Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Will Putin Destroy Rand Paul?

March 4th, 2014 - 9:12 pm

putin_rand_paul_3-4-14-1

Being an early frontrunner for a presidential nomination is not always a good thing and Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged as much the other night on Greta Van Susteren’s show. He must have channeled his inner Nostradamus because not more than a day later a man named Putin made his move on Ukraine. He could end up Paul’s worst nightmare.

Now, many of us have been very attracted to Paul. His libertarian message seems, and indeed is, tailor-made for this era when the monumentally incompetent Barack Obama has exposed the farcical nature of big government almost as no one before him. Obamacare is a gift from God to the libertarian movement. It helped me — and I admit I was already primed — to take another step in that direction. That government is best, as the man said, that governs least.

And yet, if there is one caveat regarding libertarianism, it is that it must end at the water’s edge. The idea that the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei or his bearded “moderate” cohort Rohani, Dr. Ayman al-Zawhiri, Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Nasrallah, North Korea’s Kim Jung-un, China’s Xi Jiping or, yes, Vladimir Putin give a rat’s patootie whether the USA is libertarian, a “liberal” welfare state, or something in between is so absurd it doesn’t merit a microsecond of serious discussion. They only care how quickly they can destroy us or, at the very least, render us impotent and take over as much of the world as they possibly can, rendering America “a pitiful, helpless giant,” as we used to say in the sixties.

Bad guys are bad guys — and that’s about it.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Paulist/Libertarian foreign policy memes are not new to American history. It is as old as the Republic as the bicentennial of the War of 1812 should remind us. [The war cry was free trade and sailors rights!] You can't have free trade and sailors rights and isolation at the same time. Staying out of foreign conflicts and participation in the world economy are contradictory objectives. If you trade you will fight. The only way to keep out of foreign conflicts is nonintercourse. The hermit Republic can stay out of other people’s business. The "Yankee trader" cannot. So if Libertarians want to end US involvement in foreign conflicts they should step up to the plate and advocate a total ban on economic and political relations with nations outside of North American.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
"They only care how quickly they can destroy us or, at the very least, render us impotent and take over as much of the world as they possibly can, rendering America “a pitiful, helpless giant,” as we used to say in the sixties."

Well, this ain't the sixties and although what you say was substantially true then, it is now, to put it charitably, something of a red faced exaggeration, and I don't think many Americans will join you in your hysteria and decide to draft all men and women between the ages of 12 and 70 to meet the threat. Maybe McCain, but that's about it. Don't forget to write when you and McCain launch your preemptive strike on Russia before they destroy us all in our sleep after you practice by leading the "rebels" in Syria to their glorious victory there, of course.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
"We can’t be isolationists anymore, even if everybody in the country voted that way, closed the international airports and mothballed all the 747s. Isolationism isn’t happening. It’s naive nonsense."

If 'everybody' in the country voted to be "isolationist", which of course they are not, then that's what we would be and should be. We are not serfs and drones to any government. Nobody is calling to close the international airports and mothball all the 747s [and shut down Walmart for that matter]. That is just something that you made up out of straw, not naive nonsense as nobody wants to do that. Calling someone an "isolationist" is just twaddle, like calling someone a racist, it's just an attempt to paint those you don't like as something few if any are. Frankly, it's a far leftist technique. And, BTW, you should be reported to the ASPCS (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Straw). I don't think I have ever witnessed so much straw being abused so badly in my life.

So, what should a conservative foreign policy that is neither neoconservative, and I think they have caused quite enough damage already, nor what you paint as libertarian look like?

Although this doesn't describe exactly what it would look like, there once was a man who, as far as the use of our military, believed it should be guided by the following foreign policy principles and I don't think Putin would destroy him.

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (275)
All Comments   (275)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The basic problem with Senator Rand Paul is that his father is Congressman Ron Paul. Many of Ron Paul's supporters and many of his critics believe Ron Paul is a libertarian, well he isn't and what he actually is, is a social Darwinist. Social Darwinism is a precursor ideology to Nazism and something very nasty in its own right. The idea of supporting Rand Paul for President is utterly mad as he could be a good guy but on the other hand he could be a mini-me of his father and one would only be sure to find out after he was elected president. Supporting Rand Paul for President is like kicking a glass jar to check if it contains nitroglycerin
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do not automatically assign Ron Paul's dangerously insane foreign policy ideas to son Rand. Rand seems to have his head screwed on much straighter than his dad, and it's unfair to tar him just because his dad is a screwball. My gosh, that's the same as saying that Hillary is a sexual predator just because her husband is.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
" I do not automatically assign Ron Paul's dangerously insane foreign policy ideas to son Rand. Rand seems to have his head screwed on much straighter than his dad, and it's unfair to tar him just because his dad is a screwball. My gosh, that's the same as saying that Hillary is a sexual predator just because her husband is. ",.
elephant4life

How would you know when Rand Paul makes reasonable comments he has not decided to lie and that once he was elected President he would not be even more extreme in his posituons than his father?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks Roger for straightening out the idiot libertarians who would believe the obvious lie that war enriches the state like nothing else can, while impoverishing and enslaving its citizens. Lies, myths, superstitions, and propaganda have always been the tools of the warfare state. These tactics are used to keep citizens fired up and threatened, for without them the public would never acquiesce in the never-ending wars of conquest and imperialism that have long characterized the American state.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Rand Paul has a task before him that none of us could envy"

But if you have his aspirations, isn't this is a wonderful opportunity to accomplish the task?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Like Eisenhower, I want the U.S. to be strong enough to defend its national interests, but very selective about what those interests actually are.

The problem is that we've been doing just the opposite.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Awful!
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Straw man arguments? How about, "we're not isolationists, we're non-interventionists"? The latter may be a better definition, but the former is the traditional term, and a dead rose by any other name smells just as bad. Or how about "guilt by association" for a newsletter published for years with Ron Paul's name on it, which he stood behind?

Of all of the cheap, deceitful, lying politicians, Ron Paul is the overwhelming champion. He could give lessons to Obama. Anybody who listened to the second debate carefully could see that.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you, Roger, for a voice crying in the wilderness. America is once again entering a period of Isolation, and the voices pushing for it are coming as much from the Right as from the Left. It will end as it always does, with countless dead American boys (and maybe girls, this time). Or maybe it won't and the US will be a tribute-paying colony of some alliance of dictators.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can no longer say that a Rand Paul Presidency is more frightening than a Barry Soetoro Presidency, although it, and that, may yet come to pass. The problem with the Orthodox Isolationists is that they truly believe that an America minding its business, tucked between the oceans like an island with a pituitary condition, will indeed cause harmony to burst out in Ho Chi Minh City, and angels to rise above the Balkans. Bless their hearts, sort of. And there is an element of self-hatred in their logic, combined as ever with the necessary enterprise of finding the ones who 'force' America into intervention, the ones without whom sanity would prevail, and Putin go back to growing cabbage and piping Shostakovich into his KGB brain while he works out with a team of brown bears.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
(It's the Joos), saith Ron of Paul. Cue Charles Lindbergh and the rest.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, PJM -- massive trolling and lies about Ron, now massive lies about Rand. I don't think Rand's piece published exclusively in Breitbart is soft on Putin. Nice try neocon hacks.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have no idea what Rand's ideas are. But Ron clearly has the same view of the world as Barack Hussein Obama.

Even without that, Ron Paul wants to trade freely with everyone. Sell Zyklon B to the Germans and Uranium to the Japanese.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, Rand keeps the “loony” under control a bit better than dad. But, concerning his being “soft” on tyrants, we need look no further than his recent disgraceful refusal to sign onto the Kirk/Menendez sanctions on Iran. Rand was one of only two Republican senators who failed to support this prudent, non-military measure.

BTW, no need to “smear” Rand. The facts are enough. He is a contemptible showboat.

For example, his 12 hour (plus?) filibuster peddling fantasies about armed FBI drones blundering about US airspace. He could have cleared up any sincere questions with a letter to the Bureau’s congressional liaison asking about the Bureau’s well known and longstanding polices on aviation assets. But that would not have brought in the contributions from the grannies listening to Alex Jones and similar con-men.

Another, more important, example is Rand’s false portrayal of NSA programs. Andy McCarthy, the great conservative legal scholar, NRO columnist and renowned former assistant US attorney, fisks Rand here, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371201/rand-pauls-frivolous-nsa-lawsuit-andrew-c-mccarthy#!. BL: Rand is willing to trash a program critical to US security in an attempt to secure his base for 2016.

The apple does not fall far from the tree.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All