Neocon Editor Demands Answers from Rand Paul

[green73]

Jamie Weinstein, senior editor at The Daily Caller, has a series of ten questions for Rand Paul, who will deliver a foreign-policy speech this Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation. To be sure, the questions are designed to remind us that the 3×5 card of approved opinion has room for only certain views. No one may ask questions about World War II, needless to say; that has been declared off limits, and surely no one would be so uppity as to re-examine an issue declared closed by the official Neocon Commission on Allowable Opinion.


All the same, I would still be interested to see how Rand would handle these questions. They will be thrown at him relentlessly once 2015 rolls around.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/neocon-...rom-rand-paul/

[acptulsa]

The questions, so we only have to click once.

10.) On Oct. 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Backed by Russian arms, the Arab states initially put Israel on the defensive. Fearing a defeat of an American ally in the Middle East, Richard Nixon urgently sent arms to Israel to reinforce the Jewish state, helping ultimately to turn the tide. Do you believe that was an appropriate use of American power?

9.) You keep saying that you oppose foreign aid because we can’t afford it. But foreign aid is a miniscule portion of our budget. Our long-term budgetary problems are almost entirely embedded in our entitlement programs, particularly Medicare. Are you really under the impression that foreign aid is a key driver of our looming fiscal crisis? Are you saying that if we were in better financial shape you would have a different view of foreign aid — or is your case against foreign aid on financial grounds disingenuous?

8.) Should human rights considerations play any role at all in America’s foreign policy decisions? If so, how?

7.) What role does America have in a place like Mali, where jihadists linked to al-Qaida are seeking to carve out a safe haven?

6.) You have said you support defense cuts. How significantly do you want to cut the defense budget? How would you reduce America’s current role in accordance with such a reduced budget?

5.) Did you think American support of Britain under Lend-Lease before our entry into World War II was appropriate? Or do you think America should have remained neutral?

4.) In what circumstance could you imagine authorizing a military strike to set back Iran’s nuclear program? If, for instance, you became convinced that the Iranian leadership could not be convinced to halt their program diplomatically, and American intelligence said that the window for such an attack was rapidly narrowing, would you be willing to authorize a strike? Or do you think an American strike on Iranian nuclear installations would be worse than allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

3.) The U.S. has hundreds of military bases around the world. Should we significantly reduce our overseas presence? What do you think of America’s heavy presence in South Korea on the border with North Korea?

2.) Where do you stand on America’s use of drones? Do you think it is appropriate for us to violate a country’s sovereignty in order to take out those we believe pose us harm, like we regularly do in Pakistan?

1.) What do we owe our allies? What do they owe us?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/th...#ixzz2JxBn771l

I love the 'foreign policy is a miniscule part of the budget' argument. 'Yeah, I can't pay my credit card bill, but now I only use it for buying chocolate, and don't use it for buying Waterford crystal any more.' This is a selling point?

I also love the way they invariably use 'overseas' when they mean 'on foreign soil'. Guam is 'overseas'. So, for that matter, is Hawaii. So, no, no libertarian is ever going to say, 'Eliminate all overseas bases.'

[supermario21]

Foreign Policy is only a miniscule part of the budget when you're not starting a war every 5 years.

[Confederate]

The questions, so we only have to click once.



I love the 'foreign policy is a miniscule part of the budget' argument. 'Yeah, I can't pay my credit card bill, but now I only use it for buying chocolate, and don't use it for buying Waterford crystal any more.' This is a selling point?

I also love the way they invariably use 'overseas' when they mean 'on foreign soil'. Guam is 'overseas'. So, for that matter, is Hawaii. So, no, no libertarian is ever going to say, 'Eliminate all overseas bases.'

The author actually said foreign aid is a miniscule part of the budget, and he's right on that point. Still should be cut, though.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The questions, so we only have to click once.



I love the 'foreign policy is a miniscule part of the budget' argument. 'Yeah, I can't pay my credit card bill, but now I only use it for buying chocolate, and don't use it for buying Waterford crystal any more.' This is a selling point?

I also love the way they invariably use 'overseas' when they mean 'on foreign soil'. Guam is 'overseas'. So, for that matter, is Hawaii. So, no, no libertarian is ever going to say, 'Eliminate all overseas bases.'

It's a valid argument. Foreign aid should be opposed because it is immoral, not because of the cost.

[Darguth]

The questions don't seem that outrageous to me. If Rand wishes to become President of the United States he should be able to not only answer those questions but be able to sell his answers convincingly to the American public.

[FSP-Rebel]

It's a valid argument. Foreign aid should be opposed because it is immoral, not because of the cost.

The practical argument of the costs and not funding enemies is all the resonates right now and is his foot in the door w/ the many he's trying to convert . Going hardline lingo status will either drive many of them off or give the smear merchants on the circuit the talking points to do so. I agree with you however.

[kcchiefs6465]

I especially want to know the answer to #4. Pretty much a make or break for me. The questions aren't that bad. A few are a little leading but otherwise good.

[torchbearer]

I especially want to know the answer to #4. Pretty much a make or break for me. The questions aren't that bad. A few are a little leading but otherwise good.

because the next romney/rubio to be the "allowed" nominee will be a much better choice.

[Sola_Fide]

It's a valid argument. Foreign aid should be opposed because it is immoral, not because of the cost.

Exactly. Rand is using an inadequate utilitarian argument.

[acptulsa]

Exactly. Rand is using an inadequate utilitarian argument.

He can spin his reasons for doing the right thing all year long as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as he keeps doing the right thing.

[jbauer]

There's not one question in there that Rand shouldn't be able to easily answer. If his campaign is to be sucessful these are barley on the radar in difficulty.

[misean]

Exactly. Rand is using an inadequate utilitarian argument.

I think cost/benefit and utilitarian arguments ultimately sell better to mass audiences. It's very hard for a candidate to communicate complex philosophical arguments.

Although now that I think about I think people are swayed mostly by the quality of the salesman who delivers the best platitudes.

[Sola_Fide]

I think cost/benefit and utilitarian arguments ultimately sell better to mass audiences. It's very hard for a candidate to communicate complex philosophical arguments.

Although now that I think about I think people are swayed mostly by the quality of the salesman who delivers the best platitudes.

I think you're right that they do sell better, if nothing because most people are braindead and have never learned the basics of logical argumentation (by design of course...from the statist indoctrinators).

[kcchiefs6465]

because the next romney/rubio to be the "allowed" nominee will be a much better choice.

That argument holds no water with me. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils and am under the impression that this country is ruined beyond repair anyways. I'd like to drink my beer with a clean conscience, at the end of the 'day.'

[kathy88]

I like the questions. And I hope he answers all of them, it could clear up some stuff for me. I'm looking forward to this.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

If you ignore the questions then the "libertarians bury their head in the sand" argument is valid. It's good they are being posed.

[idiom]

Foreign Aid to the Mujahideen the 1980's was minuscule.

What was the actual cost of it?

[loveableteddybear]

10.) On Oct. 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Backed by Russian arms, the Arab states initially put Israel on the defensive. Fearing a defeat of an American ally in the Middle East, Richard Nixon urgently sent arms to Israel to reinforce the Jewish state, helping ultimately to turn the tide. Do you believe that was an appropriate use of American power?

That's a loaded question. Israel won that war so quickly, our help was meaningless. Also, after the loss of the USS Liberty, there would have been valid concern at that time not to put any Americans in that area.

9.) You keep saying that you oppose foreign aid because we can’t afford it. But foreign aid is a miniscule portion of our budget. Our long-term budgetary problems are almost entirely embedded in our entitlement programs, particularly Medicare. Are you really under the impression that foreign aid is a key driver of our looming fiscal crisis? Are you saying that if we were in better financial shape you would have a different view of foreign aid — or is your case against foreign aid on financial grounds disingenuous?

Another loaded question. Doing studies on the mating habits of bears in Yellowstone park for 3 million dollars is a small part of the budget, but it is a waste of money. Giving more money to Israel's enemies than to Israel is also a waste of money.

8.) Should human rights considerations play any role at all in America’s foreign policy decisions? If so, how?

No, as it starts more trouble then it stops. The U.S. started human rights issues in Afghanistan in Iraq fron their 80s and 90s involvement, for example.

7.) What role does America have in a place like Mali, where jihadists linked to al-Qaida are seeking to carve out a safe haven?

What role does China have in the U.S., which surrounds their country with military bases?

6.) You have said you support defense cuts. How significantly do you want to cut the defense budget? How would you reduce America’s current role in accordance with such a reduced budget?

Defense would be increased, especially on the borders. Offense would be cut.

5.) Did you think American support of Britain under Lend-Lease before our entry into World War II was appropriate? Or do you think America should have remained neutral?

In retrospect, of course. Would you support Patton's idea of having a hot war with the Soviet Union before they had nuclear weapons, before they killed millions of people in the upcoming years after the war, largely German POWs and eastern bloc POWs?

4.) In what circumstance could you imagine authorizing a military strike to set back Iran’s nuclear program? If, for instance, you became convinced that the Iranian leadership could not be convinced to halt their program diplomatically, and American intelligence said that the window for such an attack was rapidly narrowing, would you be willing to authorize a strike? Or do you think an American strike on Iranian nuclear installations would be worse than allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

The same set of circumstances we used against North Korea and Pakistan.

3.) The U.S. has hundreds of military bases around the world. Should we significantly reduce our overseas presence? What do you think of America’s heavy presence in South Korea on the border with North Korea?

Yes, South Korea can easily defend themselves against a third rate power.

2.) Where do you stand on America’s use of drones? Do you think it is appropriate for us to violate a country’s sovereignty in order to take out those we believe pose us harm, like we regularly do in Pakistan?

My stance on drones is that they should be used against powers that congress declared war on. Are you against the Constitution's provision that President Obama cannot just start a war with a random country without congressional authorization?

1.) What do we owe our allies? What do they owe us?

We should pursue peace and commerce with them, and the same they should do with us.

[supermario21]

I have a different view of #5. Our sanctions against Japan and lend-lease really gave away the impression we had picked sides. Had we done neither of those, I'm sure we would have been left alone.

[loveableteddybear]

I have a different view of #5. Our sanctions against Japan and lend-lease really gave away the impression we had picked sides. Had we done neither of those, I'm sure we would have been left alone.

Well, that's why I said "in retrospect." Then, being that the neocon was asking an unfair hindsight question with anti-semitic implications, I turn that back to the neo-con asking him if we should have got into a full blown war against the USSR who also killed people and had a 40 year cold war with us subsequently.

The fact the answer to the latter, with hindsight, is not an enthusiastic yes, exposes the hypocrisy behind the whole "libertarians would let the holocaust happen" line of argumentation.

[torchbearer]

That argument holds no water with me. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils and am under the impression that this country is ruined beyond repair anyways. I'd like to drink my beer with a clean conscience, at the end of the 'day.'

so Rand is evil?
is that what you are saying?

[kcchiefs6465]

so Rand is evil?
is that what you are saying?

Is that what I said? How about this, should Rand Paul not publicly disavow 'our' undying 'allegiance' to Israel (subservience), publicly state that he will not vote to further provoke or harrass Iran with regards to their nuclear weapons program no matter what Israel says about it (whether they have one or not) and publicly state that it is none of our damn business should Israel be attacked in any sense of the word I will have lost all respect for him and he will not have my vote, my time, or my money. Pretty damn simple when you think about it. EITHER HE IS A NONINTERVENTIONIST OR HE IS NOT. His tight rope walking, political pandering, double talk bull$#@! I could do without. Same goes for the now multi-dozen excuses I've heard with regards to it.

[torchbearer]

Is that what I said? How about this, should Rand Paul not publicly disavow 'our' undying 'allegiance' to Israel (subservience), publicly state that he will not vote to further provoke or harrass Iran with regards to their nuclear weapons program no matter what Israel says about it (whether they have one or not) and publicly state that it is none of our damn business should Israel be attacked in any sense of the word I will have lost all respect for him and he will not have my vote, my time, or my money. Pretty damn simple when you think about it. EITHER HE IS A NONINTERVENTIONIST OR HE IS NOT. His tight rope walking, political pandering, double talk bull$#@! I could do without. Same goes for the now multi-dozen excuses I've heard with regards to it.

let me know when you think he is evil.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Look at those questions. What is it with some peoples' obsession with Israel?

[Occam's Banana]

Is that what I said? How about this, should Rand Paul not publicly disavow 'our' undying 'allegiance' to Israel (subservience), publicly state that he will not vote to further provoke or harrass Iran with regards to their nuclear weapons program no matter what Israel says about it (whether they have one or not) and publicly state that it is none of our damn business should Israel be attacked in any sense of the word I will have lost all respect for him and he will not have my vote, my time, or my money. Pretty damn simple when you think about it. EITHER HE IS A NONINTERVENTIONIST OR HE IS NOT. His tight rope walking, political pandering, double talk bull$#@! I could do without. Same goes for the now multi-dozen excuses I've heard with regards to it.

Rand is not a non-interventionist. His actions in the Senate demonstrate this. He has never claimed to be one.

Rand is a minimal interventionist. His actions (and his rhetoric, if that's what you care about) have been fully consistent with this fact.

Perhaps we need a special sub-forum for Rand Paul's sub-forum. This special sub-forum would be for two groups of people:
(1) those of the pro-Rand people who insist that Rand is "really" a staunch non-interventionist who is "merely" pandering in a deceitful "stealth" attempt to trick interventionists into supporting him
(2) those of the anti-Rand people who want to complain about and condemn Rand because Rand won't use non-interventionist rhetoric - in spite of the fact that Rand is NOT a non-interventionist.

It might give the rest of us a little peace & quiet for a change.

[kcchiefs6465]

Rand is not a non-interventionist. His actions in the Senate demonstrate this. He has never claimed to be one.

Rand is a minimal interventionist. His actions (and his rhetoric, if that's what you care about) have been fully consistent with this fact.

Perhaps we need a special sub-forum for Rand Paul's sub-forum. This special sub-forum would be for two groups of people:
(1) those of the pro-Rand people who insist that Rand is "really" a staunch non-interventionist who is "merely" pandering in a deceitful "stealth" attempt to trick interventionists into supporting him
(2) those of the anti-Rand people who want to complain about and condemn Rand because Rand won't use non-interventionist rhetoric - in spite of the fact that Rand is NOT a non-interventionist.

It might give the rest of us a little peace & quiet for a change.

Or... when Rand Paul states that we should support Israel and leave all options on the table, get rid of the subforum altogether. Hopefully with his speech on Wednesday he makes it plain and clear which side he is on.

[alucard13mmfmj]

10) If our ally is truly under attacked without provocation AND in dire trouble, then its justifiable. It should be done in stages. First we help them with intelligence and recon. Then we help them with supplies. Then we help them with air power. Finally, we help them with boots in the ground. It should be done in stages of severity and seriousness.

9) There must be cuts everywhere. If I could, it'd be equal % cut off of every program so no one can complain.

8) Human rights should not be a priority in our foreign policy. At best, we should only worry about our country and neighboring countries on human rights issues. Every where else is of low priority.

7) No role. Al aqaeda is our enemy in one country and our "rebel friend" in another.

6) Decrease MILITARY spending. Same or increase DEFENSE spending.

5) American should remain neutral, unless we are attacked or unless our allies ASK for our help and congressional permission is asked before acting.

4) Iran getting a nuke is non-issue. USA, Russia, France, China, Israel has enough nukes to kill everyone a few dozen times over. If Iran tries something, they will be turned into a glass parking lot.

3) We should first, remove bases from friendly countries like Japan and Germany (UNLESS, it is for logistics for our horrible war in afghanistan/pakistanm which we should end anyways).

2) I think drones dehumanizes war.

1) Allies should stay out of trouble and not do things that put other allies to be in a hot spot.

[Brett85]

10) If our ally is truly under attacked without provocation AND in dire trouble, then its justifiable. It should be done in stages. First we help them with intelligence and recon. Then we help them with supplies. Then we help them with air power. Finally, we help them with boots in the ground. It should be done in stages of severity and seriousness.

9) There must be cuts everywhere. If I could, it'd be equal % cut off of every program so no one can complain.

8) Human rights should not be a priority in our foreign policy. At best, we should only worry about our country and neighboring countries on human rights issues. Every where else is of low priority.

7) No role. Al aqaeda is our enemy in one country and our "rebel friend" in another.

6) Decrease MILITARY spending. Same or increase DEFENSE spending.

5) American should remain neutral, unless we are attacked or unless our allies ASK for our help and congressional permission is asked before acting.

4) Iran getting a nuke is non-issue. USA, Russia, France, China, Israel has enough nukes to kill everyone a few dozen times over. If Iran tries something, they will be turned into a glass parking lot.

3) We should first, remove bases from friendly countries like Japan and Germany (UNLESS, it is for logistics for our horrible war in afghanistan/pakistanm which we should end anyways).

2) I think drones dehumanizes war.

1) Allies should stay out of trouble and not do things that put other allies to be in a hot spot.

Great post. I basically agree with every word of that.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Great post. I basically agree with every word of that.

If you agree with number 10, you aren't non-interventionist either. Non-interventionism holds that the only legal use of the military is in defense of your own country.