Of Course It’s a Lie, But Who Cares? Who Cares?
Bill Quick

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy: For the Situation Room or the Dorm Room? | National Review Online

You don’t have to be a war profiteer to consider this dewy-eyed foolishness. Barack Obama’s can’t-we-all-get-along naiveté didn’t hurt him in his primary fight in 2008, but he was running in the other party. Rand Paul is running in a party that, while chastened on foreign policy, still has a hawkish reflex — and not because it is beholden to Halliburton.

If you want to know how the Gentry GOP will attempt to destroy any candidate they don’t approve of, read NRO for the playbook.  In this case, Rand Paul will be portrayed as a naive, flimsy, “dewy-eyed” fool.

If we launched the Iraq War for corporate profits, we have a poisonously corrupt government that is a threat to world peace. If we caused Japan to react angrily with ill-considered sanctions prior to Pearl Harbor, as Paul said in 2012, perhaps we were reaping what we sowed in what is usually regarded as one of the most notorious sneak attacks of all time. If we are guilty of tweaking Russia while it secures a traditional sphere of influence, as Paul said when the Crimea crisis first broke out, it’s no wonder that Vladimir Putin lashes out.

I don’t think we launched Iraq Two for corporate profits, but we do have a poisonously corrupt government, threat to world peace or not.  And Iraq turned out to be a disaster.   As for the rest, my reading of history says it is accurate.  We did do our damndest to “sanction” Japan into submission.  We would likely have ended up at war with them anyway, just as we did with Germany and Italy, a conflict we were disasterously unprepared for.  The way I read Rand Paul on international relations and military power is the same way I read Teddy Roosevelt:  Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Like, um, this.  Which sounds eminently sensible to me.

We must continue spending to supply our military with Tomahawk missiles, says … Rand Paul? « Hot Air

But I don’t want to cut weapons that have been integral to maintaining a strong military…

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has identified nearly $70 billion in waste–everything from studying flying dinosaurs to making beef jerky–that somehow qualifies as Department of Defense spending. The $128 million President Obama plans to cut next year from the Tomahawk program could easily be replaced by cutting some of this $70 billion we are wasting right now…

America should be a country that is always reluctant to go to war and that only goes to war constitutionally through a declaration by Congress. But if the time comes when our security or interests are threatened, the United States must always be ready to fight and win, decisively and quickly.

If we’d followed that strategy, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.  In retrospect, that doesn’t seem like such an awful outcome.

Anyway, just so you know:  The Gentry GOP’s Rand Paul soundbite: He won’t stand up for America against her enemies.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Of Course It’s a Lie, But Who Cares? Who Cares? — 1 Comment

  1. I’d be more impressed with that line of criticism if the Gentry GOP had shown any signs of standing up for America against her enemies in the White House. Sorry, guys, you don’t get to surrender the domestic front and make up for it by supporting foreign policy disasters.