Peter Schiff, economic advisor to Ron Paul's presidential campaign and son of Irwin Schiff, appeared on the Alex Jones show Monday July 12th to discuss his campaign for the U.S. Senate in the Connecticut Republican primary. At minute 39 in the third hour of the program , Jones asked Schiff about some comments he had made late last year regarding Iran's possible developlent of nuclear weapons. Explaining that he does not want to invade and occupy Iran, Schiff nevertheless stated once again that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, the U.S. should use its' military might to bomb the facility and "blow the place up'".
In December 2009 Infowars featured an article entitled Peter Schiff Advocates Neocon Foreign Policy which stated in part, "Schiff is advocating the same foreign policy as the Bush administration neocons. If he sincerely believes in neocon gunboat diplomacy, the people should not allow him to enter government".
Schiff expanded on his comments in response to Jones contention that Schiff would have gotten a lot more enthusiastic support if he would have taken a more libertarian position. In defense of his comments, Schiff absurdly implied that rescinding his remarks about bombing Iran would be akin to not wanting any national defense:
"I've got to win a Republican primary, I can't appear as if I don't want any national defense. I don't think a nuclear Iran is something we should allow. The terrorists are not rational. They're willing to die for a cause. If we know for sure, for sure, if theyre developing a nuclear weapon..."
Jones tried to pointed out that the U.S. government has repeatedly lied about other countries having weapons of mass destruction and that information involving Iran would likely be unreliable propaganda at best, a point that seemed to be lost on Schiff.
"I understand your view i dont agree with it", Jones said, adding that he agrees with Ron Paul's position, and that "if we try to be friends with Iran that this wouldnt be an issue..."
Schiff seemed to become extremely agitated with the ongoing line of questioning and spoke in a rapid and annoyed manner, claiming that the charges levied against him by critics were 'crazy'.
"If I was going to take a position that a nuclear Iran was okay with me, I couldn't get elected.
"...I'm going to Washington to start a war? That's crazy."
".. we want to wait until Iran actually drops a nuclear weapon , smuggles it into a major american city , murders millions of people, and then we'll respond. That is not the credible policy for a senate candidate, I don't think."
The entire exchange can be heard here, with the line of questioning starting after minute 39.
Ron Paul supporters at the DailyPaul.com and Ron Paul forums were largely critical of Schiff's remarks at the time he made them.
On the issues page of his campaign website, Schiff writes "We should make national defense the federal government's top priority by ending its involvement in other areas not authorized by the Constitution. Let's truly have a policy of national defense, not national offense".
See also: Peter Schiff shows true colors, endorses zealous Israeli-firster for Congress
Newt Gingrich claims he is not a member of bohemian grove, a freemason, or for world government
Palin and Beck 2012? A match straight out of hades
Comments
Where do I send my contribution! Peter Schiff is the rarest thing in American culture, a man able and willing to see long-range. Employing the double-speak typical of the left, libertarians are-as their position on national defense proves-the enemies of liberty. The last quote in this story, far from damming, states a principle of moral government. Government's only moral function is the defense of its citizens and their private property. Martin Hill is so wrong, he's right.
Jones is absolutely insane. Did he really make that statement "we need to be friends with Iran." After those bastards murdered Neda and thousands of Pro-Freedom demonstrators in the Streets of Tehran.
Jones is going to live to regrat that remark. He just lost enormous credibility.
And I say this as a Linda McMahon suppoter not Peter Schiff.
Defend America, those guys who are Anti-Defense are PRETEND LIBERTARIANS. They do not in any way represent our libertarian movement. We REAL LIBERTARIANS are Goldwater/Reagan Pro-Defense. I wasn't supporting Schiff. I was backing McMahon. I may now switch.
Martin, this has been a sticking point for me too. In his defense, it's not a hawkish neocon stance that he's advocating. He is saying "If we know for sure... they're developing a nuclear weapon." That's not ideal, but it's a heck of a lot better than the other liberal and RINO candidates in the race. If there's a fiscal conservative, antiwar candidate in the general election, maybe they will deserve my vote. Unfortunately, all of them can be classified as "neocons."
Where does he stand on Afghanistan?
How would we like it if China or the UN were to say to America that we were not allowed to create any more nuclear weapons because we have shown we are not trust worthy to have them?
The Iranians have not attacked anyone for how long now? Who is the ONLY country ever to have wielded nukes against another nation (mostly civilians in the targest zone as well)? We can achieve so much more through peace than we can through war. You want to see $8+ per gallon of gas? Bomb Iran. You want to see a nuclear holocaust? Bomb Iran. You want to see the end of America as we know it? Bomb Iran. Are you people out of your f**king minds?!
I agree with Peter Schiff's statement that "you will never find a candidate you will agree with 100%". I'm a big supporter of Schiff. I think he caveated his position quite clearly, and there is room to accept his view.
Schiff is more of a non-interventionist than all his opponents and all Senators in Washington. I don't believe he would support a preemptive strike without doing the research himself to ensure the intel is accurate.
Schiff did well. Alex Jones can go over the deep end once in a while. Hopefully Jones is smart enough to realize supporting Schiff is a big step towards a non-interventionist foreign policy.
In the United States, nobody beats the wardrum louder for Iran than AIPAC. Their website has been a hate festival there for the past several years. Their intent is plain.
Now, who is behind AIPAC? You might say Israel, but that would be the wrong answer. It is the zionists. Israel is just an outpost of sorts. Real zionism was born in Europe. The head of this slithering New World Order rests in Europe.
Iran is a prize. Once lost, but now they can almost taste control there again. I'm sure somewhere there's a SHAH 2.0 waiting to be unveiled.
I don't think anybody wants a nuclear strike. Because once you let that cat out of the bag, everybody around the world with a score to settle just might take that as a cue.
Just one bomb could contaminate the entire Middle East, including Israel.
But some people are just plain crazy. And they already have the bomb.
x
ERIC!!!! LOL!!! I could NOT believe Jones said that, either. "Make Friends with Iran." LOL!!!
Yeah, lets take Muheenashad(sp?who really cares how his name is spelled)
to a baseball game and buy him some peanuts and cracker jack, or out for a Cheeseburger, and he'll be our Friend.
I lost respect for Alex Jones a long time ago when I saw him on youtube sticking his gut into Michelle Malkin's face, spraying his spit all over her, and trying to intimidate her.
Yeah, pick on a 5' tall Asian. Michelle talked circles around him and made Jones look like the self serving, crazy, Blow hard he is.
There is only one ron paul. if you have to sell out to get elected, they are one of them.
To Tonylvnv: You need to educate yourself on the history of Iran and its political structure. Prior to Ahmadinijad, Iran had a president that was trying to appease the west. He was part of the U.S. led coalition that drove the Taliban from power and he offered a "grand bargain" to Bush to end his peaceful nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for security guarantees. It was after these gestures were ignored and rebuffed that Khatami was replaced with Ahmadinijad. Iran is trying a strategy now of "peace through strength" since we seem intent on "regime change" no matter what they do.
Google: "Frontline Showdown with Iran Grand Bargain" and "Frontline Showdown with Iran Taliban" for more info.
As for the Schiff interview itself, I think it went well. The author of this article ignored where Schiff said he was against the Iraq war from the beginning
OK, if Eric Dondero is in...then it must be time to head for the exit.
Can't we just get one Senate candidate who is for liberty and against empire??
Attacking people where they live is not "defense"; it is "offense". Supporting offensive actions is not libertarian, but authoritarian (and often, specifically "conservative").
I think that DefendAmerica's comment brilliantly sums up Peter's position on national defense. Indeed, Peter is NOT a "libertarian" in the Ron Paul sense, nor "Libertarian" in the third-party sense. He is a CAPITALIST, who supports a moral government of the protection of individual rights - and that's it. No libertarian supports that as the concept is defined in most political spheres, yet Peter Schiff has, and always will, support MORAL GOVERNMENT. He is above nonsense like "constitutionalism," "libertarianism," and other arbitrary freedom middle-man positions. He is a capitalist - it's that simple.
I must reiterate: Peter Schiff is NOT equivalent to Ron Paul. The only views they agree upon are issues pertaining to the economy. When it comes to national defense, moral values, and the proper role of government, Peter Schiff holds the rational position, which advocates and endorses the lives of all rationally self-interested individuals.
VOTE SCHIFF AUGUST 10th! SchiffForSenate.co
The Examiner used to be a good read. Now the editors like to use extreme headlines that twist words. Where did Peter Schiff say in the interview of pre-emptive strikes? Stop lying to the public and shaping peoples views about candidates the Examiner does not like!
Perhaps Jones meant friends-like-with-China. And if we're going to be honest then isn't it worth discussing our performance in Iraq? How many civilians have died as a direct result of our actions? I submit to you that America may talk a good game but we allow our government to do absolutely abhorrent things in our name. Does that makes us better or worse than Iran?
@DefendAmerica-
Libertarians are the enemy of liberty? Apparently its opposite day here at the Examiner.
@ Andrew: You're claiming Peter Schiff is above "nonsense" like "constitutionalism"? You're kidding right? If Peter Schiff is "above constitutionalism" then he's not fit to hold the office of dogcatcher. Thankfully I know that you do not speak for Peter Schiff. And attacking Iran based on WMD intel may sound rational but it's not. That's what got us into the Iraq quagmire. (Yes I read between the lines where Schiff said he was against the Iraq war, apparently meaning he would need better intel than that). The fact is that Iran is seeking self preservation. That country is no more suicidal than the Soviets were. But if we push them, they could shut down oil going through the Persian Gulf and there's not a thing we could do to stop them.
@sonofliberty: I don't intend to state that Schiff is against the rule of law. I was speaking with regard to the Constitutionalism movement, which declares the Constitution is an axiomatic truth, whose preservation is the top priority. Liberty should be the top priority, and of course, the Constitution is filled with problems that need serious repair - it is not even close to a perfect document. It works in some respects in restraining government, but it's not perfect, and following the Constitution as written, as these people want, is not going to allow us to attain the protection of individual rights, nor a full capitalist society.
As for the Iran issue, there are plenty of ways we can stop the Iranians from blocking the Persian Gulf. We have military bases in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Of course attacking based on WMD intel is rational - you're engaging in clear package-dealing. Iraq was a lie. A nuclear Iran is truly a threat we can't allow. Pete's reasons were quite rational.
Listen to you people. Peter Schiff does not want to occupy Afghanistan. He does not want to occupy Iraq. He wants to end those occupations! He does not want occupy Iran.
Comparison between Ron Paul and Schiff on foreign policy:
Leave Afghanistan: Both
Leave Iraq: Both
Not occupy Iran: Both
Pulling out troops in 100s of nations Worldwide: Both
Attack Nuke in Iran if we absolutely knew it was there: Just Schiff
That's it! That's the only difference. A neo-con would want to occupy Iraq, would want to occupy Afghanistan, occupy Iran and keep our troops all acros the globe. Schiff doesn't want ANY of those things.
Ron Paul=100% libertarian foreign policy
Schiff= 98% libertarian foreign policy, 2% neo-conservative
Get a grip on yourself. Other than Ron Paul, Schiff is the farthest thing away from a neo-conservative on foreign policy!!!!
The author of this "article" is a biased douche with an agenda
You're absolutely right, Stuart.
Note that even the Demorat in this race beats the wardrum for Bush/Obama's War on Afghanistan.
I also doubt that President Ahmadinejad is "that crazy." Nor does he have that much power over his country to unilaterally decide to build a nuclear weapon, knowing full well that it will have severe repercussions.
Now Kim Jong Il on the other hand ... that man has a few screws loose and full control over his people; not that that justifies a pre-emptive offensive.
Schiff is an economic advisor and should never pretend to be anything more. His views on war are absolutely parallel to Bush. He even uses the same key words that lead to pillaging, raping and occupation of a Third World Country and its people like "terrorists" and "nuclear weapons."
I've filed him under W for Warmonger.
I was a big Schiff fan until I heard he was running as a Republican. I would have felt the same if he had have become a Democrat. It's disappointing that this person with such a knowledge of the economy is so incredibly stupid or easily corrupted when it comes to world affairs. I believed in America when they initially went into Iraq, now I can see that they are in fact the most dangerous nation when it comes to world peace.
If anyone shouldn't have nukes, it is the USA.
I am a big Ron Paul AND Peter Schiff supporter. While I prefer Ron Paul's foreign policy stance, I strongly believe that Peter Schiff represents the single best chance for turning this country around on economic issues. The man has passion, charisma and the perfect background (economist, stock broker, predicted financial crisis) to make a major impact on the overall debate. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc. seem to be too mild-mannered to resonate like Obama.
We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Google Path To Asia.
Stuart:
You forgot another BIG difference between Paul and Schiff. Schiff SUPPORTS Israel and our continued payouts to the tune of BILLIONS a year of our money, in economic aid, military aid, loans and more! Ron Paul supports no such thing! Israeli is as much a terrorist state as any in the middle east.
I still like Schiff some, but I'm losing interest. Why does he laugh in the face of the governments own economic statistics every time they come out, yet would put faith in government "evidence" when it comes to "proof" that Iran had nuclear weapons or the means to produce such weapons when as Jones (who I can't stand) pointed out that they lied about WMD's in Iraq? Which by the way, Peter "conveniently" seemed to not acknowledge. It makes no sense that he scoffs at the government on one hand concerning the economy and their numbers and on the other hand would take them at face value when it comes to Iran and "evidence" of nuclear capabilities. The REAL reason why? He's Jewish!
you're fricken moronic if you don't like schiff because he's not ron paul's ass licking puppet.
rhys:
Why not take your 12 year old mentality to a different discussion, while the rest of us debate, express our views and interact with a level of maturity you obviously don't possess.
I listened to this interview and the author of this article is taking Peter's words out of context. Iran has stated that it did want to erradicate Israel off the map with nukes. Any country that makes that kind of statement warrants a preumptive strike to destroy any attempts to build nuclear weapons. Statements that we can never believe anything the government tells us is riduculous. We might as well quit being the USA right now. Peter has hope that one day we as citizens will elect smart and honest people to our government and that we as a country won't think our own nations leaders are out to lie and deceive us. All of our problems are due to our own empathy. We will get what we deserve.
I disagree somewhat with Schiff on this issue, but I am much more concerned about our loss of freedoms domestically than with a bit of international saber rattling.
Please tell us which one of Schiff's opponents in the Senate race is taking an anti-war stand. He is not perfect, but on this issue and every other, the odds are that Peter Schiff's stands are the closest to those of my hero, Dr. Ron Paul.
Can you elaborate on this?
"Jones tried to pointed out that the U.S. government has repeatedly lied about other countries having weapons of mass destruction and that information involving Iran would likely be unreliable propaganda at best, a point that seemed to be lost on Schiff."
Can you elaborate on this?
"Jones tried to pointed out that the U.S. government has repeatedly lied about other countries having weapons of mass destruction and that information involving Iran would likely be unreliable propaganda at best, a point that seemed to be lost on Schiff."
Does Linda McMahon have better foreign policies than Schiff? What about her views on the economy? I have lost all respect for Alex Jones for attack Peter Schiff on this issue. The entire discussion was a theoretical scenario. I'd like to see all Senate candidates answer the same question. How do we react to an Iran armed with nukes threatening other countries? Diplomacy? It would take a massive shift in US foreign policy and years of mending to fix our tattered relations. At this point we have driven many nations to hate our policies it's unlikely we could open a dialog if a true crisis was iminent. Look at North Korea do you think they would negotiate?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!