In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Sunday, October 2, 2022

Truth is a stranger to Ron Paul, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, Ron Paul: 'Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts'

Both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum took a vacation from the truth during news talk shows over the weekend heading into the Iowa caucuses.

FactCheck.Org, which looks at statements by political candidates and materials published on web sites, says both candidates strayed from the truth when talking about Iran.

Said FactCheck:


On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Ron Paul falsely claimed the International Atomic Energy Agency “did not find any evidence” that Iran is “on the verge of a [nuclear] weapon.” However, the IAEA reported on Nov. 8 that Iran has carried out activities “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

On “Meet the Press,” Rick Santorum went too far in claiming Obama “basically” said the 2009 reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “a legitimate one.” Actually, Obama said he could not “state definitively one way or another” whether the election was legitimate, because the U.S. did not have election monitors in Iran.

Paul screwed up his facts on CNN’s “State of the Union” when he said:

At least Iran is in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that’s a step and they do have inspections. The AEIE did not find any evidence that they are on the verge of a weapon.

A database search by Capitol Hill Blue shows there is no “AEIE” involved in nuclear or international issues.  In fact, no such organization exists.

Says FactCheck:

We assume Paul meant to refer to the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA. We could find no listing of any organization under the acronym “AEIE” dealing with nuclear issues.

And the fact is, the IAEA found as recently as Nov. 8 that Iran has carried out activities “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.” That led the BBC to report: “Correspondents say this is the International Atomic Energy Agency’s toughest report on Iran to date.”

In the Nov. 8 report, IAEA said:

Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.

Paul has claimed in the past that Iran “poses no threat” to the United States or the region and also said he feels the country should have nuclear weapons.

This position runs counter to other Republican candidates, including Santorum, who claims Obama is weak on Iran.

Said Santorum on “Meet the Press:”

Number one, he didn’t support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election, I mean, excuse me, like with hours after the, the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that was — election was a legitimate one.

Not true, says FactCheck:

Iran’s presidential election was June 12, 2009, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory — triggering protests in Tehran. On June 15, Obama said at a press conference: “We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.”

Obama issued a statement five days later again condemning Iran’s post-election “violent and unjust actions against its own people” and asserting that the U.S. “stands with all who … exercise” the “universal rights to assembly and free speech.” It was one of many such statements.


Enhanced by Zemanta

10 thoughts on “Truth is a stranger to Ron Paul, Rick Santorum”

  1. I would like a president who engages in dialogue FIRST before he moves to drop bombs and send in US men and women to be maimed and die.

    I would also like a president who requires the Constitutional approach of requiring congress to “officially” declare war.

    I would like a president who puts the US first (before Israel’s security) and does not consider Israel to be a factor in sending US men and women to be maimed and killed in foreign lands.

    As stated here, some countries HAVE signed the NNPT and some have not. That about says it all.

    Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who isn’t quick to put his finger on the red “war” button.

    When did peace become a bad thing?

  2. Fear! Fear! Fear!

    Diplomacy? Ha. Not our bag of tea any more. We are too damned good for that. Succumb to the will of the bankster/big oil/government triumvirate of death or be bombed into oblivion.

    See: Libya

    Also see: Iraq

    Yep, we’re working to make the world safe for “Democracy.” So long as you do exactly as we want and allow our corporate sponsors to plunder your resources.

    We will lie, cheat, usurp and undermine; instigate, sanction, blockade and bomb…

    It’s our divine right as honest, wholesome, freedom – cherishin’, mom and apple pie – lovin’ Americans.

    We want it all! Your oil, your gold, your water, your blood! It’s ours damnit! It’s ouuuurrrrssssssss!!!!

  3. should probably look up words like “verge” when they don’t know what they mean.

    That would go far in clearing up their erroneous conclusion that Ron Paul said anything remotely misleading.

  4. Nice try, but Ron Paul was right. As he usually is. And nobody in their right mind cares what the warmongering Santorum says. Ron Paul 2012.

  5. Exactly who are the people behind this “” web site and what right due these mysterious characters or character have to sit here act like some arbiter of truth? The big corporate media try to play this game all time and it is pretty dishonest, but this is worse. Who cares about some unknown web site on a matter like this? What are their biases? Why take their word versus the wide range of expert opinion that already exists and (where you at least have a face and background of expertise)?

    And as for the so-called factual assessment of Paul and Santorum, they aren’t of equivalent significance and relevance, and I suspect they were supposed in this fashion to give the false appearance of even-handedness when this isn’t really the case. Obviously, Paul’s viewpoint is more significant and relevant to the current debate going on regarding Iran policy, vs Santorum’s statement which is just an attempt to score a political point on Obama.

    Regarding Paul viewpoint, there is a wide range of opinion by independent experts on the IAEA report which is first of all not acknowledged here and this is very dishonest. Second, whether there is anything really new in the IAEA report or not, it is considerable significance that the consensus US intelligence estimate that Iranian nuclear weapons program stopped in 2003 remains unchanged is very significant and should have been mentioned here. Third, being on the verge of developing an actual nuclear weapon–especially in the context of being the only signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty in the Middle East–is very different having some theoretical capability to do is the intellectual leap many have been making with the IAEA report.

    • George, I suspect that your questions about the validity of can be satisfied by a minimal amount of research.

      We have a political system that is self-will-run-riot. Politicians believe that they are somehow entitled to say anything that they wish without accountability.

      There is a “truth” regarding most issues that politicians consistently twist, distort, and rewrite the facts about. Those truths need to be available to the public somewhere. Why not an organization like FactCheck? I haven’t found them to be biased with regard to members of a political party/affiliation. Have you?

      Now I do know that Doug Thompson and FactCheck have had a different of opinion about a specific incident, but that wasn’t regarding a any facts related to a politician’s comments.

  6. I would really like to see ALL publicly televised or radio political debates be conducted by FactCheck.Org…and especially presidential debates.

    All debates would be held in two separate sessions.

    The first session would be asking questions. The second session would be to compare answers to all available, verifiable facts respective to questions asked in first session.

  7. Incidentally, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as has the USA. Israel, India, and Pakistan have not.

    And I quote, “The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised “in conformity with Articles I and II” (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the “first pillar” of the Treaty).”


  8. Actually the report gave only information which could be interpreted either way depending on ones predisposition. I think Mr. Santorum is on a permanent vacation from the truth as is the rest of the crew on the hill. They only see what suits them of course.

    RON PAUL 2012

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: