Obama Channeled Ron Paul Last Night (Kind of)

Credit: David Carlyon/wikimediaCredit: David Carlyon/wikimediaDuring the State of the Union address last night Obama said the following:

We must fight the battles that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us – large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism.

This doesn’t that much different from what has been said by the non-interventionist former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has pointed out that American foreign policy and diplomacy might have something to do with why the U.S., and not another country which allows for freedom of religion and women’s rights, is one of the primary targets of Islamic extremists.

During the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 Paul’s differences with most of the rest of his party when it came to foreign policy were highlighted by an exchange with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Watch that exchange below:

The main difference between what the president said last night and what Paul has argued is that Obama’s statement is understandably less definitive. Obama drew a comparatively weak causal relationship between “large-scale deployments” and “extremism” by saying that the former “may” lead to the latter.

It is ironic that it is Obama, who has overseen years of what is perhaps the most unpopular war in American history as commander in chief, is the one warning of the risks of large military deployments abroad. Around 37,500 American troops are in Afghanistan. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama could adopt the entire LP platform but as long as that(D) is by his name the Peanuts will hate him.

  • ||

    Sluuuuuurrrrrrp!

  • sarcasmic||

    And here I thought the only reason to hate Obama was racism. Did the narrative change?

  • Jeff||

    (D) is a dog whistle, just like "food stamps", "Chicago", "basketball", "golf", or "vacation".

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah, well I didn't hear it.

  • Jeff||

    Not hearing dog whistles is just the latest insidious evolution of the omnipresent and infinitely cunning racist. It is a method of claiming plausible deniability whenever a racial pipe bomb like "nanny state" or "debt" is thrown.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    If you hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Other than John, who is Team Red and doesn't count, I don't see any racism here - not that I look too closely.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    That must be why us "peanuts" hate Wyden so much.

  • Jeff||

    Yeah! We must fight the battles that need to be fought! Like Syria!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fake war - never happened.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But would have if Obama had his way.

  • Jeff||

    Only because Black Bush didn't get his way, not that that's stopped us from giving weapons to al-Qaeda there. Damn, we're smart!

  • Zeb||

    "Black Bush" would be great if it weren't already the name of a perfectly good Irish Whiskey. How about "half-white Bush"?

  • sarcasmic||

    Funny how Republicans turn into sniveling liberals on the subject of blow-back.

    "We never intended for there to be blow-back! How could our policies have resulted in blow-back? It wasn't our intention! Why do you hate the troops?!?"

  • Cytotoxic||

    Funny how some libertarians turn into environmentalists on 'blow-black', blaming everything on it when there's no evidence to do so and far more compelling explanations.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have no idea what that means. I don't speak Retard. Try English next time.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your wanton obtuseness is showing.

    Environmentalists blame everything on global warming with little or no evidence. Non-interventionists blame everything on blowback with little or no evidence.

  • sarcasmic||

    I could see you going around poking people in the chest, and then when someone decks you you react by shooting everyone you poked.

  • ||

    WAR BONERS don't stiffen themselves, sarc.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, that Danish cartoonist totally deserved the axe murderer AQ sent for him.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Because telling people what to do is obviously the best way to make friends.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not about friends.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It's about trading partners and leaving nations to choose their own paths.

  • Cytotoxic||

    who has pointed out that American foreign policy and diplomacy might have something to do with why the U.S., and not another country which allows for freedom of religion and women’s rights, is one of the primary targets of Islamic extremists.

    To the extent that Feeney and Ron Paul believe this is the extent that they are ignorant, dishonest, or both. Probably both since that is what is required of The Church of Nonintervention. I wouldn't be surprised if they were to state that Denmark and Israel don't allow for relgious or woman's rights.

    we must fight the battles that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us – large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism.

    This doesn’t that much different from what has been said by the non-interventionist former Texas Congressman Ron Paul

    And here we see more that dishonesty. They claim that they are only against massive deployments and vaguely allude to 'fighting battles that need to be fought'-but then bitch when those battles are fought via with drones, which are cheap and effective.

    Much like environmentalists claim that they are for 'sustainable' development but actually oppose all development, Feeney claims he is against 'bad' intervention when he blindly opposes all intervention. That is how The Faith works, and it's why Feeney is so boring.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    What's the point of lobbing those drones all over Afghanistan and Yemen?

  • Cytotoxic||

    To kill The Bad Guys. Worked great in Yemen and Somalia.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    So you don't mind using them drones on your bad guy neighbor either?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I see the Swiss getting attacked quite a bit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Switzerland =/= America. Somebody had to stand up to the USSR, someone else has to handle my future secret bank accounts.

  • Calidissident||

    Just because drones are cheap and "effective" doesn't mean that they are being used in a "battle that needs to be fought." Quite a leap in logic there.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I didn't say that. I said we were fighting a battle that needs to be fought with a cheap and effective tool. But I can see how my terse statement could mislead.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I said we were fighting a battle that needs to be fought with a cheap and effective tool.

    Because the Iraqis and the Taliban are streaming across our borders killing millions.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, the Taliban were sheltering people who killed thousands. And the Iraq situation was untenable.

    In any event, I was referring to the brilliant drone campaigns of Yemen and Somalia.

  • entropy_factor||

    Hello 2001, your useful idiot called....

    Yemen, successful?! like bombing a wedding party? Yeah, that wins friends and allies. Dude, as a person who fought these wars firsthand.... if you deny the effects of blowback, you have your head in the sand.

  • Zeb||

    Go ahead and make the argument that the fights are worth fighting. There is a legitimate debate to be had there. But to imagine that bombing various countries for years has no effect on the degree or prevalence of people who want to attack the US is ridiculous. Even the most just war ever will cause some blowback. To deny that is just idiotic.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It's not just the bombing. It's us telling sovereign nations what they may do in their own countries, because it might, someday, somehow, affect our security.

    I wish the idiots who support such actions would stop and reverse the scenario and ask themselves how we would react to France telling us we can't have nukes, or the GB telling us that they'll impose sanctions on us if we don't repeal the second amendment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    how we would react to France telling us we can't have nukes, or the GB telling us that they'll impose sanctions on us if we don't repeal the second amendment.

    I'd laugh.

    It's us telling sovereign nations what they may do in their own countries

    That has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. They are motivated by Islam.

    But to imagine that bombing various countries for years has no effect on the degree or prevalence of people who want to attack the US is ridiculous.

    America killed more in a month in Germany and Japan and no blowback.

  • creech||

    I don't get it Cytotoxic, are you denying blowback is never the cause?
    Didn't Osama himself say it was? Just because Guiliani is denier doesn't mean the rest of us should be.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You'd laugh? And when they imposed sanctions and organized their buddies in Europe to go along with them?

    Still laughing?

  • Invisible Finger||

    I don't recall Ron Paul telling Americans that buying government bonds is a good idea.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement