading them? The people who have been running the War in Iraq for the past 5 years? How are the next generation of Republicans going to run things differently when they think everthing is perfect now?
Going to war is a serious decision. Why should I trust any Republican to make a serious decision?
Swiftee, OOPS I mean Chris, OOPS I mean Michael, OOPS I meann, MO, I agree 100% with whatever you tell me to agree with.
Great job, followers, not leaders!!
Whenever I talk to anybody about politics and they question my critique of the average partisan I simply send them to MNPublius and MDE. Nothing is more convincing of the self induced delusions of those loyal to a political party then the idiotic back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans found on both sites.
In the end the only positive result provided to the public by partisan blogs is that it allows a larger cross section of people to view the nut-cases that strive to be in charge of the asylum.
I agree 100% Kerosene Hat,
Nobody sees your partisanship or bias.
You are a smart guy.
Great Job!!
“Nice diversion but Carter did nothing to prevent the Islamic Revolution from happening. He did just about the same to get our hostages back. “
Thanks for proving that in addition to your failures in World History and MnPublius History, you know nothing of the development of US Special Operations Forces, Chris - ya ChickenHawk bootlicker.
Two Putz,
Carter sent in six helicopters to rescue the hostages and the helicopters crashed & the mission failed. He didn’t try another rescue. Thanks for proving what an inept foreign policy you peace at any pricers have.
Bootlicker, do you know which President authorized the formation of the unit that attempted the mission?
Of course you don’t - ya (cheney)in’ bootlicker.
Two Putz,
Who authorized the formation of the unit which attempted the mission is irrelevant. The Shah fell and the hostages were taken under Carter’s watch. Carter ordered the mission. The mission failed and Carter gave up trying another mission to rescue the hostages. Not only are you a putz, but you’re pretty ignorant too.
Oh, and Chris? Thanks for proving, once again, that not only did you flunk World History, ya moron, but ya flunked MnPublius History, too - it’s been discussed here many times that the seeds of the Islamic Revolution were sown when the CIA led the coup to put the Shah back on The Peacock Throne.
You can not be more correct Two Put, if anyone doubts this a great read is “All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer. It was more of a British deal because Iran nationalized their oil after the Brits wouldn’t stop screwing them, but it was the CIA who lead the coup(with great urging by the Brits)
You Republicans keep on bringing up Israel, and Ahmahdinejad’s comments about Israel. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran, Israel would be bombarded by tons of ballistic missiles, which would make Hizbullah’s missile barrages during Lebanon 2 look like fire crackers. Israel is the country which is threatened, let Israel decide its own actions. Israel, and Israelis, are sick of the US hawks bringing Israel’s well being up as a pretext for war. Israel is one of our greatest allies, please consider Israel before advocating a war before EVERY attempt at a diplomatic resolution is exhausted.
I would like to know how we are supposed to attack Iran. Everybody focuses on “why” but I think “how” is more supportive as to “why not.”
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but Iran is a big country. It has nearly 70 million people and is larger than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. To attack Iran requires either use of nuclear missiles or an overwhelming armed force.
If we attack Iran with nuclear missiles, or the “Bomb Iran” option, the radioactive fallout would spread throughout the region, possibly hitting many nations including Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Israel. Oil prices would be worse. The death toll would be in the millions. Who is prepared for that on their conscience? The deaths of millions for what cause?
The other option would require a massive armed assault, which if was it available would be in use in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. So we would need a draft: should we draft illegal immigrants, prisoners, or regular folks who we need right now to grow our economy at home? Who would direct the mission of this new force: the same people who told us it would be easy to go into Iraq? Also, Iranian fighters would not give up easily because they would fight for their homeland, not for a dictator. Our casualty count would be enormous.
What has Erik Paulsen done in his career that would help him decide whether to support a nuclear attack or an armed invasion?
Republicans expect us to trust them after 5 years and spending billions of dollars in Iraq. Why should anyone trust them now?
“Who authorized the formation of the unit which attempted the mission is irrelevant. “
No, it’s not.
Well, let me correct that; to bootlickers like you, it is irrelevant. To thinking people, which by definition excludes republiCons like you, it’s not irrelevant, but to bootlickers like you, it is.
You claimed that Carter did “just about nothing” to get our hostages back; which demonstrates - once again - that you’re either a moron, or a liar. Of course, “both” is entirely possible, too.
Chris — I do not equate Paulsen with Ahmadinejad. I just don’t understand why the rampant insanity of one should excuse/divert our intention from the foolish policy of the other. The “what about the other guy” rhetoric is, at best, a distraction.
Two Putz,
If you were a thinking person, you would recognize that Jimmy Carter showed nothing but weakness to the Iranians and that weakness emboldened them to keep our hostages for 444 days. How embarassing for our country??? He sent one mission of six helicopters to rescue the hostages and the mission failed. He didn’t do anything after that to rescue them other than beg. If you support that kind of policy it shows what a feckless man you are for all of your big talk, name calling and bluster.
Randy,
I’m glad you don’t equate Paulsen with Ahmadinejad. I do have a question for you though. Since you admit that Ahmadinejad is insane, would you (and Ashwin Madia) support Israel taking military action against Iran’s nuclear programme?
Bootlicker, you have no idea what you are babling about.
Which, of course, explains why you are the epitome of the republiCon base, and why the GreedOverPrinciples party is destined for Permanent Minority Status.
Two Putz,
That’s the way to win an argument. Don’t respond with any facts and call people names. I’d reply in kind, but I don’t want to get this site taken down for obscenity.
Chris, I agree 100%,
There is nothing you have ever posted that is obsene. Everyone knows you have never called people on MN Publius names. It is common knowledge that your comments are always full of facts, not talking points.
Great Job Smartest Man In The Room CHris
Say, bootlicker? When you start posting facts, I’ll respond with facts.
But you ChickenHawk bootlickers wouldn’t know a fact even if El Druggo told you one.
For those who want some actual background on this whole situation, I’d recommend three books:
All the Shah’s Men, by Stephen Kinzler
The Persian Puzzle, by Kenneth Pollack
Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, by Barbara Slavin
The last one gives some fascinating insight in how Pres. Ahmadinejad is not universally liked in Iran. But every time the US rattles the sabres, even a little bit, Iranians rally to his side.
Two Putz,
You know when you have to call names it’s a sign you are losing the argument. Keep up the good work.
Two Putz,
You know when you have to call names it’s a sign you are losing the argument. Keep up the good work.
So you are losing the argument Chris.
Chris I agree 100%,
We Republicans are allowed to call people names because we are 100% correct on every issue, every time. It is how we Republicans roll.
Great Job Smartest Man In The Room Chris
The hostages weren’t released while Carter was in office because William Casey, at the behest of then candidate Ronald Reagan, arranged for a arms for hostage deal. The Iranians keep the hostages until the election is over then release them. For that, Stinger missles. This was of course very illegal and should’ve resulted in Ronald Reagan being handcuffed and thrown in jail but as it turned out, this was actually one of his lesser crimes.
Chris — I will not presume to speak for Mr. Madia. As for myself, is it inconceivable that military action against Iran’s nuclear program would be justified? I would so no, it is not inconceivable, but that is not the same as saying we should use machismo as a substitute for diplomacy.
BTW, do you remember when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors? Whoever was President of the US at the time (June 1981, as I recall) condemned the raid and delayed shipments of fighters to Israel in retaliation.
I think it’s time for a return to Macho Diplomacy.
cuz it’s worked so well for us in the last eight years?
Richard,
That’s not true that we traded arms to get the 52 hostages released. You’re referring to the so-called October surprise which was alleged by Democrats against the first President Bush but proven to be false. The arms that were traded for hostages were traded to an anti-Ayatollah group in Iran to get the group to release six hostages held by Hezbollah. If you think Reagan did business with the Ayatollah, you’re sorely mistaken.
Chris, I agree 100%,
Obviously, none of these moonbats will look that up on line and find out for themselves the truth about the Reagan Iran deal.
Great Job Smartest Man In The Room Chris
Richard, I wouldn’t term what we had over the past eight years as diplomacy - things like refusing to talk and saying people who disagreed with out policies were part of the “old Europe”, or “you’re either with us or against us”. Then again maybe macho isn’t the right term - we can talk from strength, not immediately mark negotiations that don’t yield results as a failure, hold firm in our position backed with factual actual facts, reason, and our moral positions, but talk. For some reason it’s been accepted by some that talking to a group we want to do something legitimizes what they do or that we have to gain concessions before speaking. Discussions help clarify our own positions and narrow down what our priorities are and give us an opportunity to say “this is what we cannot accept and these are the consequences”.