Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paulís Really Ignorant Paragraph
Center for Individual Freedom ^ | 7 Feb 2013 | Quin Hilyer

Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan

There is much to commend, and there are some things to question, about Rand Paul’s big foreign policy speech yesterday at Heritage Foundation.

The overall idea of using George Kennan-like “containment” for Iran or for jihadist Islam in general is, well, problematic , although there are plenty of elements of his speech that are at least somewhat sensible. It is a good thing to have discussion of such issues, and there is much value in having people make a thoughtful case against over-eagerness for military intervention. Those of us who tend a little more towards interventionism (”tend” being the key word, rather than “strongly favor”) do need to be challenged about the dangers of using military force.

Nonetheless, a fuller discussion of Paul’s speech would require more space and time than is available for me this morning. One paragraph, however, was so tendentious, so … well, civility requires that I withhold the most accurate words… anyway, so wrong as to demand response.

Here’s the passage at issue:

In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.

Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.

Instead, let’s just look at a little history here — because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing.

(Excerpt) Read more at cfif.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: islam; jihad; paulestinians; randpaul

1 posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:48 AM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

bflr


2 posted on 02/09/2013 7:43:30 AM PST by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

There are times when Rand looks and sounds like his father, and times when he sounds more normal. I remember when the liberals in the democrat party sounded a lot like the libertarians today. We see what happened with that. The democrat party has made the CPUSA almost redundant. There are many things about the libertarians that I came to distrust with them over the 3 tears I thought I wanted to be one of them, supported many of them, and read them almost exclusively. I feel that my eyes were opened to how they treated abortion and family values and I felt that I could not face God in good conscience knowing that libertarians were voting against pro-life and pro-family laws...in their words to be neutral on the issue. We cannot afford to be neutral on those issues.


3 posted on 02/09/2013 7:46:29 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery
The Republican Party abandoned Pro-Life and Pro-Family issues a long time ago. From 2003 through 2007 we controlled the House, the Senate, The Presidency and The Supreme Court.

If the Republican Party had wanted to - abortion would be illegal. I think they would rather have it as a wedge issue than to actually do something about it. As long as you have people who vote for us (Republican) solely for the reason that we are Pro-Life, they will never have an incentive to act.

4 posted on 02/09/2013 10:00:05 AM PST by Poor Richard (Industry, perseverance, and frugality make fortune yield. - Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shery

Rand Paul is a REPUBLICAN. Rand Paul is NOT his father.

Rand Paul on abortion:
Sanctity of Life
“I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.”

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues


5 posted on 02/09/2013 10:13:43 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
"In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out."

Yes we do, the Soviet Empire fell. BTW how many nuclear tips ICBMs did the Soviets have aimed at the USA? How many do the jihadists have aimed at the USA? Case closed.

6 posted on 02/09/2013 10:16:18 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

It’s not ignorance it’s a difference of opinion. It is impossible to discuss ANYTHING without someone breaking out the insults after about 2 minutes.


7 posted on 02/09/2013 10:20:42 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poor Richard
If the Republican Party had wanted to - abortion would be illegal.

Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House won't get you a bill that will criminalize abortion.

There are only two means to achieve your end:

1. Constitutional amendment -- requiring a 2/3 maority in Congress plus the assent of 38 state legislatures.

2. A clear pro-life majority on the Supreme Court.

As it was, every pro-life vacancy on the Court was replaced with a pro-life justice. But there were no pro-abortion vacancies.

8 posted on 02/09/2013 10:27:30 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

You mean like Rand Paul referring to those who supported combatting the Soviets in Afghanistan as the “war caucus?”


9 posted on 02/09/2013 11:30:07 AM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.

Actually, I think they were supporting an anti-Communist, anti-Soviet, guerilla war within Afgahnistan to oppose the Soviet occupation. I don't think anyone in the State Department or elsewhere talked of "radical jihad" during the 1980s.

The US allied with and/or supported a number of less than pristine groups during the Cold War simply to aid any resistance to the USSR and international communism.

Rand Paul has a lot of appeal in many ways, but I'm afraid he'll have more than enough questionable statements in his backgroud to practically eliminate him from any presidential possibilities.

10 posted on 02/09/2013 11:43:10 AM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Center for Individual Freedom?

Gimmie a break!


11 posted on 02/09/2013 12:43:56 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Rand Paul is beginning to quack like a duck.


12 posted on 02/09/2013 12:54:51 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

I have no problem with this. A caucus is a group to agreedisagree. So what?


13 posted on 02/09/2013 1:01:27 PM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Because Rand Paul’s comment is patently absurd.


14 posted on 02/09/2013 1:07:53 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

why?


15 posted on 02/09/2013 1:11:56 PM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

LOL...all you have to do is read the article.

Do you read the articles that you comment on?


16 posted on 02/09/2013 1:19:24 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

I read it and I dont see your problem.


17 posted on 02/09/2013 1:30:07 PM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

The inability to discern fact from Paul’s fiction is a personal problem or an intelligence problem. I’m not interested in knowing which it is.


18 posted on 02/09/2013 1:34:29 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.

****************************

The author does make a rather good point here.

19 posted on 02/09/2013 1:38:36 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup; rbmillerjr

rbmillerjr is one of our “praise the thugs” wack jobs here.

You just have to remember that when reading threads here. There are a few others that join with him.


20 posted on 02/09/2013 1:46:44 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

es, if you don’t have the ability to comprehend the written word and you wish to call Reagan a thug.

Go right ahead.


21 posted on 02/09/2013 1:49:30 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: trisham

>> “The author does make a rather good point here.” <<

.
If he does, it is sure buried deep.

The war caucus includes those that are “All war all the time.” They have done us massive disservice at every juncture. The foolish nature of our adventure to embarrass the Soviets is certainly evident now, isn’t it?


22 posted on 02/09/2013 1:52:09 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Nice strawman, jackboot. I didn’t call Reagan anything, and neither did Rand Paul.


23 posted on 02/09/2013 1:53:33 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; rbmillerjr

Thanks for the information. Never ran into him/her before.

Nasty piece of work/


24 posted on 02/09/2013 1:57:31 PM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Nice strawman, jackboot. I didn’t call Reagan anything, and neither did Rand Paul.

Paul surely did. Thus, your agreeing with his statement equals you did, as well.

“jackboot” lol...watch-out for those black helos.


25 posted on 02/09/2013 2:03:38 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: okie01

The bill is “Life begins at conception Act” and is an end-run around the Supreme Court as they have left it to congress to define life. The GOP could have passed a life begins at conception Act and have Bush sign it into law but they didn’t because they don’t really care.


26 posted on 02/09/2013 2:54:01 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Will88

The CIA were supporting the jihadists until 1991 ish (After Soviet union), they even gave them textbooks!

“Look how that turned out” is a reference to the fact that after the soviets left the jihadists in power then targeted Americans, specifically on 9/11

-
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.
-


27 posted on 02/09/2013 2:57:18 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

“Look how that turned out” is a reference to the fact that after the soviets left the jihadists in power then targeted Americans, specifically on 9/11”

Incorrect. The statement shows ignorance of history by Paul.

First of all, we supported a “Northern Alliance” of Afghans. Afghans being the important word. The Taliban are a group consisting of foreigners, primarily. We never supported the outside jihadists..

In fact, a guy named Massoud, who was the leader of the Afghans we supported was assasinated by either a foreign Taliban or Al Qeada spy, a few months prior to 9-11.

9-11 had nothing to do with the Afgans we supported. Actually, even the Taliban were only indirectly involved in allowing the AQ faction to base and train in Afghanistan.

-


28 posted on 02/09/2013 3:07:43 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Paul surely did not, and its your Black teeth that worry me. Do you have choppers too?


29 posted on 02/09/2013 3:49:06 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

That is a horrible comeback.

Now, I know you have an IQ problem.

Thanks for sharing.

Talk to you later, Rainman


30 posted on 02/09/2013 4:32:26 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Horrible to you I’m sure!

Strawman yourself to death if you wish. Maybe your Black Helo will haul your ashes off.


31 posted on 02/09/2013 4:40:32 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

ok

RuPaul


32 posted on 02/09/2013 5:17:32 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Yep, that’s your level of intellect.

When you cannot deal with the facts, attack the messenger with what you’re made of.


33 posted on 02/09/2013 5:28:24 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I don’t think so. Abortion itself is not guaranteed in the constitution. We do not need a constitutional amendment. Was it a constitutional amendment that legalized abortion? It can certainly be legislated, and the Republican party has made sure that it has missed every opportunity to seriously do so.


34 posted on 02/09/2013 7:28:42 PM PST by Poor Richard (Industry, perseverance, and frugality make fortune yield. - Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poor Richard
Was it a constitutional amendment that legalized abortion?

No. It was a Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Recall that, in his opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found "the right to an abortion" lurking within the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

Legislation cannot reverse a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court. So, it will take either a.) Constitutional amendment or b.) a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court that would be willing to reverse Roe v Wade.

35 posted on 02/09/2013 8:01:08 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
The CIA were supporting the jihadists until 1991 ish (After Soviet union), they even gave them textbooks!

They supported the mujahideen, and the mujahideen even sent a small contingent to the 1991 Gulf War. But few in the West were referring to those groups as "Jihadists" from the early '80s during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the early '90s. They were the mujahideen in those days.

Jihadist is a fairly recent term in Western vocabularies used to refer to Islamic fighters, and it still is not used by our State Department. They mostly used specific names like Al Qaeda or other less general terms than "Jihadists". And we still get the PC definition of "Jihadists" as only some inner religious struggle engaged in by Muslims.

To throw the "Jihadists" term back on the mujahideen the US supported against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is getting pretty loose with the facts, or the common use of terms to describe Muslim fighters of various eras.

36 posted on 02/09/2013 8:19:30 PM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks LSUfan.
37 posted on 02/09/2013 9:19:27 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“When you cannot deal with the facts, attack the messenger with what you’re made of.”

Yeah, good point jackwagagon.

Here is your quote: “its your Black teeth that worry me. Do you have choppers too?”

Here is my quote:

“Incorrect. The statement shows ignorance of history by Paul.

First of all, we supported a “Northern Alliance” of Afghans. Afghans being the important word. The Taliban are a group consisting of foreigners, primarily. We never supported the outside jihadists..

In fact, a guy named Massoud, who was the leader of the Afghans we supported was assasinated by either a foreign Taliban or Al Qeada spy, a few months prior to 9-11.

9-11 had nothing to do with the Afgans we supported. Actually, even the Taliban were only indirectly involved in allowing the AQ faction to base and train in Afghanistan.”


38 posted on 02/10/2013 1:04:06 AM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

BTTT


39 posted on 02/16/2013 2:32:02 AM PST by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson