Rand Paul’s Munich (from anti-war.com)

[cindy25]

any gains (minimal ) with the neo-cons has hurt Rand with his grassroots, more than he thought

I didn't think there would be such negative reaction.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

[cajuncocoa]

any gains (minimal ) with the neo-cons has hurt Rand with his grassroots, more than he thought

I didn't think there would be such negative reaction.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/
It's OK. There's so many more neocons to gain than there are grassroots to lose. He can't win an election by keeping only us happy. Winning is everything.

[cindy25]

I agree with the winning part, but politics is addition. and if grassroots stay home any neo-cons gained will be negated. the neo-cons will vote for Graham or Cruz in Iowa. maybe if its one on one vs. Jeb it would make sense, but not for Iowa or NH. Rand is a niche candidate at least in the early states.

[UWDude]

It's OK. There's so many more neocons to gain than there are grassroots to lose. He can't win an election by keeping only us happy. Winning is everything.

You are talking as if it matters. If he sells his soul, I don't care if he wins. It isn't OK. And right now, his spine is turning to jello, and he is becoming one of them. By the time he is president, he will be an embarrassment and traitor to the non-interventionist cause.

[CaptUSA]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good - Voltaire


If the "grassroots" throw Rand under the bus because of a limited capitulation in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, then we are sure to get someone who doesn't even have any non-interventionist tendencies. In fact, we will get someone who openly mocks them.

If they don't allow for the "good", they will get the "bad". Either way, it will be ugly. The perfect is not, and has never been, an option.

[UWDude]

Why is it, no matter what, when a politicians is elected, no matter what, the first thing they betray the people on is war?

War is not something I am willing to negotiate on. the Neo-cons had their chance, and royally messed the world up.

It is always foreign policy that is first to go neo-con, when you watch as a person, a human being, a trustworthy figure, twisted and withers into a politician, a teleprompter reading puppet, a liar like all the rest. Every time.

And now you are telling me this will be different? Rand either stands for peace, stands for sovereignity, stands for national self determination and smaller governments worldwide, or he doesn't. And what is crazy, is it seems that way. He pretty much is coming down neocon every time when it comes to foreign policy. I can look away for many betrayals, but this is the one I can not.

Every time, the non-interventionist is the first to be asked to look away for the sake of victory or pragmatism.

Not only because these American wars are evil, but also because they are geopolitically stupid, I can't ignore this. And I'm not the only one.

[cindy25]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good - Voltaire


If the "grassroots" throw Rand under the bus because of a limited capitulation in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, then we are sure to get someone who doesn't even have any non-interventionist tendencies. In fact, we will get someone who openly mocks them.

If they don't allow for the "good", they will get the "bad". Either way, it will be ugly. The perfect is not, and has never been, an option.

Ron was very close

[Brett85]

It's OK. There's so many more neocons to gain than there are grassroots to lose. He can't win an election by keeping only us happy. Winning is everything.


I agree with the winning part, but politics is addition. and if grassroots stay home any neo-cons gained will be negated. the neo-cons will vote for Graham or Cruz in Iowa. maybe if its one on one vs. Jeb it would make sense, but not for Iowa or NH. Rand is a niche candidate at least in the early states.


You are talking as if it matters. If he sells his soul, I don't care if he wins. It isn't OK. And right now, his spine is turning to jello, and he is becoming one of them. By the time he is president, he will be an embarrassment and traitor to the non-interventionist cause.

Lol. Cajun was being sarcastic.

[Saint Vitus]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good - Voltaire

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.". - Nietzsche

or I think the more fitting quote for Rand Paul is "If you lay down with dogs, then you wake up with fleas."

[enhanced_deficit]

In this case, everythings means opposite... Obama is "anti war" and Rand is "pro war".
It is politicians playing politics.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470565-the-7-senotors-who-stood-up-to-Bibi-and-their-party-leaders-%28likud-and-GOP%29&p=5807908&viewfull=1#post5807908

Windows Up, Don't Shoot
Children Up, Don't Drone

[cindy25]

Obama is more anti-war than either Hillary or McCain

[enhanced_deficit]

Obama is more anti-war than either Hillary or McCain

More civilians have been killed as a result of Obama's mideast interventions than Bush's.

Obama picked Hillary as his SoS to sow civil wars in mideast, that should tell us about dDG's choices.

dDG made sure McCain went with him when he made all important visit to bow before the new Saudi opression dictator few weeks ago.

[acptulsa]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good - Voltaire


If the "grassroots" throw Rand under the bus because of a limited capitulation in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, then we are sure to get someone who doesn't even have any non-interventionist tendencies. In fact, we will get someone who openly mocks them.

If they don't allow for the "good", they will get the "bad". Either way, it will be ugly. The perfect is not, and has never been, an option.

I can't give this post enough rep. I would trade rep bars with the Captain for this post.

Obama pandered to antiwar Democrats in order to get elected, then started a few more splendid little wars--and hasn't ended a war yet. But Rand Paul can't pander to Republicans? Even though what he is saying is not promising more never ending imperialism, but merely doing a better job than his father did of assuring people that he will defend this nation (yes, Ron did promise to do that, but somehow it went in one ear and out the other of those Republicans who had nothing in there to stop it)?

The relentless pursuit of perfection in politics is a sure-fire way to wind up as effective as the Libertarian Party. I want us to be more effective than the LP. I've been watching the bad guys win for fifty years, and I'm fucking sick of it.

I will work tirelessly to end foreign aid but I will not start unilaterally with Israel is exactly the kind of compromise that will move us from the category of also-ran kooks and into the category of worth a try now that everyone else has totally fucked things up. Therefore, that is exactly the kind of compromise that the powers that be will force Rand to make, just before they troll the snot out of us and divide our purists against our pragmatists. If we don't want to be divided and conquered, it might behoove us to get smart enough to differentiate a mountain from a molehill.

Israel-loving Americans may be misled, brainwashed, and in love with something they don't know from Tanzania and would hate if they knew how communist, militant and ruthless it really was. Even so, they are American citizens, and in a representative democracy the real crime would be in not throwing them a bone.


Obama is more anti-war than either Hillary or McCain

And Chong is more pro-pot than Cheech. So?

[ClydeCoulter]

Incremental is incremental, just sometimes less than other times in moving a bad agenda forward.

We need a reverse.

[Brian4Liberty]

From the article:


The letter, in short, is without any real substance

Yep. But by signing it, it prevented a whole host of McCain/Graham/neoconservative attacks.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's OK. There's so many more neocons to gain than there are grassroots to lose. He can't win an election by keeping only us happy. Winning is everything.


I agree with the winning part, but politics is addition. and if grassroots stay home any neo-cons gained will be negated. the neo-cons will vote for Graham or Cruz in Iowa. maybe if its one on one vs. Jeb it would make sense, but not for Iowa or NH. Rand is a niche candidate at least in the early states.

Let's be clear. Rand will never get any neoconservative votes. Never. We know that. He knows that. What Rand wants is Republican votes in the Primary, and independent votes in the General. In the Primary, that can include constitutional conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and middle of the road, common Republicans. True neoconservatives are not potential voters.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Jeeez, people ... there is no way he can just waltz into the white house as a full on libertarian. there is just no way. get over it. I'm happy that he is doing 2 major things for the people:

1: Trying to Audit the Fed
2: Getting industrial Hemp legalized

Thats enough to satisfy me for now.

If you think Ron Paul ever had a chance of changing anything you are out of your mind. You have to chip away at the fabric slowly. Rand has to throw a little honey their way in order to keep everybody happy. Its a much better strategy than his dad had.

[ctiger2]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Rand isn't going to be president and even if somehow he magically did, he's not going to save you. Only you can save you.

[Mach]

This has been a Rand argument around here for a long time, one of the things that took me more to the give Rand a chance mode was a post that Massie made when he was still "politicizing" locally, he gave a straight forward run down about, well, reality, and that.... I'm paraphrasing.... if you do nothing but fight 100% all the time then you will get nowhere 100% of the time and while we sit here, click away and wine about our 100% beliefs, he's accomplishing way more in Washington than most of us ever will.

Risk versus reward.

I think Rand is playin the game with a chess brain.

[Brian4Liberty]

Reason: "no Munich moment for Paul".


Rand Paul is not his father, but neither does he appear to be thirsty for a war with Iran, an idea with surprising staying power on the national political scene. It's no Munich moment for Paul, who still seems like he'd be a more authentically anti-war (or pro–less war) candidate than any serious contender this century, the present occupant of the White House included. But even if negotiations are a positive step, speaking out against them is certainly not "treason," not even for elected officials.
...
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/11/rand-paul-iran-letter-was-meant-to-stren

[twomp]

From the article:



Yep. But by signing it, it prevented a whole host of McCain/Graham/neoconservative attacks.

I don't what you have been smoking but the neo-con attacks will still be coming. It didn't prevent shit. The only thing that changed now is that Rand can say, "hey I'm sort of neo-con too!"

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't what you have been smoking but the neo-con attacks will still be coming. It didn't prevent shit.

It prevented attacks that would have been based on his not signing. No one has said or inferred it would stop all of them.

[jonhowe]

What? The letter explained the constitution accurately. Nothing in it was not factual. Whatever deal is made with Iran (and something should be done) will have to be approved by congress. The one Kerry is pursuing likely wont. I don't see the problem with explaining that to the public (the actual intended recipients of the letter).

[twomp]

What? The letter explained the constitution accurately. Nothing in it was not factual. Whatever deal is made with Iran (and something should be done) will have to be approved by congress. The one Kerry is pursuing likely wont. I don't see the problem with explaining that to the public (the actual intended recipients of the letter).

Was that the intent? A friendly reminder to the Iranian government on how our country works? Do you really believe that was the intent? Because from where I'm sitting, it pretty much said, hey FK you Iran. We are coming for you no matter what the President does.

[robert68]

"The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/)"



Josh Rogin reports that a “group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.” Here (http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf) is the letter. Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear (https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm): “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf) on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

[jonhowe]

Was that the intent? A friendly reminder to the Iranian government on how our country works? Do you really believe that was the intent? Because from where I'm sitting, it pretty much said, hey FK you Iran. We are coming for you no matter what the President does.

The intent was to remind the american people that treaties have to be approved. The letter was true. If Obama makes this deal, and in 2016 Santorum is elected, the deal isn't going to matter; we're going to bomb iran.

[twomp]

The intent was to remind the american people that treaties have to be approved. The letter was true. If Obama makes this deal, and in 2016 Santorum is elected, the deal isn't going to matter; we're going to bomb iran.

No it wasn't. If it was "intended" to remind the American People, itt would have been addressed to the American People. The letter was addressed to Iran. You are just trying to spin things now.

[jonhowe]

No it wasn't. If it was "intended" to remind the American People, itt would have been addressed to the American People. The letter was addressed to Iran. You are just trying to spin things now.

I could be wrong, but I was fairly certain it was published in an American paper, not actually sent to Iran.

[UWDude]

Rand has been pretty good on many issues, but every time he talks foreign policy, he sounds just like a chicken hawk. I have been trying to give him a chance, but I really see him come down on the side of war every time. His foreign policy opinions are poorly formed, and influenced by neocon, interventionist, paternalistic crap.

the direction he has been going for years now, when it comes to foreign policy has gotten worse and worse. I don't trust him any more. I tried, but I can't any more. I certainly would not vote for him or give him money.

[twomp]

I could be wrong, but I was fairly certain it was published in an American paper, not actually sent to Iran.

You are definitely wrong. The very first line of the letter says this "An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." But continue trying to spin things in that bubble you live in.

[Sam I am]

I could be wrong, but I was fairly certain it was published in an American paper, not actually sent to Iran.

I believe that Iran has the capability to obtain and read American news papers.

[jonhowe]

You are definitely wrong. The very first line of the letter says this "An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." But continue trying to spin things in that bubble you live in.

Still can't find evidence it was actually sent to Tehran.

Can you point out which parts of the letter were inaccurate? Is it not true that the next president can just change the agreement if it's not a treaty approved by congress?

I want to settle things peacefully with Iran. A half assed deal without congressional backing settles nothing.

[twomp]

Still can't find evidence it was actually sent to Tehran.

Can you point out which parts of the letter were inaccurate? Is it not true that the next president can just change the agreement if it's not a treaty approved by congress?

I want to settle things peacefully with Iran. A half assed deal without congressional backing settles nothing.

It needs to be physically in Iran for them to be addressing Iran with that letter? Are you serious? I am addressing you now and I'm not at your house. You do know how that works right? Sending a message to someone doesn't actually require something being there physically. Not very bright are we?

The letter was NOT addressed to the American people despite your repeated attempts at trying to spin that it is. You seem to be the only that doesn't realize this for some reason. It was NOT intended to be a friendly reminder to the Iranian government, teaching them the ways of American politics. It was a big FU to Iran to remind them to not bother because they won't go with whatever President Obama does.

You do not want to settle things peacefully. You ALONG with Congress want war with Iran. The Mossad themselves said that Iran isn't currently planning to get a weapon. This is not enough for Israel. They want war and nothing short of war will appease them. The GOP is actively trying to accomplish this by sabotaging any effort at peace. You and your half-assed spin regarding this topic is helping in that effort.

[CaptUSA]

This should end this thread:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI7zVFIEwC8#t=592

[MaxPower]

Why is it, no matter what, when a politicians is elected, no matter what, the first thing they betray the people on is war?

War is not something I am willing to negotiate on. the Neo-cons had their chance, and royally messed the world up.

It is always foreign policy that is first to go neo-con, when you watch as a person, a human being, a trustworthy figure, twisted and withers into a politician, a teleprompter reading puppet, a liar like all the rest. Every time.

And now you are telling me this will be different? Rand either stands for peace, stands for sovereignity, stands for national self determination and smaller governments worldwide, or he doesn't. And what is crazy, is it seems that way. He pretty much is coming down neocon every time when it comes to foreign policy. I can look away for many betrayals, but this is the one I can not.

Every time, the non-interventionist is the first to be asked to look away for the sake of victory or pragmatism.

Not only because these American wars are evil, but also because they are geopolitically stupid, I can't ignore this. And I'm not the only one.
Any actual neocon could tell you how utterly absurd it is to say that Rand is "coming down neocon every time when it comes to foreign policy." Rand is the extreme anti-neocon Republican in the Senate, the archenemy of the McCain-Graham wing, and has proven it many times over. Let's run down a list of major foreign policy moves he's made over the last four years:

-Shortly after taking office, he bitterly opposed Obama's incursion into Libya and introduced a resolution using Obama's own past words against him to declare it unconstitutional. He was its number-one opponent in the federal legislature.

-He filibustered for 13 hours to draw attention to Obama's claim of unlimited drone assassination power. He singlehandedly elicited a response from the administration backing off slightly from their assumption of absolute power, brought the drone war under mainstream public scrutiny for the first time, and turned it into a significant national issue.

-He spearheaded the push to demand a congressional vote before Obama could bomb Syria (an action he forcefully opposed), leading to the administration's chickening out.

-He has repeatedly stepped in to thwart attempts at escalating hostility toward Iran, as when he introduced an amendment specifying that nothing in a certain neocon resolution constituted a declaration of war against them, when he opposed his party attempting to pass new sanctions during negotiations, etc.

-Although he has stated support in principle for the idea of airstrikes on the Islamic State, he has still (rightly) opposed and denounced the ones which the administration has undertaken without a congressional vote. This being the case, Rand has literally opposed every US military intervention undertaken since he was sworn into office-- and you are seriously calling him a neocon! This, in reaction to his signing a letter which has zero legal force, does not call for military action, and (whatever unsavory intentions its primary authors may have) is essentially just a plain statement of hard facts.

If Ron Paul was an A+, 99% non-interventionist, Rand is more like a 90. Actual neocons-- McCain, Graham, Hillary, etc.-- would be deep in "F" territory.

[jonhowe]

You do not want to settle things peacefully. You ALONG with Congress want war with Iran. The Mossad themselves said that Iran isn't currently planning to get a weapon. This is not enough for Israel. They want war and nothing short of war will appease them. The GOP is actively trying to accomplish this by sabotaging any effort at peace. You and your half-assed spin regarding this topic is helping in that effort.


I do not want war. Obama's current negotiations are such that they can and will be immediately overturned if a neo-con republican (as opposed to neocon democrat) comes into office in 2017. How does that avoid war? To actually do something substantial any treaty would have to be approved. I don't see how this is so complicated.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I do not want war. Obama's current negotiations are such that they can and will be immediately overturned if a neo-con republican (as opposed to neocon democrat) comes into office in 2017. How does that avoid war? To actually do something substantial any treaty would have to be approved. I don't see how this is so complicated.

And if Obama brought the treaty to Congress, do you honestly believe that the Republican majority would approve it?

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html

This needs to be read, digested, internalized, and expressed in every foreign policy discussion by everyone here. Especially those agitating for action against ISIS, or supporting Rand in his calls for arming Israel, Ukraine, the Kurds, etc.

Choose your side. Choose peace and non-intervention, or choose violence and intervention.

[jonhowe]

And if Obama brought the treaty to Congress, do you honestly believe that the Republican majority would approve it?


No. That's the point.

If Obama brings this treaty to congress it will not pass. So it won't be worth the paper it's printed on come 2017. Do you honestly believe the next president, who will likely be a Republican and not named Rand, will uphold such a treaty?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Rand needs to appeal to a wide range of Republicans to win. He can't champion pure non-interventionism and have any hope of winning. What do the Rand critic want him to do? Echo the exact policy ideas of his father and remain irrelevant? So many radical libertarians seem totally fine with capturing the minds of a tiny minority, develop no political solutions and stay eternally locked in a position where they take cheap potshots at the system, while being totally ineffectual. The right is having an identity crisis, and if we want to be the guiding light of what the American right will become, we have to be willing to compromise. If libertarians drop the ball, the GOP will double down on neoconservatism, we will be back to getting a few percent of the vote (at most) and the American right will be functionally dead. The 20th century belonged to progressives, the 21st could belong to us.

I'm convinced the ideological purists among the movement don't mind being politically powerless; it allows them to adopt an affectation of being above it all, of having "seen through the false paradigm of left and right". For those of us who actually have to build our futures in this country, that's not good enough. The libertarian movement has finished with the easy part; the economic debate has been settled since the early 20th century, and the chickens of Wilsonian interventionism have very clearly come home to roost. Now comes the hard part, the actual dirtywork of politics and legislation. If you aren't willing to roll up your sleeves and do the hard work, get out of the way. We have enough enemies on the outside. We have an opportunity to create a new right wing in this country, and if we fail we'll never recover.

[cindy25]

if Obama recognized Palestine could congress and/or a future president overrule that? and if so, couldn't a future president do the same with Truman's exec order recognizing Israel?

[twomp]

No. That's the point.

If Obama brings this treaty to congress it will not pass. So it won't be worth the paper it's printed on come 2017. Do you honestly believe the next president, who will likely be a Republican and not named Rand, will uphold such a treaty?

If that happens then we will worry about it in 2017. It is better than saying hey Iran, stop building nuclear weapons (that you are not currently building) or we will bomb you in 2015. This whole let's not negotiate because in 2 years it will be worthless is a stupid point to be arguing.

[jkob]

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

[cindy25]

And if Obama brought the treaty to Congress, do you honestly believe that the Republican majority would approve it?

it wouldn't get 2/3 in a Democratic senate. not with Israeli opposition. it avoids war by giving Iran time to get a bomb. same thing happened with North Korea. if Saddam had had nuclear weapons he would still be in power (not a bad thing, as it turns out)

[Anti Federalist]

While this is certainly a project that is not inherently misconceived, the result in practice has been a confusing variety of positions that have satisfied no one. As Jacob Heilbrunn pointed out in The National Interest, Paul’s attempts to cozy up to Sheldon Adelson – not to mention his flattery of the staunchly anti-Paul Free Beacon by offering them exclusives on his cruel and ill-conceived legislative attempts to cut off lifesaving aid to Palestinian children and keep the Palestinian Authority out of the International Criminal Court – "suggests opportunism rather than conviction...

When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody, and come off looking like a hack.

[idiom]

Jeeez, people ... there is no way he can just waltz into the white house as a full on libertarian.

Forget even the GOP nomination as a Full on Libertarian. You can't even get the LP nomination as a full on Libertarian.

[CaptUSA]

Watch the video in post #34.

[UWDude]

supporting Rand in his calls for arming Israel, Ukraine, the Kurds, etc.


this is what concerns me. He has become more and more interventionist by the day. He is also for intervention against ISIS. Which means more ignoring borders, more bombing and killing, more war inciting.

[cindy25]

Iran is far more useful than Israel. they are needed to fight ISIS. what purpose does Israel serve? all they do is beg for aid and try to start more wars. maybe Obama should shoot down some of their jets if they try to attack Iran. might save several billion a year in aid.