Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan
There is much to commend, and there are some things to question, about Rand Paul’s big foreign policy speech yesterday at Heritage Foundation.
The overall idea of using George Kennan-like “containment” for Iran or for jihadist Islam in general is, well, problematic , although there are plenty of elements of his speech that are at least somewhat sensible. It is a good thing to have discussion of such issues, and there is much value in having people make a thoughtful case against over-eagerness for military intervention. Those of us who tend a little more towards interventionism (”tend” being the key word, rather than “strongly favor”) do need to be challenged about the dangers of using military force.
Nonetheless, a fuller discussion of Paul’s speech would require more space and time than is available for me this morning. One paragraph, however, was so tendentious, so … well, civility requires that I withhold the most accurate words… anyway, so wrong as to demand response.
Here’s the passage at issue:
In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.
Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let’s just look at a little history here — because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cfif.org ...
bflr
There are times when Rand looks and sounds like his father, and times when he sounds more normal. I remember when the liberals in the democrat party sounded a lot like the libertarians today. We see what happened with that. The democrat party has made the CPUSA almost redundant. There are many things about the libertarians that I came to distrust with them over the 3 tears I thought I wanted to be one of them, supported many of them, and read them almost exclusively. I feel that my eyes were opened to how they treated abortion and family values and I felt that I could not face God in good conscience knowing that libertarians were voting against pro-life and pro-family laws...in their words to be neutral on the issue. We cannot afford to be neutral on those issues.
If the Republican Party had wanted to - abortion would be illegal. I think they would rather have it as a wedge issue than to actually do something about it. As long as you have people who vote for us (Republican) solely for the reason that we are Pro-Life, they will never have an incentive to act.
Rand Paul is a REPUBLICAN. Rand Paul is NOT his father.
Rand Paul on abortion:
Sanctity of Life
“I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.”
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues
Yes we do, the Soviet Empire fell. BTW how many nuclear tips ICBMs did the Soviets have aimed at the USA? How many do the jihadists have aimed at the USA? Case closed.
It’s not ignorance it’s a difference of opinion. It is impossible to discuss ANYTHING without someone breaking out the insults after about 2 minutes.
Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House won't get you a bill that will criminalize abortion.
There are only two means to achieve your end:
1. Constitutional amendment -- requiring a 2/3 maority in Congress plus the assent of 38 state legislatures.
2. A clear pro-life majority on the Supreme Court.
As it was, every pro-life vacancy on the Court was replaced with a pro-life justice. But there were no pro-abortion vacancies.
You mean like Rand Paul referring to those who supported combatting the Soviets in Afghanistan as the “war caucus?”
Actually, I think they were supporting an anti-Communist, anti-Soviet, guerilla war within Afgahnistan to oppose the Soviet occupation. I don't think anyone in the State Department or elsewhere talked of "radical jihad" during the 1980s.
The US allied with and/or supported a number of less than pristine groups during the Cold War simply to aid any resistance to the USSR and international communism.
Rand Paul has a lot of appeal in many ways, but I'm afraid he'll have more than enough questionable statements in his backgroud to practically eliminate him from any presidential possibilities.
Center for Individual Freedom?
Gimmie a break!
Rand Paul is beginning to quack like a duck.
I have no problem with this. A caucus is a group to agreedisagree. So what?
Because Rand Paul’s comment is patently absurd.
why?
LOL...all you have to do is read the article.
Do you read the articles that you comment on?
I read it and I dont see your problem.
The inability to discern fact from Paul’s fiction is a personal problem or an intelligence problem. I’m not interested in knowing which it is.
****************************
The author does make a rather good point here.
rbmillerjr is one of our “praise the thugs” wack jobs here.
You just have to remember that when reading threads here. There are a few others that join with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.