You know, rush limbaugh had a great piece a few years back talking about how wars only end when one side is defeated and yet it is apparent no ‘victor’ has been allowed for the past 50 years in the Arab Israeli conflict, generally due to outside meddling influences, mostly egotistical politicians wanting to be seen as peacemakers and Arab tyrants seeking to keep Israeli boogeyman in the forefront rather than their own socialist dictatorships. Paul said the same recently in an interview with haartz or some such Israeli newspaper. I will try to find these links.
We could ask ourselves the reasons he is considered by some to be ‘anti-israel’ and perhaps we would find the same reason that many black leaders continually advocate policies for their ‘people’ that keep a sizable portion of them subjugated, dependent and in intellectual, moral, and financial poverty 150 years after the end of slavery. Sometimes those seen as most ‘against’ are actually most ‘for’ and vice versa, yet in a electorate dominated by political emotions and insecurities it takes history to prove who is right in the long haul.
Ya you are right, ‘supporting’ Paul’s foreign policy is perhaps not the gist of that piece, but I like his slant and approach to some of Paul’s foreign policy positions, especially regarding the alternative/ current ‘conservative’ views.
I didn’t see all the debate, but Paul is not known, even amongst his (honest) supporters for being a great debater, which is sort of his appeal, no flash, all substance. :)