Skip to comments.Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives (Video)
Posted on 07/25/2013 5:32:38 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
In a veiled shot at influential neoconservatives within the Republican Party, Sen. Rand Paul tells The Brody File the following:
There are people who will do or say anything who are your enemies, Paul said. Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country, and I think they will do everything they can to try and vilify people who are trying to find a more reasoned approach where war is the last resort not the first resort.
While he didnt mention any names, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Paul is pushing back against neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and others who havent had too many kind words for the senator from Kentucky.
Overall, neocons dont like Pauls views on foreign policy and are no doubt concerned by Pauls increasing platform and visibility as he sets his sights on the GOP nomination.
Remember, it was the Washington Free Beacon that blasted out the story on Jack Hunter, Paul's aide who has since resigned. The article dug up quotes from Hunters past that make him look like a racist.
Anyhow, it turns out that the editor of the Free Beacon is Matthew Continetti, the son-in-law of Fox News Commentator Bill Kristol, who is of course a leading influential neoconservative within the GOP. Rand Paul defenders are pointing to this as evidence that neocons have it in for the senator.
This interview was done at the Pastors and Pews event in Des Moines, Iowa, last Friday. Video and a partial transcription are below.
Sen. Rand Paul: There are people who will do or say anything who are your enemies.
I think also those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country and I think they will do everything they can to try and vilify people who are trying to find a more reasoned approach where war is the last resort not the first resort.
The full title is
Brody File Exclusive: Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives:'Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country'
Brody File Exclusive: Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives:’Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country’
Can’t argue with that. Rand Paul is making more and more sense.
I’d like to know more
about Rand Paul’s racist staffer
Rand Paul’s ex-staffer is less of a threat to the future strength and prosperity of America than Lindsey Graham’s efforts to get us into another pointless bloody war on the other side of the globe.
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Paul is pushing back against neoconservatives like Bill Kristol
And the Cheneys.
The “Neocons” are the old Rockefeller-Nixon Republicans with a new label.
is that rinos ..... or... ainos ?????
Yeah right. Troll on back to DU
Sorry, no conservative with a functioning brain cell should fall for Rand’s blather.
These are Obama-like, Saul Alinsky-like tactics.
If I’m not on board with Rand, does that make me a Bill Crystal-ite? Absolutely not.
If I like Cheney on anti-terrorism after 9-11, including Gitmo and enhanced interrogation techniques, does that mean I agree with Cheney’s pass on what the out-of-control NSA is doing? Absolutely not.
This is childish and ridiculous.
This is “divide and conquor” - ourselves.
I won’t allow anyone to set up these invalid straw men and knee-jerk “choosing up sides” like little kids playing sandlot baseball, accompanied by mindless name-calling.
I will choose the policies I think are worthy and those I disagree with. I will so state. Other than that, Rand’s increasingly obnoxious rants will increasingly fall on my deaf ears.
The policy was wrong and the execution was wrong.
The policy was wrong not because we were mistaken about the existence of weapons of mass distruction, although we were. We were right and we continue to be right today to be concerned about the introduction into America of a weapon of mass distruction, atomic or germ or even chemical.
The policy was wrong because it was not fit for winning the war on terror. In fact, it proved to be counterproductive in waging the war on terror because we played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden and the Iranians. We impoverished ourselves at a time when America began its headlong rush toward the fiscal cliff. We forfeited allies, dismayed our friends, and embittered Muslims around the world to no purpose. We opened up Iraq to the Iranians and we have made a quagmire of Afghanistan. Strategically, our efforts have resulted in a breakdown of relations with Pakistan, a quagmire in Afghanistan, dither, muddle, and ineffectiveness against Iran and their reach for the bomb, Syria in flames, Egypt gone bad, Turkey moving from Democratic secularism to despotic sharia law, and Libya, well
The invasion of Iraq was wrong in execution because we had no plan post invasion, no plan against guerrilla warfare, no plan for an endgame. Our failings of execution led the world to believe that we were not quite the superpower we pretended to be and come from that our strategic aims. Domestically, it helped assure the election of Barack Obama which is a disaster for American foreign policy.
We conducted an experiment in nationbuilding when everything in our history should have told us that we would fail. We regarded a yearning for democracy to be in the DNA of every human heart and we were wrong. We failed to understand that democracy requires a culture, a respect for the rule of law, a secularization of science, a respect for the individual and his right to life liberty and happiness as he chooses, in short, the kind of Anglo-Saxon mindset which animated our founding fathers in 1776 and which is heartbreakingly absent in the Muslim world.
We started two wars because 19 men with box cutters took over airplanes and crashed them into American buildings. Put yourself into the sandals of Osama bin Ladin's ghost and decide whether you like that trade.
We obviously must devise a new strategy to fight the war against terrorism and we can start by calling it a war against militant Islam. We would then be well advised to be extremely selective about where and when we deploy military force maintaining a priority toward conserving American resources, including financial resources, as well as American lives. Above all, we should be able to say that a military action in any given Middle Eastern hellhole directly relates to prohibiting terrorist cells from infiltrating America and killing Americans or at least we should be able to say that we are protecting allies whose existence acts as a buffer for us. You must decide for yourself whether Israel serves that purpose.
We should be very careful about writing a blank checks abroad and outsourcing the control of American foreign policy to foreign countries. We should review our relationship to Israel and consider whether it is in America's best interest to be in a perpetual worldwide struggle against 1.6 billion Muslims with a great deal of the world's oil on behalf of a tiny nation with virtually no oil.
We have to decide how and with what weapons we wish to fight this war. Do we use drones or boots on the ground? I vote for drones. Do we restore waterboarding, or do we risk losing an American city? I vote for waterboarding. Do we confine our intelligence efforts to snooping foreigners or do we keep our borders open and feel compelled to snoop on Americans? I vote for closing the border. Do we conclude that Muslims coming into America contain within them a dangerous minority which threatens the homeland, or do we abide by political correctness? I vote against political correctness. We should reconsider our immigration policies concerning Muslims.
Above all, we must get our fiscal house in order before it is too late if we are to preserve our military as our shield and if we are to preserve our economy as the engine which powers the Republic.
If these views make me inimical to the positions of neocons then I guess I am a paleo. Nevertheless, I support Lynn Cheney and her bid in Wyoming.
I think you've gone off your medication if you believe that.
Know how I can tell that Rand’s words hit home in a personal way for you?
You accuse him of using Alinsky-like tactics, but then go on a rant tangential to the actual points Rand made.
We wanted fighters that would take the fight to Democrats and limp-wristed RINO’s in our own Party alike. Folks like Rand are doing exactly that...
And you are whining that he’s being “obnoxious”...
Also, if you didn’t see the NSA/DHS abuse coming from Bush/Cheney’s massive and unConstitutional PATRIOT Act, your myopia may be getting in the way as well.
Real conservatism hasn’t changed. Too many people have abandoned those base principles and have placed themselves in leadership. Not saying we should dump them, but a lot of them want to dump us true conservatives. Certainly we can disagree on some things, but we can’t keep compromising with the democrats - you can’t cheat a cheater, and they’ve outmaneuvered our so called “leadership” and pushed us further and further left. Time to put in new leadership.
Agreed. Replace Mitch with Rand and Boehner with Gowdy. Put Palin/Nugent on the 2016 ticket and West in Priebus' spot.
Or... Put Palin in charge of the GOP and West/Nugent on the ticket. That'd make some heads explode...
Go back to DU troll
He could also be referring to McCain, who seems to be war happy. And, let’s get real - McCain is an enemy!
You made the assertion that there is no difference troll, so prove it. According to you there isn’t any difference between McCain and Paul.
So Rand Paul was fine having a racist on his staff, up until the press wrote about it, at which point the staffer resigns, basically confirming the truth of the story. That’s not uninteresting to me.
And that is the problem. We now have more military bases than the Roman empire at its peak. I cannot condone the cost, the mentality that we must militarily dominate the world. Somewhere between protecting our citizens, trade and interests - and trying to rule or police the world - is a balance.
The Federal Reserve counterfeits money to buy the US debt, so Congress can overspend and the result is theft by the devaluation of purchasing power of every citizen. It is inherently dishonest and will not end well.
Anyone watching this that has all their eggs in this one basket is detached from reality and will be unprepared.
Jack Hunter the “Southern Avenger’ sometimes filled in for Mike Church, The Sothern Avenger site is down now, too.
I suppose Jack Hunter is being Paula Deen’ed. It isn’t as if Hunter went around saying n***** this and n***** that.
He never claimed blacks should still be slaves or that he hated blacks. Well, not to my knowledge.
All of this has to do with Hunter’s position on The Civil War and states rights.
There are some who do not believe that The Civil War was all about slavery and if somebody takes that position, it usually gets them declared racist.
How dare anyone question history or look at it differently than the declared historical meme. You must not stray from accepted group think.
Just bring up secession today and see what happens to you.
Mike: To the Dude Maker Hotline, a piece posted at the American Conservative magazine yesterday last by Daniel McCarthy, The Rights Civil War.
Jack Hunter has resigned from Sen. Rand Pauls office, in light of criticisms of his Southern Avenger background.
Mike: Then Daniel goes into some of the things about Jacks resignation. Then he delves into this über deep and very complex and long-running conversation or internecine feud between factions inside the conservative movement. One side you have the Harry Jaffaites, descendants of Leo Strauss — I just call them Straussians — and those that believe in the Lincoln version of nationalism and American exceptionalism. Then on the other side, a smaller, crankier minority that are not Lincoln lovers, do not believe in the grandness and wonder of the almighty and ever-expanding centralized state and have been voicing that opinion since the 1950s. So this continues unabated to this day, and now it has embroiled, or ensnared at least, to some degree Senator Rand Paul from the great State of Kentucky. Dan McCarthy has written about it and we thought we should talk about it here on the program. Making another return appearance, editor of the American Conservative Magazine, Daniel McCarthy. Hello, Daniel, how are you?
Daniel McCarthy: Hi, Mike, thanks very much for having me on.
Mike: Youre very, very welcome. Good to hear from you today. Just flesh out a little bit of what The Rights Civil War piece is about. Then well go clause by clause, as they were supposed to go in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and well see if we can get to the bottom of this.
McCarthy: Well, youre seeing a number of criticisms are being made in the media of Jack Hunter, which are pretty far off base. People have portrayed him as being some sort of a racist or what they call a neoconfederate. He certainly says a number of things that are very provocative, a number of things a radio host or columnist for a weekly newspaper tends to say in order to stir debate, in order to prompt people to think dramatically about questions that they may never have considered before, such as something like secession. What is the concept really about? You have a number of attacks on Jack Hunter which I think have not really gotten to the intellectual core of what he was trying to do.
My article spells out how theres been a long tradition on the right, sort of two traditions that have been in conflict, one of them being the one you mentioned by Harry Jaffa in which an argument for centralization is made that references back to Abraham Lincoln and to a number of other things like that. On the other hand you have both libertarians and traditional literary conservatives who have been very critical of centralization today in the 20th or 21st century who often tie their arguments back to history as well, even though sometimes what theyre really talking about are more modern conflicts like the welfare state and not really so much trying to get a purely historical view of what was happening in the 1860s....
Mandeville, LA Exclusive Transcript I would say to anyone that harbors this point of view, if youre so convinced that it was the confederacy that was the antecedent for Hitlers regime or for Lenins regime or for Mussolinis regime and thats what gave rise to it, then you might as well go across the next bridge and say it was Madison and Mason and Martin and Sherman and heaven forefend Washington who came up with the original idea. Check out todays transcript for the rest
Mike: Scott Galupo yesterday afternoon at American Conservative magazine posted this, Parsing the Confederate Constitution.
I appreciated Ben Domenechs takedown of Michael Gersons recent efforts at policing the borders of the Republican mainstream, which, according to Gerson, cannot include Sen. Rand Paul.
In defending Paul against the smear that hes some sort of neo-Confederate, Domenech points out that the actual Confederacy, however briefly it existed, was no friend of liberty, at least as todays liberty movement defines it.
Mike: Im going to read what this particular gentleman writes about this. If youd like to see my written response to this, at least in partial as I dig into and delve into this issue — I try not to demagogue these things. I try to actually go back and find what is in the historical record and use that as opposed to what I would like to think happened. If you would like to read my partial, just a small beginning of some of the research and time Im going to put into this task, its posted in todays Pile of Prep. There will be much more later today and tomorrow. Heres what this Ben Domenech individual posted about this. Are you ready? Ladies and gentlemen, you may want to gird your loins, as Joe Biden once famously said.
Gersons depiction of the libertarian view of the Confederacy is simply fraudulent. Paleoconservatives may find much worthy of defense in the Confederate state, but consider . . .
Mike: By the way, I dont know very many people that defend the Confederate State or the Confederate Government. I believe most of the defense is limited to whether or not there was a constitutional right to choose your own form of government and to secede. This is a very important question. I think its the most important question of all. If you answer it incorrectly, then youre the Soviet Union. No, were not even the Soviet Union. If you answer it correctly, you actually are the land of the free and the mobile home of the brave. Do we have the right of self-determination or do we not? Its a very simple question. Is the Constitution a compact between willing parties that voluntarily agree to cobble together a government and live under it for the sake of some peace and amity? Keywords are compact meaning contract, meaning agreement between or among parties, and then voluntary meaning you stay in it because you want to stay in it and you believe it to be to your advantage. Any other form or mode of government doesnt sound very free to me. Some people take great offense to this. I always ask the question: Why? Why are you so offended by that? Give me your definition of what the right of self-determination is or the right of the people to reform, alter, or abolish their forms and mode of government....
our real problem is still the coup d’etat con-con of 1787, and the following 1789 second American revolution (our constitution). If not for that...we might have weathered this storm, even though it has taken the big-guminteers 200+ years to get it together this well!
Semper Watching !!!!!
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
I think this last one could have a whole range of beliefs. Yes, I advocate assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. nation interests in international affairs including through military means. That does NOT mean I want us to start unnecessary wars.
I don’t believe Rand Paul considered Jack Hunter a racist.
I wouldn’t call Jack Hunter a racist, either.
You may, I don’t know how you think.
But here is my analysis, from their own words, to let anyone interested make up their own mind.
See The Neocon Phenomenon, which dissects an article on the subject by Billy Kristol's former Trotskyite daddy.
We should go in and kill the terrorists and then leave immediately.
You obviously wouldn’t know the difference between liberal and conservative if one of each bit you in the a$$ troll boy.
I never heard of Jack Hunter until today. I think the Civil War is a complex subject, but that people who are still espousing the virtues of secession 150 years on are on suspect terrain.
Sorry alinsky/troll where’s YOUR logic? I’m guessing you’re one of those neocons yourself. You made the totally unsupported statement that there isn’t any such thing as a neocon. You made the statement - YOU prove it.
I think the Civil War is a complex subject, but that people who are still espousing the virtues of secession 150 years on are on suspect terrain.
I think different people have different motives/beliefs. Yes, some are racist and think that blacks should still be slaves, others argue it on states rights not a belief that slavery should have remained. People can be absolutely opposed to slavery in the South and still argue secession.
If we are going to call racist, I don’t think we can say all who opposed slavery were opposed to racism. There were racists that opposed slavery. I think Lincoln was one of them.
I also ponder why blacks in America decry the Confederate flag and all it stood for whilst proudly waving the flag of Africa. Many of the slaves were sold by black Africans. There is still slavery TODAY in Africa. Are some more entitled to heritage than others? Is that not racist?
I also believe in Ezekiel 18:20. Sons are still paying for their fathers sins. Look how many places white men need not apply. What did the white men of today do to deserve this? Nothing. They are paying for the sins of their fathers or of the white men before them.
I also happen to think much of the laws and such that are meant to be helpful and protect blacks are racist. What gives someone a right to lower expectations for a group of people of one race? That will never allow that race to be on equal footing. This whole race game happens because it benefits certain people, mostly an elitist class that I would declare racist.
Sure, there are some blacks that won’t keep pace but there are also some whites who won’t, either. Not everybody was meant for college or to be a scholar, I’m one of them. It doesn’t make me a less useful person, it just means my talents aren’t in that area.
I’m not into all the race games because I believe them to be racist in the extreme.
You’re not even any good at insults, and other than that you’re an empty bag of wind. Back your baseless statement that there is no difference between conservatives and neo-cons or shut up. Or not, you’re not worth botherng about.
Lyn Cheney is pro-amnesty and pro-homosexual marriage. She grew up in Virginia, attended college in Colorado, and has almost nothing in common with the values of people in Wyoming. It is up to those folks to decide whether they want her as their Senator. I know I wouldn’t.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, you obviously do not know that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in aiding and abetting Al Qaida in their 9-11 attack.
What we did wrong was arrogantly believe we could “nation build” in an area of the world that has no genuine nations. The Middle East is made up of pseudo-nations that function more like crime syndicates that nations, each controlled by a corrupt family or clan. That’s why it’s so damned hard to do business there; ‘trust’ isn’t a part of their culture, as everyone there is looking to undercut everyone else.
So what should we have done? What we did in Iraq, going in and removing Saddam Hussein, was correct. Then we should have left. No matter what we do, the people there will follow another dictator/tyrant.
What we should have done in Afghanistan is treat them like those who harbor pirates. You go in, destroy parts of their
country and kill many people. Tell them to stop supporting and protecting the terrorists or it will continue. After that, the Afghanis would probably kill the terrorists themselves. What we did, by trying to nation build, was arrogant and stupid.
Israel is the only rational, functioning democracy in the Middle East. Using oil as the reason for supporting Muslim nations rather than Israel...doesn’t make any sense, especially as the USA is well on its way to energy self-sufficiency. Israel and the United States share a belief in ‘free will’ and the rights of the individual. Islam does not, and will always be a threat to free people.
Basically I agree with everything else you’ve said. What I want to see now is our military brought home. There is no need to have a large, extensive presence oversea.
If Obamacare and the decision by Chief Justice Roberts taught us anything it is that there is no such thing anymore as federalism. Therefore, affiliation to a state in which one runs for Senate is a quaint relic of the horse and buggy days. Every Sen. in every state is either an ally or a threat and his vote counts for no more and no less because of an accident of geography. As to homosexual marriage, that battle is lost and has been lost. The only relevant question is whether Lynn Cheney will stir things up or remain a placeholder as Enzi has been. I'll take a chance on Cheney, Enzi has done nothing and in my view the country is going over a cliff. A placeholder from a safe state is worse than a cipher because he represents the loss of a real champion we so desperately need.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, you obviously do not know that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in aiding and abetting Al Qaida in their 9-11 attack.
You're quite right I am ignorant of Saddam Hussein's connection to Al Qaeda in connection with 9/11 and I hope you can disabuse me of ignorance and with actual facts.
Israel is the only rational, functioning democracy in the Middle East. Using oil as the reason for supporting Muslim nations rather than Israel...doesnt make any sense, especially as the USA is well on its way to energy self-sufficiency. Israel and the United States share a belief in free will and the rights of the individual. Islam does not, and will always be a threat to free people.
So what? Nations do not have friends, only national interests. I agree with the description of Israel, and I agree with your description of the Muslim nations, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with American interests unless you can demonstrate that our support of Israel is worth unending, worldwide, war for national survival against 1.6 billion Muslims many of whom are suicidally fanatic. What is the trade-off?
You're right, we seem to be in agreement on the balance of what I wrote, as your repetition of it shows.
I appreciate your thoughtful postings. We could use more thinking and less reaction in high places in our country. In the long-run outsourcing our sovereignty helps nobody-especially our allies. An exhausted, depleted superpower is the a dangerous factor toward global instability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.