Rand Paul

Right-Wing Consensus Won't Let You Forget: Rand Paul Might Not Be as Warry as You'd Like!

|

Readers of Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, be ready for a lot of repetition of this point as the 2016 election season dawns: Hey Republicans! Even Hillary is more ready to start a war than this Rand Paul guy! Don't vote for him, because we all know that getting into more wars is what America needs to stay strong, or "protect our interests" or something, we'll figure it out!

Excerpts:

[Rand Paul] has gone far to the left of Clinton and even Obama on a number of issues. He advocated in a detailed budget proposal eliminating all foreign aid, including aid to Israel. He claimed that we had no dog in the fight in Iraq and that any action there would be helping terrorists. (Later he said he'd favor aid to Iraq, but it's not clear why we should if he believed we had no interest in Iraq. By the way, his no-foreign-aid pledge would have made this impossible.) He wanted to go much further than the Obama team in dismantling the National Security Agency surveillance program and compared the traitor Edward Snowden to Martin Luther King Jr. He opposes droning American jihadists overseas unless there is an imminent threat.

There is a reason that left-wing MSNBC commentators fawn over Paul on foreign policy. He offers a philosophy more in tune with their own philosophy than even Obama. He is now getting a taste of the criticism he will face not only from hawkish opponents and pundits, but also from ordinary voters and grass-roots activists in early primary states. 

Hillary expounds on how much tougher she is than Obama, as related in New York Times today.

While I like to believe in our hoary self-congratulatory myth that we as American people are a pacific and kindly folk, content to lie low until struck, I think history shows that when the federal government decides it really wants war, it's pretty good at convincing the rest of us to go along, at least long enough to get started, and then what? Cut and run?? I wrote last year on the frequent irrelevance of public opinion to the start of wars.

At least a Reason-Rupe Poll found 58 percent not yearning for war in the Ukraine on our part in April. But remember it took well over a year for half of those polled by Gallup to turn on the Iraq War.

But I'd like to believe that voters don't need their candidates nationally to be fully supportive of our complicated and deep financing of bloody chaos in Israel/Gaza or waging war to try to stanch the problems we generated last time we waged war in Iraq. But Jennifer Rubin may understand her audience all too well.

Previous blogging from April of this year and March of last year on Rand Paul's potential problems selling his foreign policy to the GOP base, to America, and even to libertarians if he slips too far from Ron Paul's impassioned non-interventionism.

Advertisement

NEXT: Obamacare Poised to Make Tax Time Even More Complicated

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.

  1. I watch MSNBC a lot and I have not seen any fawning over Rand Paul about anything. There was this time he was asked a question about his political beliefs, an incident he is continuing to whine about to this day.

    1. MSNBC is like The Highlander of doe eyed fawning over a political Messiah that long ago crossed over the line into religious zealotry.

      For MSNBC There Can Be Only One.

    2. Whew! I can continue to hold MSNBC in the same regard that I hold Fox News and CNN.

      Thanks tons Tony! You’re a lifesaver.

      1. False equivalence is the last refuge of the cable news pundit, so, irony.

        1. Someone mocked Tonys favorite cable shows!
          Even as a parody, you’re lame.

          1. You sit down and you watch Rachel Maddow for a week and see if you don’t gain a few IQ points. If you refuse because of stuff you heard about her, then shut up.

            I sit through Hannity on occasion even though I have to have a puke bucket next to me and a handful of ibuprofen, so you can do that much.

            1. Tony|8.11.14 @ 5:33PM|#
              “You sit down and you watch Rachel Maddow for a week and see if you don’t gain a few IQ points”

              A monkey might. You might.
              I wouldn’t.

              1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

                1. Yes we do Tony. We’ve listened to the fat obnoxious bitch or read her. We know she appeals to simpletons like you.

            2. Ah, Rachel Maddow, who thinks Hoover Dam is an example of what government can do.

              Hannity is not the brightest of pundits, but the thing is, political beliefs don’t map to IQ with any consistency. There are smart and dumb people on all sides. In fact, intelligence can actually lead people to adopt and defend ideologies far more absurd than what any “dumb” person who believe.

              1. Exactly, people often think “I’m intelligent, therefore I’m right on my political beliefs.” Or, more specifically, “i’m successful in my career in X, therefore my politics are right.” Very dangerous thinking.

              2. Yes, but what about the Apollo program?

                Just think of how many monuments to national pride we might have if only we shunted a little more of our resources to worthy causes like shooting rockets beyond the atmosphere or damming the Mississippi.

            3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emyi2HgyxpM

              I beg to differ. This is elementary school level knowledge. And of course it’s been passed off as a “gaffe”.

              That’s just one instance of many, though.

              1. Boehner still quoted the wrong document.

                1. Obama thinks Austrian is a language.

    3. Tony, I’d think you’d see a lot to support in Paul. I think he’s the best chance in a long time, if ever, of seeing some of the things my liberal profs say they support, such as ratcheting down the WOD, clemency reforms, addressing sexual assault in the military, and ending our militaristic belligerency around the world.

      1. addressing sexual assault in the military

        [citation required] for the sexual assault in the military.

          1. It’s Bullshit!

            Here’s what it adds up to: All in all, the rate of sexual assault in the military doesn’t appear significantly higher than the rate in the broader civilian population — and when you look at college campuses, which, like the military, are full of 17- to 24-year-olds, the military’s sexual assault rates start looking low in comparison. The New York Times may be right to assert that the military has an “entrenched culture of sexual violence,” but it would be more accurate to observe that the United States as a whole is characterized by an entrenched culture of sexual violence. Macho traditions notwithstanding, the military appears to have done a better job than most colleges of reducing the sexual assault rate and increasing women’s willingness to report assaults to the authorities.

            1. Yet another example of progressive “solutions”: insist that more women be mixed in with a bunch of young male soldiers, and then get freaked out when nature takes its course. Something Must Be Done!

              1. I didn’t have any problem serving with women. But saying the military has a “rape problem” is utter bullshit. The facts don’t bear out the claim.

              2. and then get freaked out when nature takes its course

                I’m hoping you weren’t serious about that part. Even if there is some instinct to rape (and I’m not saying there is), human beings are able to make judgments based on morality, not pure animal instinct.

                1. LynchPin, I was not excusing rape. I am referring more to the sexual hijinks that people that age tend to get into, much of which used to be considered “courting” but which now counts as “sexual harassment.” (Ray Bradbury once said “‘Sexual harassment’? I sexually harassed my wife until she agreed to marry me.”)

            2. And most of them were probably asking for it. I mean those uniforms!

            3. The military is a tightly-controlled top-down organization that is supposed to have discipline and camaraderie, and is composed of people who are paid to be there and paid to adhere to the organization’s rules. College is a random collection of individuals who are loosely affiliated with each other and only have the slightest semblance of organization. Comparing the two is a fallacy. The military should have a sexual assault rate of zero.

              1. The military should have a sexual assault rate of zero.

                Meanwhile, back in the real world……

                1. This is the exact same shit Tony does when his fallacies are pointed out. “That only works in libertarian fantasyland.”

                  1. This is the exact same shit Tony does when his fallacies are pointed out. “That only works in libertarian fantasyland.”

                    Dude, you just postulated that a population of hundreds of thousands of human beings should be free of rape.

                    That might be the most fantastic and utopian thing I’ve ever seen.

              2. Everything should have a sexual assault rate of 0.

                1. Ideally yes, but in the military that should be easier to achieve.

              3. The military should have a sexual assault rate of zero.

                Yeah, okay.

                It should have a murder rate of zero, an assault rate of zero, a robbery rate of zero, a suicide rate of zero…

                I guess you think military training turns 17-24 year olds from people into automatons?

                I like you Brandon, but that wasn’t well thought out.

                1. I’m not saying it’s likely to ever happen, but the military is supposed to be more disciplined and unified than society at large. Therefore it should have, internally at the very least, a significantly lower crime rate than society at large. That’s the only supposed advantage of top-down control.

                  1. but the military is supposed to be more disciplined and unified than society at large. Therefore it should have, internally at the very least, a significantly lower crime rate than society at large.

                    And it does. It’s 17-24 year olds have the same rape rates as the whole of society and significantly less than other 17-24 year olds.

                    Do you have ANY IDEA how much time and money the military is throwing at a solution to a NON-ISSUE?

      2. She’s a Democrat, he’s not. That’s all that matters.

      3. I support many of the things he supports but not for precisely the same reasons. Obviously I’m going to stick with liberals since I share their positions on the other stuff too. Should I be more tolerant of him than a standard-issue statist Republican? Maybe. But as David Frum said, Republicans are all becoming like libertarians except in the good ways. One suspects that the loony-tunes and potentially massively destructive economic silliness they share is a higher priority than the drug war.

        1. I can’t see anything moving on those issues from anyone else in the field, and I bet that what you call ‘potentially massively destructive economic silliness’ is a. (sadly from my point of view, happily for you) not going to be enacted to a large degree and is b. going to be pushed by someone else anyway.

          1. Well, for one thing presidents don’t make policy. If they did I assure you we’d see movement on all of those issues to a much greater degree under Obama. President Paul will have to contend with the Congress we give him just like Obama. I think the opposite is true: assuming a Republican Congress (and you’d have to if he actually managed to get elected), they’d voucherize the safety net as soon as they possibly could and would probably never get around to the NSA and drug stuff.

            I am increasingly less thrilled with President Hillary, as it happens. She seems to be stuck on “tough on ___” mode.

            1. Well, for one thing presidents don’t make policy.

              That’s pretty rich, coming from someone who has spent years around here blaming Bush for all and sundry.

              1. I use him as a stand-in for Republican policy from 2000-2008. Though he (more accurately Cheney) did have Congress by the nuts when it came to foreign policy.

                1. Though he (more accurately Cheney) did have Congress by the nuts when it came to foreign policy.

                  How can the (Vice) President have Congress “by the balls” over foreign policy when the Departments of State and Defense are funded through Congressional appropriations?

                  If Congress disagreed with the (Vice) President’s direction for the foreign policy of the United States, it could simply stop paying for it.

                  Also, Congress has control over who holds the offices of Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Ambassador to foreign countries.

                  There is really very little the President can do with regard to foreign policy if the Congress is in actual, as opposed to pretend, disagreement.

                2. So why do you whine when people use Obama as a placeholder for Democratic policy?

                  When it’s “your team” you are against it?

        2. What has any Democrat really done for you lately?

          Continuing the War on Drugs. Check.
          Foreign Adventurism and putting our dicks in places it doesn’t belong. Check.
          Continuing and defending “enhanced interrogation methods”. Check.
          Paying lip service to marriage equality. Check.
          Bailing out Banks/Wall Street. Check.

          Face it Tony, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

          1. They’ve shown complete deference to the power of The State and Society. This is all that matters to Toney.

            1. And their hearts are in the right place! They mean well! Unlike the Republicans and conservatives and libertarians who want to kill the poor and destroy the Earth itself.

      1. Surprisingly coherent commentary for MSNBC.

  2. While I don’t think the alternative is a given, it isn’t at all clear to me that the Republican base will inevitably side with Rubin over Paul. My impression is that she’s been inviting a lot of eye rolling amongst conservatives for a while now. And the thing is, it’s getting increasingly easy to paint the neocons into a corner. At some point, you start to lose credibility on national security and foreign policy if your answer to every question is “We need more war!”. Paul isn’t really wildly outside of the mainstream Republican tradition on where he stands. It’s just the neocons have gone so far overboard that it looks relatively non-interventionist.

    1. Ding, ding, ding…we have a winner!

      The neocons are rightfully scared shitless. And pointing out how they blundered into, count em, not one, but TWO unwinnable wars in the last 13 years, won’t make their case any better.

      America, and even conservatives, are fucking sick to death of war. This strategy is going to backfire on the baby killing neos.

      1. This strategy is going to backfire on the baby killing neos.

        I wonder if there are any branches of government which draw the most of these?

      2. And pointing out how they blundered into, count em, not one, but TWO unwinnable wars in the last 13 years, won’t make their case any better.

        Well, at this point, they’d trash the Powell Doctrine – that the U.S. should only intervene military when it is willing to employ overwhelming force with a specific objective and specific exit strategy – as “too dovish for Hillary Clinton”. I’d love to see their heads explode when it was revealed as the policy supported by St. Ronnie.

      3. War will have nothing to do with why the Republican base ultimately rejects Paul. It will be because they think he’ll be in favor of “amnesty” of some sort. Every time I’m cruising a right side blog and his name comes up it seems otherwise favorable impressions of him start to devolve beginning exactly at that point.

        1. That’s because you’ve been, well, your name. The anti-paul brigades are using immigration and border policy as a wedge against Paul.

        2. I would LOVE, just one republican to give me an economically feasible solution that doesn’t involve amnesty.

          Do “small government” republicans have any concept of what it would cost to round up and deport 15 million people?

          TRILLIONS!

          1. That’s because they are taking our jerbs, sending millions back home to their families, draining our tax dollars by being on welfare and sending their kids to public schools (ignore inherent contradictions in there). /the base

          2. What determines feasible? Amnesty costs money as well, so one (I’m not a voter but I’ll pretend just for fun) could easily say deport ones caught at the border but don’t “round them up”, that’s feasible dollars to dollars.

            1. No it doesn’t and no it isn’t. We already spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars indulging conservative hysteria over furriners. No more.

              1. Is this a satire? There isn’t an ounce of paperwork involved in amnesty?

                1. Less than not amnesty.

                  1. I’m glad you’re coming around.

          3. Do “small government” republicans have any concept of what it would cost to round up and deport 15 million people?

            First of all, subtract the billions we currently spend on illegals. You stop giving welfare. As for deportations, you don’t have to do everyone at once. You secure the border, to stop adding to the problem. You deport the criminals. You enforce the employment laws. You end all federal aid to “sanctuary cities.” Eventually, the problem might decrease.

            If not, say goodbye to any libertarian hopes in the USA. If you don’t understand what I mean, find a libertarian in Mexico or Honduras or Guatemala (if you can) and ask him how receptive the voters there are to the libertarian point of view, compared to the socialist point of view.

        3. This, but the polls put Rand at No. 1 anyways. Remember the bordertards couldn’t even hold onto the Texas state GOP. They are a loud stupid constituency and I expect most of them will fall in line in the event Rand gets the nom.

      4. I think I would put that number up to five or six unwinnable wars.

        Libya, Egypt, two or three Iraq wars and Syria.

        Admittedly Syria and the latest Iraq war is kind of blurring but it did not start out that way…and ISIS would appear to have two or three fronts against two or three distinct enemies.

        Oh yeah and the Ukraine war. We should at some point start admitting that we are supporting the new Ukraine fascist government against the old Ukraine fascist government.

        1. we are supporting the new Ukraine fascist government

          Yeah but what about the real world Corning? You know, not your Rockwellian delusions.

        2. and ISIS would appear to have two or three fronts against two or three distinct enemies.

          Actually I never thought of this before…but ISIS is probably fucked.

          If the Kurds, Shia Iraqis and Assad actually started talking…

          If I was a leader in one of those factions i know I would be talking to the other two and once we figured out how we were going to divide the middle of Iraq up between us on a map I would then be talking to Russia and or China and or Iran for military equipment.

          The US is probably the biggest impediment to the destruction of ISIS.

          1. ISIS is probably fucked.

            Absolutely. They have lots of money and equipment but too few members and too many enemies. The ‘White Shroud’ Movement is creating trouble in their territory. More importantly, they lost their biggest ally: the Syrian government. It was the Syrian government that basically allowed ISIS to form in the first place. That’s gotten out of control now.

  3. He advocated in a detailed budget proposal eliminating all foreign aid, including aid to Israel.

    He has my vote.

    Israel is the only country i can think of that isn’t such a shit pile that giving them aid might not be so bad…

    Of course Israel is rich enough that it doesn’t even need the aid and would be better served, politically, militarily and economically by not taking it

    1. “Israel is the only country i can think of that isn’t such a shit pile that giving them aid might not be so bad…”

      I’m curious why you would say that.

      1. Just roll with it, Bo. Normal rules don’t apply to Israel. Never have, never will.

        1. You’re right. Israel gets ridiculous rules where it is not allowed to defend itself. Thankfully, it is mostly ignoring these ‘rules’.

      2. They are a democracy that does sort of protect their peoples rights and are a Military ally and somewhat open trade partner with the US.

        Can’t say the same for say Egypt.

        1. Some of “their” people, Josh, some…

          1. Yeah some.

            The US unjustly does not extend rights to all its people either.

            I am just pointing out a fact. Not advocating for it. I wish it was all both in Israel and in the US, hell the whole fucking world.

            Also for trying to find some stupid little crack in my semantics so you can wiggle in your little bullshit identity politics in an attempt to frame me you can go fuck yourself. Seriously Tonio, eat shit and die.

          2. Nope. All of their people.

        2. Paul introduced legislation to end aid to Egypt (Isreali aid would have continued) and AIPAC came out strongly against it.

          1. That’s because foreign aid to Egypt is the cornerstone of the 2nd framework of the Camp David Accords. Without that, Egypt would have no reason to honor the peace negotiated by the accords. Now, it is perfectly acceptable to ask why that is America’s problem, but AIPAC’s stance is not due to some murky Illumanti-Lizard People plot.

            1. Uh huh. So let Egypt start another war over it and get their ass kicked again.

              1. Actually, I think the Egyptians are smarter than that. The coup gained support from the man on the street after Morsi made some noises about breaking the accords to begin with. Egyptians are not Palestinians and saw no reason to martyr themselves so Morsi could get some jihadi cred.

                1. Hopefully Paul gets the nod so we can see how well “Even though we are $17 trillion in debt, we must continue to fund our enemies, because we promised to 50 years ago” plays with the man on the street.

            2. *Without that, Egypt would have no reason to honor the peace negotiated by the accords. *

              Yup, we are bribing the Egyptians and Israelis not to go to war against each other and have been for 30+ years. Ain’t life grand?

    2. Of course Israel is rich enough that it doesn’t even need the aid and would be better served, politically, militarily and economically by not taking it

      Then why do they take it? Granted, if somebody just shoved 100 bucks in my hand, I’d take it; however, as you point out there are greater strategic reasons for not accepting foreign aid.

      1. Then why do they take it?

        Bureaucratic inertia? It takes awhile for a new policy framework, especially one that could imply a more aggressive posture, to become the standard outlook.

      2. Then why do they take it?

        Things that are bad yet politicians support them:

        -Min wage
        -Drug war
        -middle class entitlements
        -Imp-Exp bank and other mega-corporate entitlements
        – 107% debt vs GDP ratio
        -bombing shit to say we are doing something.

        Why does Israel or any government do things that hurt it? Fuck if I know.

        1. The aid is good for Israelo pols and bad for Israel.

  4. There have been quite a few red team hacks showing up at Instapundit lately spreading absolute nonsense about libertarians.

    1. Nobody reads Instapundit comments.

      1. I do, and comment sometimes as well. I usually get “Likes.”

        1. I was speaking to the ratio of blog readership(daily for me since 9/11/01) to the number of comments.

          1. They require registration for not just commenting but “liking.” I think if they took “likes” without registering, comments would have scores, if not hundreds, of likes. As it is, I’m sure the comments get thousands of readers.

    2. That’s a sign that they’re scared enough to take us seriously. Which is a good thing. But we can’t be complacent, we have to engage them and educate people (not the comment trolls, but the readers).

  5. I would love to see a Presidential election campaign being fought for the high ground of “Least likely to start a war, for reals.”

  6. Jesus fucking Christ, Jenny! For once…just one fucking time, can you not be the stereotype of the blood-thirsty neoconservative made manifest into flesh?

    1. “You knew I was poison when you picked me up.”

  7. Why then does Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) think the Republican Party will accept positions that even Hillary Clinton can’t stomach?

    I had to puzzle about that one for a minute before I realized that what she’s saying is that a substantial portion of the GOP would sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than Rand Paul. And she’s right.

    But a less cynical person than I might not think it at all odd to suggest that the GOP would accept positions that Hillary Clinton can’t stomach – it’s sort of the reason Clinton is a Democrat and most Republicans are not.

    1. GOP for Hillary (over Rand P) is insignificant outside the media and DC.

  8. If you read Rubin regularly it becomes clear that her main issue is Israel, and she has it out for Paul because he has dared question whether such a well off nation needs us to keep sending them billion dollar checks.

    Expect to see a lot of that as the GOP primaries come closer, as neocons try to sell to the evangelicals that their Biblical duty to support Israel is being threatened by Paul.

    1. Yep, that will definitely be a coming thing. Right-wing FEELZ.

      1. Though I’d exempt “Biblical” and insert “Tribal” or “Moral” though for a minority it is justified through a warped religious mentality. For most it’s just a proxy for anti-Islamic feeling.

        1. No, DwT, the end-times Christians support Israel to the death because they need the jews to rebuild their temple which is a prerequisite for the second coming. Srsly. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass for the jews (most of ’em), but they need Israel.

          1. I know. This falls under the “warped religious” exception. End-timers of all varieties (religious or otherwise) have got to be the creepiest fucking type of people on Earth.

    2. Now, Bo, you’re just being paranoid and anti-semitic. Remember, there is no Israel lobby.

  9. He opposes droning American jihadists overseas unless there is an imminent threat.

    Hahahaha, what the fuck? That’s how she ends her list of criticisms?

    “Get this, he only wants to kill American citizens if they pose an imminent threat!

  10. He opposes droning American jihadists overseas unless there is an imminent threat.

    It takes a special kind of idiot to say this as if it were a bad thing.

    1. And there are millions of them.

  11. I dont know who the GOP thinks they are appealing to, because the contingent that is hoping for a more ‘warlike’ president is so small as to be politically insignificant.

    if anything, they make him look better.

    they’d be better off calling him a Mexican-Loving Traitor who has ‘weird’ libertarian ideas about letting convicts vote, or something, if they wanted to scare people off of him.

    1. It seems to me that both major parties, in a very real sense, unduly cater to small minorities within their parties. Sometimes to such an extent that their platforms crap on the majority of voters in each.

      1. Which really makes one wonder why the majority keeps supporting either of them.

        1. Because the other lizard might win.

          1. Exactly.

            its always, “what’s worse about the other guy” – and its usually an amorphous ‘cultural’ thing, not specific policy.

            This “War on Women” horseshit is exactly that.

            1. What has long struck me as odd is that a lot of those issues actually aren’t much affected by who holds national office. I mean, the GOP controlled all three branches for six years (recently, I mean), and yet we still have legal abortion, evolution taught in schools, welfare programs galore, and whatever other bullshit they’re supposedly dying to impose on/take away from the country.

              From where I’m sitting, the only reasons I slightly favor the GOP over the Democrats are (1) they’re not calling all of the shots right now, (2) there are at least some libertarians in the GOP, and (3) they want to drive off the cliff less quickly than the Democrats do.

              1. The GOP is better on guns and the internet and hydrocarbon stuffs.

              2. The most important reason to support republicans over democrats is that the press will hold republicans accountable.

      2. /marks calender “today ProL discovers politics”

        1. I didn’t mean to imply that this just occurred to me. I think that was back when I realized that the Moral Majority was neither.

          1. I didn’t think it did, but it just gave me various flashbacks to conversations with young people about politics when they stumble onto something that is glaringly obvious but outside of the typical red-blue groupthink and they act like it’s a revelation from the divine. 🙂

            1. One big revelation that I had relatively late (in my 20s, I mean) was that the U.S. government was designed to be very inefficient. I suppose I knew that by implication before then, but it was a moment I had while sitting on the Mall during a break during my fellowship. Working for the government may have had something to do with the epiphany.

              1. I had a great one at 16 when the police arrested me basically for being homeless, put me in detention for a month, and then released me back into the exact same circumstances without so much as a visit from a social worker. I also read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time that month.

                1. What’s a little odd for me is that I’ve been pretty libertarian for as long as I can remember having political views–there wasn’t really a moment where I considered myself as anything else. I thought right off the bat that the country was founded on libertarianism and couldn’t understand why we weren’t still there.

                  The big realization for me–but this was pretty early–was that neither major political party gave a shit for my views.

  12. It doesn’t matter whether you want war or not, if war wants you.

    Sometimes we have no national interests, and only humanitarian ones: Rwanda, Yugoslavia. (Oddly, it seems like the less national interest we have, the more Democrats believe we should intervene.) But now there are Islamic terrorists all over the world, interconnected and united in wanting to destroy Israel, the United States, and Western civilization as a whole. Pre-9/11, we were reactive and rather timid. Afterwards, we tried more proactive means (Iraq and Afghanistan), with mixed results.

    So, what to do now? I am sympathetic to the “fuck ’em all, withdraw” position, but frankly, it won’t work long term. Eventually Iran or IS gets a nuke and flattens NYC or DC or does an EMP attack and blacks out a third of the country for many months. Even if there are no major terror attacks, the jihadis will cause havoc, create millions of refugees, raise the price of oil, and otherwise make lives miserable for us and everybody else.

    Maybe there should be some sort of clear retaliation strategy, but it’s hard to formulate. We can’t just blow up a Muslim city every time one of ours gets blown up. Although it’s tempting to say that if a Muslim nuke goes off in the US, we turn Mecca into a glow-in-the-dark glass parking lot. I honestly don’t have a worked out, consistent plan for how to deal with Islamic terrorists, but I’m sure that ignoring them isn’t a good plan.

    1. (Oddly, it seems like the less national interest we have, the more Democrats believe we should intervene.)

      Absolutely. The Democrats are straight up Wilsonian in terms of their approach to foreign policy. They only intervene when they can play the paladin. Any hint of actual national interest is anathema to their interventionism.

      . Eventually Iran or IS gets a nuke and flattens NYC or DC or does an EMP attack and blacks out a third of the country for many months.

      Dude, I love TEOTWAKI novels as much as the next guy, but get fucking real. Cave dwelling savages will not launch an EMP strike.

      Honestly, if they nuked DC, especially while Congress was in session, I’d have mixed feelings. Especially if the Skins were on the road that week.

      I honestly don’t have a worked out, consistent plan for how to deal with Islamic terrorists, but I’m sure that ignoring them isn’t a good plan.

      The answer is active vigilance of individual citizens. The answer is the return of the militia ethos. The government is always behind the curve.

      1. Really? Militia? That ain’t gonna cut it in the modern age.

        1. What level of carpet-bombing and genocide would you suggest is appropriate, Cyto?

          1. Stop dancing with yourself. Self-defense is never genocide.

        2. Really? Militia? That ain’t gonna cut it in the modern age.

          As an anti-terror measure, it’s literally the only thing that works. Terrorists don’t strike military bases or police stations. They go for soft targets. The solution is to get rid of soft targets.

          Government will not save us. We can save ourselves.

          1. A terrorist entity bombs a shopping mall. It is based out of Iran. Explain what the militia does from here.

            1. Bombs a shopping mall how?

              1. With their agents I would presume.

                1. You presume? It’s your silly hypothetical.

                  1. How else would they do it? That’s how terrorists tend to bomb things like oh the WTC. It’s not a silly hypothetical when it’s happened before.

                    1. I imagine that you have a more final solution in mind then?

          2. I suppose that armed citizens could have stopped 9/11, but they couldn’t have done much to prevent the London Tube bombings, the Madrid bombings, the Indonesian nightclub bombing, etc.

      2. I don’t expect the Taliban to launch an EMP strike, no. But Iran will soon be capable of it, and they are a big part of the worldwide radical Muslim movement (Shiite division).

    2. I’m wondering out loud here, but focusing solely on containment, might it not be easier if ISIS did actually carve out a state? Right now you’ve got dispersed, loosely affiliated zealots with nothing to lose. If they concentrate in one area and get some creature comforts for themselves, they might become easier to deal with.

      Iran is thorn in the world’s side, but they mostly have a regional focus. And I’m not that worried about them using a nuke against Israel, the U.S., or anyone.

      1. We did that with Iran and it failed they bombed tons of places.

      2. True, the “get them all in one place” idea has advantages. As long as you don’t care about the innocent people who live there, though. And there’s no guarantee that they’ll then get “easier to deal with”: the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Castro, and the Khmer Rouge certainly did not.

  13. These buys seem to know what the deal is.

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  14. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014…..r-to-isis/

    The greatest danger to libertarians is idiots like this pretending to be one of us.

    1. pjmedia? I don’t even want to know.

      1. I’ll summarize.

        “I’m a libertarian, and it’s none of our business, and I would donate to a mercenary army. Oh wait, but McCain and Lindsey Graham said it’s a real issue so now WAR WAR WAR. But I’m totes srslly a real libertarian guys.”

        1. I see that basically nothing is changed since I last put a toe in that swamp.

  15. Ruben and her neocon ilk are totally deluded if they think the GOP let alone the Merican public are on board with their ideas. NOBODY wants anything to do with The Great Push For Global Justice/World Police. Conservatives are at least as tired of it as anyone else and Rand is just the man to take advantage of this political climate. Not too warry like Hillary, not too peacenazi like his dad, but just right. Goldilocks warry.

  16. Libertarianism and non-interventionism should not translate to sticking our heads in the sand regarding objective threats to the lives and liberty of American citizens. The expressed intention to destroy the United States, to fly a black flag over the White House, coupled with a demonstrable capacity to act upon that intention, stands as a de facto declaration of war. And when war is declared upon you, you have to take it seriously.

    Nothing justifies another trillion-dollar war like some tough-talking teenaged Islamist on Youtube.

    Note that he wants to raise the black flag of Allah over the White House but not, say, the Riksdag. I wonder why?

    1. “I wonder why?”

      Because they correctly perceive America as a bulwark of the values and freedoms they hate.

      tough-talking teenaged Islamist on Youtube.

      Yeah, that OBL guy is just a loser right?

      BTW you conflated a trillion-dollar nation-building exercise with eliminating a terrorist group. An impressive 0/3.

      1. Yeah, that OBL guy is just a loser right?

        OBL’s rise was thanks to the CIA. How many more OBL’s do you support the U.S. creating?

  17. “compared the traitor Edward Snowden to Martin Luther King Jr.”

    I have a suggestion for Ms. Rubin: Why don’t you sodomize yourself with a chainsaw, you fucking bitch? I mean, bless your heart.

    How many constitutional abuses did Rubin expose? If she did (and let’s stipulate just for fun that she did), did she rely on whistleblowers? I know that Woodward and Bernstein relied on Mark Felt – is *he* a traitor? Unlike Snowden, Felt was convicted (in a separate case) of violating constitutional rights.

    So which is it, bitch, are you going to denounce Felt, the convicted constitutional-rights violator? Or are you going to suck the cocks of your journalistic colleagues and pretend “but this is *totally* different slurp slurp slurp.”

    Fuck you up the ass.

    1. *blinks*

      Eddie, is that you?

      1. OK, I’m better now.

        1. For a moment I thought you’d been a victim of identity theft.

    2. The Washington Post’s goal is to try and get us missing David Wiegel. Still not going to work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.