The Neocons Lose Their S*** Over Rand Paul

[jct74]

The Neocons Lose Their $#@! Over Rand Paul

by Andrew Sullivan
APR 15 2014 @ 4:35PM

And so we begin to get into – finally! – a real debate about foreign policy within the GOP. With Ron Paul, the neocon stranglehold on Republican foreign policy was easily maintained. With Rand Paul? Not so much. And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin. Bret Stephens is a very gifted writer, and his cri de coeur today is quite something.

So let me concede up-front: I fully agree with Stephens that Paul’s theory that Dick Cheney decided to invade Iraq in order to burnish the bottom line of Halliburton is foolish as well as stupid. Occam’s razor does all the work. We know that in the wake of 9/11, Cheney panicked. He was terrified of another attack and his fetid imagination ran wild. One way in which he could manage to recover was by seizing the initiative – and Iraq was sitting right there, as it had been for years. Along with instituting torture – another panic move – Cheney’s pursuit of war needed no underhand motive. And it is asinine and completely fruitless to make unprovable slurs.

But on containing Iran’s potential nuclear capacity? Paul is perfectly sane, and in line with US strategy against far more formidable nuclear adversaries during the Cold War. If he is completely out of the mainstream so was George Kennan and every president from Truman to Reagan. To describe the strategy that won the Cold War as somehow extremist is simply bizarre. Here’s Paul’s basic position:

...

read more:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...ver-rand-paul/

[Brett85]

The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.

The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

He takes the very reasonable position that we should save our missiles and use them against someone who actually attacks us. Is that not enough to make a neocon's blood boil?

People like Rand Paul could take all the fun out of owning Raytheon stock. Can't have that.

[thoughtomator]

The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

As Ron explained in his reasons for not cutting all entitlements off immediately, the transition is a lot smoother when you do it bit by bit. Same applies to foreign policy, the Empire is not going to be reversed overnight.

[TheGrinch]

Occam’s razor does all the work

Indeed it does. Cheney profited directly from the war effort.

I can't stand people trying to use that damn razor to try to explain human behavior, where the simplest explanation is never the one that accounts for alterior motives from complex beings who do not simply operate like simple animals, but instead as rational actors with differing interests.... But to use it to come to an equally unprovable conclusion? Piss poor logic on display there.

They fabricated lies to go to war, Cheney profitted. Why should I give a damn if their intentions were "noble" (not that I think that going to war and killing millions, leaving behind a radiation-filled hell-hole is ever moral, but when based on lies to go to it needlessly, there is no possible moral justification).

[Brett85]

As Ron explained in his reasons for not cutting all entitlements off immediately, the transition is a lot smoother when you do it bit by bit. Same applies to foreign policy, the Empire is not going to be reversed overnight.

I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

[Occam's Banana]

I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

They don't have to be the same in order to terrify the neocons. They just have to be "not neoconnish" ...

[TheGrinch]

They don't have to be the same in order to terrify the neocons. They just have to be "not neoconnish" ...

Exactly, that and they're terrified that his principles can't be bought off, even if he is playing the game or willing to make compromises for other reasons besides self-benefit.

They know that rhetoric is shallow. What they're concerned about is that even though his rhetoric might be as moderate as pre-9/11 Bush, they'll get completely oopposite results when they start beating the wardrum.

People always want to point to political differences, while not realizing that the establishment's biggest fear about Rand is the same they had with Ron. He can't be bought off (as far as we and probably they can tell). Rhetoric doesn't matter if they know the person doesn't have integrity. That's what scares the $#@! out of them about Rand, IMO, is he does.

[thoughtomator]

I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

Either one spells the end of their dreams of global domination - under their benevolent control, of course.

[ObiRandKenobi]

uh for like 12 years a bunch of liberals screamed halliburton conspiracy and iraq. only now that there's video of rand implying it does he see fit to denounce this as "dumb"

the last decade oh that's cool

[supermario21]

I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

I think it's because they view Rand as much more of a threat to win the nomination. And Ron's views are becoming more prominent within the GOP, so they're doing everything they can to destroy even a foreign policy moderate.

[Brian4Liberty]

So let me concede up-front: I fully agree with Stephens that Paul’s theory that Dick Cheney decided to invade Iraq in order to burnish the bottom line of Halliburton is foolish as well as stupid. Occam’s razor does all the work. We know that in the wake of 9/11, Cheney panicked. He was terrified of another attack and his fetid imagination ran wild. One way in which he could manage to recover was by seizing the initiative – and Iraq was sitting right there, as it had been for years. Along with instituting torture – another panic move – Cheney’s pursuit of war needed no underhand motive. And it is asinine and completely fruitless to make unprovable slurs.

Let me concede this upfront, that Andrew Sullivan is being a moronic simpleton, if he insists on taking complex situations with multiple motivations, and attacking all but his one, single, preferred explanation. Perhaps one motivation and one single idea is all that his brain can comprehend at one time? Perhaps he thinks that Cheney is only capable of one thought (or motivation) at a time?

Everything is a nail to a hammer, and Cheney was CEO of Hammerburton Inc.

[anaconda]

When I click to the article it doesn't actually say who wrote it. Is it, in fact, Andrew Sullivan?

[anaconda]

Jennifer Rubin is completely unhinged and writes like a high schooler at best. Go visit her site and see just how many hit pieces she writes on Rand. I think she may have some mental issues. I think it's possible.

[Dianne]

Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.



He takes the very reasonable position that we should save our missiles and use them against someone who actually attacks us. Is that not enough to make a neocon's blood boil?

People like Rand Paul could take all the fun out of owning Raytheon stock. Can't have that.

In a fair and honest republic, Cheney should locked up for the rest of his life, and the IRS should be sending his bimbo daughter bills for his tax evasion... Not in a perfect world, so all we can do is pray that Lord Jesus himself will strike that bastard from this world.

[Inkblots]

When I click to the article it doesn't actually say who wrote it. Is it, in fact, Andrew Sullivan?

He's long been criticized for not using bylines for that very reason. I seem to recall a scandal a few years back regarding his assistants writing posts that people presumed were his work. I think that was maybe why he was kicked off the Atlantic?

[amy31416]

Let me concede this upfront, that Andrew Sullivan is being a moronic simpleton, if he insists on taking complex situations with multiple motivations, and attacking all but his one, single, preferred explanation. Perhaps one motivation and one single idea is all that his brain can comprehend at one time? Perhaps he thinks that Cheney is only capable of one thought (or motivation) at a time?

Everything is a nail to a hammer, and Cheney was CEO of Hammerburton Inc.

Well, whoever wrote this must also not be familiar with PNAC and Cheney's involvement in it. He had multiple reasons to invade Iraq, all of them beneficial to himself and his family/friends/power aspirations/bottom line.

[T.hill]

I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

[T.hill]

Rand identifies himself as a realist, he's really a defensive-realist, which by itself is already similar to non-interventionism. His unique variation of defensive-realism is essentially pragmatic non-interventionism.

[Brett85]

I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

I would call it selective intervention or limited intervention. It's better than the full fledged intervention that the Republican establishment supports.

[jtstellar]

I would call it selective intervention or limited intervention. It's better than the full fledged intervention that the Republican establishment supports.

and whose internal political affairs has he proposed to selectively intervene

[Brett85]

and whose internal political affairs has he proposed to selectively intervene

Iran and other countries. I view sanctions as a form of intervention.

[anaconda]

He's long been criticized for not using bylines for that very reason. I seem to recall a scandal a few years back regarding his assistants writing posts that people presumed were his work. I think that was maybe why he was kicked off the Atlantic?

Interesting. Good to know.

[LibertyEagle]

I totally agree with everyone who said Sullivan was naive, to put it nicely, about what he said about Cheney, but in my opinion, it would be a big mistake for us to focus on that issue when we comment about this article around the net. The big thing is about the neocons hating anyone that they believe will slow down their effort for more war. I think that because it would be too easy to get drawn off into discussions about 9-11 and helping the naysayers hang some unneeded garbage around Rand's neck, by association. You know how they work.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

If you look at the major FP views moving from left to right it looks like this:

Imperialism --> Wilsonian --> Hamiltonian --> Jacksonian --> Jeffersonian --> Isolationism

Hitler & Stalin were imperialists. Switzerland & N Korea are the closest we have to isolationism today.

Ron was a classic example of a Jeffersonian, Rand is just to the left of him straddling the Jacksonian & Jeffersonian positions depending on the issue (as Rand says he is a realist on FP). Neo-cons are Wilsonian by definition which is far to the left on the spectrum from Rand, which is why they have so many problems with him.

[Vanguard101]

I'm pretty sure Rand and Ron's foreign policy are the same. The only difference is Rand's policy is what actually could happen and Ron's is something that would take decades or it doesn't occur.

[Cutlerzzz]

Neither North Korea nor Switzerland are close to isolationist. Switzerland trades with virtually everyone and is very influential in-spite of its size. North Korea is one of the most aggressive states in the world and doesn't directly intervene elsewhere anymore because they are boxed in by far more powerful states.

[Victor Grey]

I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

I find that non-interventionism is the practical approach in most all cases.

In ways, neoconservatives are less intelligent in their approach, than even history's largest expansive empires.
Hell even the Romans knew that if two sides who aren't your friends are fighting one another, you don't go into it until one wins.
Modern neocons lived back then, they'd of saw the Numidians, mercenaries, and Hannibal's family fighting, and somehow arrive to a demand to save Carthage.

Look at how they clamored for intervention in Syria.

But that isn't the real goal for them. It isn't practicality. A large faction of Neocons, right alongside fellow factions of these modern versions of simple shield biting barbarians desperate for fight, and a group of cowards fearful of everything, aren't "pro-america" as much they are pro making money from war; period.

[Brian4Liberty]

I totally agree with everyone who said Sullivan was naive, to put it nicely, about what he said about Cheney, but in my opinion, it would be a big mistake for us to focus on that issue when we comment about this article around the net. The big thing is about the neocons hating anyone that they believe will slow down their effort for more war. I think that because it would be too easy to get drawn off into discussions about 9-11 and helping the naysayers hang some unneeded garbage around Rand's neck, by association. You know how they work.

Yeah, I was hesitant to call out Sullivan for that, as it wasn't really the main point of the article. It seemed to be thrown in there as a peace offering to neoconservatives before some criticism. But an attack is an attack, and it deserved to be shown for it's lack of reasoning or common sense.

The article itself was more about identifying some of the usual neoconservative media operatives, and their constant (costly and erroneous) war mongering agenda: "And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin."

[Superfly]

Yeah, I was hesitant to call out Sullivan for that, as it wasn't really the main point of the article. It seemed to be thrown in there as a peace offering to neoconservatives before some criticism. But an attack is an attack, and it deserved to be shown for it's lack of reasoning or common sense.

The article itself was more about identifying some of the usual neoconservative media operatives, and their constant (costly and erroneous) war mongering agenda: "And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin."

I agree with this. The Iraq War would not have been any better had Cheney's motives been pure...the point is that it was a disastrous war that cost many times more than we were told it would, left the region less stable than before, and gave Al-Queda a stronger foothold in Iraq than at any time before.

To point out these factual issues is to stir up the beehive of war hysteria among the Neocons. The criticism of Rand over his Cheney comments are only a smokescreen to distract from the real arguments to be had; mainly that an aggressive foreign policy is a terrible, terrible thing and there are countless examples of that being the case. Cheney could have been as pure as the fresh winter's snow and the Neocons would have just attacked Rand for something else relating to his comments. God forbid they address that actual issues without throwing in the easy (and stupid) buzzword of "isolationism".