"What I would say is that, you know there are a variety of reasons and when someone attacks you it’s not so much important what they say their reasons are... The most important thing is that we defend ourselves from attack. And whether or not some are motivated by our presence overseas, I think some are also motivated whether we’re there or not. So I think there’s a combination of reasons why we’re attacked.... The bottom line is, I think people around the world and our enemies around the world need to know that if we’re ever attacked on something like 9/11, if anyone were ever to use chemical weapons on our soldiers anywhere in the world, the response would be an overwhelming one from America and I think that’s the credibility we always need to maintain."
September 13, 2013
Asking Rand Paul about what Ron Paul said.
There's going to be a lot of this, and Rand Paul needs some skills here. Yesterday was a challenge, as he was asked about his father's statement that the 9/11/01 attacks were "blowback for decades of U.S. intervention in the Middle East." Rand's response:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Yep. He's going to have a lot of work ahead distancing himself from his disgusting father. It's a heavy burden. Bummer for the dude.
Why is Rand Paul responsible for what his father says and believes?
How is Rand Paul responsible for what Ron Paul says? This is just another tiresome and tedious attempt to gin up outrage.
Ask Rand Paul what Rand Paul thinks. That's the kind of question that should be asked of a politician. Any politician should say when asked to comment on someone else's comment: Wouldn't you rather here my opinion on the actual subject, rather than my opinion of someone else's opinion?
"Journolists" just don't know how to ask a question.
Don't kid yourself. Rand's opponents will try to tie him down by scaring people using things Ron has said.
This is an example of him dealing with it.
He's going to run for President. He's potentially a huge star. He needs to nail his skills here.
Of course, part of the skill is not disrespecting his father.
(the other kev)
As a wise man said, you can pick your friends, but not your family.
I find it much more relevant that someone chooses to associate with the likes of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
A modified isolationist hang out that accepts the need for preemptive attacks. I like it.
But where was he born? How do we know he is a real Merican?
> How is Rand Paul responsible for what Ron Paul says?
He's a Republican. Therefore he is responsible for anything bad said by anyone within 100 miles or 100 years.
If he was a Democrat, he wouldn't even be responsible for what he said or did.
Speaking of what fathers said, here is a blurb from Obama's book about what his stepfather told him. The context is Barry coming home with a welt on his head and his stepfather teaching him how to box to defend himself. They sparred for a while and the stepfather whacked Barry when he dropped his gloves.
"Keep your hands up." Afterward, sipping water from a jug next to a crocodile pond, the stepfather mused about the nature of things, and about what it took to survive in a difficult and dangerous world: "Men take advantage of weakness in other men. They're just like countries in that way. The strong man takes the weak man's land. He makes the weak man work in his fields. If the weak man's woman is pretty, the strong man will take her." As Obama recalled the moment in his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father," Soetoro took another sip and then asked: "Which would you rather be?"
Obama did not answer—the question seemed rhetorical—but in a way Obama's whole life has been a reply to the question Soetoro posed four decades and half a world away, in the dusty heat of Jakarta after the boxing lesson. "I remember that very vividly, and my stepfather was a good man who gave me some things that were very helpful," Obama told me in an interview last Thursday. "One of the things that he gave me was a pretty hardheaded assessment of how the world works."
Oh dear God.
hear my opinion. Not here.
Aargh.
Why is Rand Paul responsible for what his father says and believes?
Because he supported him for President and it’s fair game to ask him whether he shares his beliefs on the issues that his father made the central focus of his campaign.
But Andy Freeman is correct that if he were a Democrat, he wouldn’t even be held accountable for things he said a month ago.
He who lives by the sword ought to prepare to die by the sword. In all honesty, I would like to ask, how was Ron Paul saying anything different? And further, why didn't his son defend his statement in that way?
Isn't it merely a lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance that would let us think that somehow April 18. 1983, wouldn't happen on American soil. Or perhaps more to the point, that September 11, 1863 couldn't happen here?
Why is that such a hard thing to think - let along say out loud?
And one last question: why must Americans continually think that we invented history? or that we somehow changed history in some great way - in the order and fashion of that otherwise obscure carpenter born in Palestine?
"I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic, but
this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: one might say that they are blinded by it.
"Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which
maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe; the decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it - we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today. The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines, the very structure of our society
is dissolving.
"In the place of the old Christian enthusiasms of Europe there
came, for a time, the enthusiasm for nationality, the religion of
patriotism. But self-worship is not enough…"
- Hillaire Belloc, "The Great Heresies: Chapter Four, The Great and Enduring Heresy of Islam."
JOB
What's scary or disgusting about what Ron Paul said?
What really needs to happen in this area is that Rand Paul needs to skillfully reintroduce the concept that Ron Paul too bluntly stated. That is, there are consequences to foreign intervention.
If you go wage war upon some group of people, then that group of people is going to wage war back.
We are so powerful, and wage war so frequently that we seem to have completely forgotten this.
Now, this doesn't mean we should be isolationists, or that all foreign intervention is bad, but it's perfectly reasonable to link us attacking them with how they might respond.
We've been ignoring that part of the calculation for a long time, and seem to continue to.
What Ron Paul said makes sense and I think there are a lot more people than many realize who hold similar viewpoints. Rand is a bit more of a politician than his father though.
I think Ron Paul is, in a lot of ways, correct in his assessment. Meaning, I think that US military presence in the Middle East, and especially on the Arabian Peninsula, and area deemed Holy to Muslims, was one potential root cause of the 9/11 attacks. I also think there were many other causes. Another cause was post-colonialism strategy of European empires to install a ethnic and/or religious minority as the leader/dictator in artificially created countries. Another reason is the long standing civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Another reason is the corruption of oil rich Middle Eastern nations. Another reason is because US cultural exports undermine Islamic Fundamentalism. Another reason is that hatred of the US is sown by leaders in the Middle East as a way to refocus their people away from the awful conditions at home.
This can go on and on - hell, you probably stopped reading. I think Ron Paul knows these causes and probably a few more. I also think Ron Paul (or really any politician I'm aware of) lacks the ability to explain this situation to the American people. Rand made the best out of it by curbing his response and focusing on what we will do if we're attacked again. I think this is especially true since the die is already cast for those past sins and because, at the moment of truth when 19 Saudis decided to blow themselves in an attempt to kill 50,000 Americans, we really don't know what motivated them to take the final step.
All that said, Ron Paul is going to be a huge issue for Rand. I'm afraid the American public ain't quite sharp enough to understand the nuance of Ron's arguments and these sound bites will be used in and out of context to destroy Rand. I think Rand's brand of libertarian-conservatism is critical America's future. So Ron, for the good of the Republic, STFU! Thank you!
JOB, to clarify: I presume you mean September 11, 1683?
I like this comment over at that linked Politico piece:
Putin /Snowden 2016
Rand Paul endorsed. The great Libertarian heroes.
Bet his papa likes it too.
The Pauls are fruitcakes, and manna from heaven for the Democrats.
Madisonman wrote:
How is Rand Paul responsible for what Ron Paul says? This is just another tiresome and tedious attempt to gin up outrage.
Ask Rand Paul what Rand Paul thinks. That's the kind of question that should be asked of a politician. Any politician should say when asked to comment on someone else's comment: Wouldn't you rather here my opinion on the actual subject, rather than my opinion of someone else's opinion"
well, because Rand Paul is his fathers son and has the same overall worldview of how the world runs as his daddy as well as the role that the US should play. He's just a little bit better at not putting his foot in his mouth.
But he's still making the same argument.
So i don't see why he shouldn't be questioned about it.
> Because he supported him for President and it’s fair game to ask him whether he shares his beliefs on the issues that his father made the central focus of his campaign.
The central focus of the Ron Paul campaign was always "why would any sane person let a democrat or republican run his life" and "weed".
Which one do you think works to Rand's disadvantage?
I'm serious - how many Obama supporters actually want him running their lives? Same for Romney and/or McCain supporters.
How about Ms Clinton? Would any of you trust her to work at your lemonade stand?
There's going to be a lot of this, and Rand Paul needs some skills here. Yesterday was a challenge, as he was asked about his father's statement that the 9/11/01 attacks were "blowback for decades of U.S. intervention in the Middle East."
In ron Pauls defense Ron Paul actually supported the initial,attack in Afhaninstan, though quickly soured on it. But the premise of it was that we had it coming because of blowback from our constant butting into these other countries business. Ad tht we should be trading with them I stead , and that that's the best way to get our way in the world.
How is that different than Rand Paul's argument. He thinks Syria using chemical weapons that they said they never had is not in our national security interest. So a journalist should ask, if we did bomb Syria or occupy Syria because of their weapons and were later attacked would he say that it was because of the blowback from us getting involved in dealing with SYria? How could he argue that that wasnt the case.
He gets to make the argument that his addy does without having to state the implication of his argument.
Ron Paul is at least honest about the implications of his argument. Rand Paul is probably smarter in that if he did have to answer honestly about the implications of what he believed that it would look as bad as what his dad said.
And many of Ron Paul's followers don't actually think what his daddy said was in fact wrong at all. These will be the same people that vote for Rand Paul.
Ann Althouse wrote:
Don't kid yourself. Rand's opponents will try to tie him down by scaring people using things Ron has said.
do you think the Paulians think that what Paul said was a scare quote? And are these people not the same voters that are going to vote for Rand Paul?
Its only scary talk if you think Rand Paul is a crazy person.
Maybee wrote:
Why is Rand Paul responsible for what his father says and believes?
who you associate with is in fact important. Especially if you have the same ideology.
Was Obama going to Rev Wrights church not an important factor in who Obama was? was the fact that he was associated with Bill Ayres not relevant.
Paul does have to answer for his fathers words because he is associated with him, and because he is also a libertarian and his foreign policy views are largely Interchangeable from his daddies.
But I think MayBee points to the right approach--not distancing himself from his father, but rather calling the question itself into question. "My positions are my own. Ideas are not hereditary. Are you asking all the other candidates what their response to Ron Paul's statement is? If not, then don't ask me, either."
MikeDC,
Ummmm, we waged war in the ME against whom exactly?
"do you think the Paulians think that what Paul said was a scare quote? And are these people not the same voters that are going to vote for Rand Paul?
Its only scary talk if you think Rand Paul is a crazy person."
I think Democrats (and some old-school Republicans) will try to make people think Rand Paul is scary and weird and non mainstream, etc.
They will use Ron Paul in this effort.
Therefore, Rand Paul needs to have good skills in defending against that tactic.
That's ALL I'm saying.
I like Rand Paul. I have big hopes for him.
Rand Paul’s Growing Burden: Dear Old Dad:
[Rand Paul's statement] shows that after nearly three years in the Senate, Paul can doubletalk like a veteran. But if he thinks he can just shrug off his father’s extremism while attempting to chart a path to the sort of mainstream acceptance that it would take for him to win the 2016 GOP nomination, he’s dreaming. Sooner or later, he’s going to have to place more distance between himself and his father, if he’s serious about being more than a factional candidate.
Last month, I compared Rand’s situation to that of Barack Obama’s problem with his longtime pastor and mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That brought a ferocious response from some Paulbots who bristle at any comparison between the America-hating Wright and the longtime libertarian standard-bearer. But, in fact, the comparison of the pair’s radical views on foreign policy is quite apt.
and
The same questions apply to Rand Paul’s tacit approval for his father’s statements and associations with racist and anti-Semitic publications and groups. Ron Paul was never really damaged by these issues because he was always a marginal presidential candidate, albeit one with a dedicated and noisy following. If Rand wants to truly go mainstream, his father’s baggage is going to have to be jettisoned.
The whole thing's worth a read.
The same questions apply to Rand Paul’s tacit approval for his father’s statements and associations with racist and anti-Semitic publications and groups.
Translation: *Commentary* magazine doesn't like Rand-y Paul because Paul may not follow orders from AIPAC.
Post a Comment