Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WilliamIII; Plummz; ansel12; SunkenCiv
If the 4 of you would frame your dispute along foreign policy doctrine lines, it would be easier.

Rand Paul is running on a Realist foreign policy doctrine. This is difficult for him to do because everyone sees him as a isolationist.

Hillary is a Liberal Interventionist aka national security democrat aka leftwing hawk. And the most hawkish of the Liberal Interventionists such as Joe Lieberman were/are sometimes called leftwing neocons.

So when Rand Paul blames Hillary for Benghazi you have to look at it based on doctrines. Lets review that.

When events In Libya began to unfold in Libya in early 2011, the NeoCon republicans immediately began agitating for Obama to intervene. The Realists(republican and democrat) said no, the US should not intervene. They were led by Bob Gates who at the time was the top Realist working for Obama.

But it didn't take long for the Liberal Interventionists working for Obama(Hillary, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power) to establish a multilateral alliance involving the UN, NATO, and the Arab League to intervene in Libya. Based on that, Obama went in.

Of course the NeoCons praised Obama. Bill Kristol proclaimed Obama to be a "Born Again NeoCon". But the NeoCons also criticized Obama saying that he should have gone in immediately. They complained that he was "leading from behind" because he went in multilaterally. Some such as Bolton complained because Obama didn't put boots on the ground.

After decision was made, two very prominent Realists(Henry Kissinger and James Baker) warned that intervening in Libya was a mistake and it would likely blow up in our face. And it did.

So who do you blame? The GOP wants to point the Benghazi finger at Obama and Hillary but Rand Paul wants to point the finger at Liberal Interventionists(Hillary) and the NeoCons.

The war between Rand Paul and the NeoCons is ongoing and the NeoCons are threatening that if Paul gets the nomination, they will vote for Hillary.

Any and all foreign policy issues are best understood if they are framed along doctrine lines: Liberal Interventionists, NeoCons, and Realists.

The Realists are Machiavellian, they will make a deal with the devil. Gaddafi, Saddam, and Assad are evil but they had stable govts. If you remove them, that nation will destabilize and will take a long time for them to stabilize

The Idealists(Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons) prefer removing these evil men(regime change) and a policy of humanitarianism, nation building, and spreading democracy.

Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Assad are gone. It will be a while before these nations and the region stabilize. Bush's democratization of the Palestinians brought Hamas to power and made it worse.

Where is Allende when you need him?

43 posted on 08/29/2014 5:13:29 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Ben Ficklin

No, Rand Paul is simply displaying his usual shallowness, over and over he has done this.

Paul cult followers have always wanted to find the deeper meaning in their shallow utterings, it isn’t a game the rest of us have to play.

Just as on abortion, Reagan, gay marriage, etc, Rand is just being his usual goofy self and hoping his followers will find magic in it.


44 posted on 08/29/2014 7:26:42 AM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Ben Ficklin; ansel12; LSUfan

> If the 4 of you would frame your dispute along foreign policy doctrine lines, it would be easier.

If you weren’t just another Paultard, you wouldn’t post apologia for that demagogue and Democrat-in-all-but-name.

> Rand Paul is running on a Realist foreign policy doctrine. This is difficult for him to do because everyone sees him as a isolationist.

Rand Paul is not a realist, because he wouldn’t recognize reality if it introduced itself. Everyone doesn’t see him as an isolationist, so that’s just a straw man — he’s actually a surrender monkey, as are all his supporters.

> Hillary is a Liberal Interventionist aka national security democrat aka leftwing hawk. And the most hawkish of the Liberal Interventionists such as Joe Lieberman were/are sometimes called leftwing neocons. So when Rand Paul blames Hillary for Benghazi you have to look at it based on doctrines. Lets review that.

There’s no need to review another straw man — your screed is just the usual Paultard talking points and buzzwords.

> So who do you blame? The GOP wants to point the Benghazi finger at Obama and Hillary but Rand Paul wants to point the finger at Liberal Interventionists(Hillary) and the NeoCons.

No, Rand Paul is a Democrat, just as his old man is, sticking up for every foreign enemy of the US as well as the allies of those enemies, the Democratic Party. The fact that both of them self-describe as Republicans is no different than the tripe that child molesters are self-described heterosexuals.

> The war between Rand Paul and the NeoCons is ongoing and the NeoCons are threatening that if Paul gets the nomination, they will vote for Hillary.

No, that’s the Paultard game — ‘nominate anyone but Rand Paul/Ron Paul/imaginaryconservativecandidate and we will vote third party’.

> The Realists are Machiavellian, they will make a deal with the devil. Gaddafi, Saddam, and Assad are evil but they had stable govts. If you remove them, that nation will destabilize and will take a long time for them to stabilize.

IOW, surprise surprise, the Realists include Obama, Hillary, and John Kerry — they’ve done nothing but make deals with the devil.

Stability is and was, surprise surprise, the argument of A.N.S.W.E.R. and every other self-described lefty and progressive group and person against snuffing Saddam’s regime. That includes all the skinhead sites as well, which is not a coincidence. The Pauls get all their policy points from those very same sources, and that’s not a coincidence either.


49 posted on 08/30/2014 1:25:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson