It is thin camouflage. While McCain would insert the United States into every controversy, no matter how contrary to our interests, Paul sees our government as incapable of acting beneficially in the world.
While I usually respect McCarthy’s take on things like this, he’s way off base here.
So maybe he can cite all the sterling success of the United States since, oh, about the Korean Conflict, in “acting beneficially” by using its military in the world.
Everything we’ve touched with our boots in the Middle East has turned, or is in the process of turning, to blood and dust. Our military adventures in South Amererica have managed to remove the Cuban regime, the Sandanista Regime, and save the Panama Canal for America, not to mention shutting off the flow of drugs from south of the border, or the even larger flows of illegals.
The one clear-cut military victory we achieved in fifty years – the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s government and military – we pissed away by our own suicidal “leadership” over the next eight years.
I don’t think America is incapable of acting beneficially. But I am absolutely certain that our Ruling Class is incapable of acting intelligently when it comes to the use of the U.S. military.
Very, very rarely does war waged for other reason than in service of national survival have beneficial effects for America, which is my primary concern.
The Paul fantasy, like the Left’s, is that we can refrain from being judgmental about other countries: Just trade with everyone while pretending to be Switzerland, and then those nations disposed against us will like us better, and if they don’t we can always respond forcefully — after they’ve killed a few thousand of us.
This is gross mischaracterization to the point of outright dishonesty.
I defy McCarthy – or anybody else – to demonstrate where Rand Paul has ever stated that we can’t respond forcefully unless and until an attacker kills a “few thousand” of us. Moreover, I challenge him to provide any evidence that Paul has ever espoused the position that we can, or should, “refrain from being judgemental about other countries.”
I’m sad to see McCarthy, whom I normally respect, resorting to nothing more than ad hominem lies, which indicates to me that he lacks more respectable arguments against Rand Paul’s positions.
A conservative foreign policy would set itself firmly against Iran and Assad, as well as against al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood, and their state sponsors. It would not choose sides between them in their Syrian free-for-all. It would make the defeat of all of them — of Islamic supremacism — its strategic objective. It would tactically use the opportunities afforded by our diplomatic, economic, intelligence, military, and leadership capabilities to make it happen.
And it would work.
Of course it would. So come on, Andrew, name me the “real conservatives” in our political leadership class today pushing such a policy.
Oh, that’s right: None.
And you talk about Rand Paul’s fantasies.