Neocon Editor Demands Answers from Rand Paul

Jamie Weinstein, senior editor at The Daily Caller, has a series of ten questions for Rand Paul, who will deliver a foreign-policy speech this Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation. To be sure, the questions are designed to remind us that the 3×5 card of approved opinion has room for only certain views. No one may ask questions about World War II, needless to say; that has been declared off limits, and surely no one would be so uppity as to re-examine an issue declared closed by the official Neocon Commission on Allowable Opinion.

All the same, I would still be interested to see how Rand would handle these questions. They will be thrown at him relentlessly once 2015 rolls around.

http://twitter.com/cajuncocoa cajuncocoa

I’m interested in hearing Rand’s answers to these questions as well. Let’s get it out the open.
http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

On another topic, I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the rise of fiat currencies and central banking as enablers of the most horrific wars in human history in the 20th century. I wonder how much more willing were countries to seek conflict and not peaceful solutions, or at least to sit out of wars between other countries, because they thought that they could afford a war without bankrupting it, blood spilled be damned.
Anonymous

10) The reason for Operation Nickel Grass was to save Egypt from nuclear strikes not Israel. Right or wrong it created a stalemate. Of course this ignores previous US interventions that created the situation in the first place. Of course once you start messes you must endlessly clean up more messes.

9) Indeed we can’t afford foreign aid. What part of 16T in debt is difficult? Because entitlements are a larger problem doesn’t negate the fact. However what the logic of the question does do is create a situation where nothing can ever be cut because there’s always something else that hasn’t yet been cut.

8) If human rights are the determinant then how do we keep ignoring China?

7) The Malinese suffer from our chasing jihadists all over the world. Fine, start another war in Mali, create more hatred, and profit from endless chasing of jihadists. A better question is why is Mali so unstable in the first place?

6) The US role WILL be reduced to our means. Recognizing this and planning for it is merely wise while we still have options. Further it gives moral authority to call for similar entitlement cuts.

5) No. Yes.

4) Authorization for a military strike against Iran or anywhere else is not up to the president. But in general a strike against any nation would be authorized subsequent to a strike against us. North Korea and China have nukes. Your rude neighbor may own an assault weapon too. This doesn’t give you the right to shoot him first.

3) South Korea needs to stand on it’s own. As an economic powerhouse compared to NK, winding down our SK presence should pose no undue burden.

2) No.

1) Whatever the treaty calls for, and no more. That’s why one should be very careful about treaties, ‘foreign entanglements’, in the first place.
Luke Sunderland

10.) On Oct. 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Backed by Russian arms, the Arab states initially put Israel on the defensive. Fearing a defeat of an American ally in the Middle East, Richard Nixon urgently sent arms to Israel to reinforce the Jewish state, helping ultimately to turn the tide. Do you believe that was an appropriate use of American power?

ANSWER – No. America shouldn’t have been involved. There were no vital U.S. interests at stake.

9.) You keep saying that you oppose foreign aid because we can’t afford it. But foreign aid is a miniscule portion of our budget. Our long-term budgetary problems are almost entirely embedded in our entitlement programs, particularly Medicare. Are you really under the impression that foreign aid is a key driver of our looming fiscal crisis? Are you saying that if we were in better financial shape you would have a different view of foreign aid — or is your case against foreign aid on financial grounds disingenuous?

ANSWER – So what if it’s miniscule? It’s wrong and should be ended, along with most of the rest of all federal expenditures, end of story.

8.) Should human rights considerations play any role at all in America’s foreign policy decisions? If so, how?

ANSWER – No. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams: America shouldn’t go looking abroad for monsters to fight.

7.) What role does America have in a place like Mali, where jihadists linked to al-Qaida are seeking to carve out a safe haven?

ANSWER – None.

6.) You have said you support defense cuts. How significantly do you want to cut the defense budget? How would you reduce America’s current role in accordance with such a reduced budget?

ANSWER – How about beginning by cutting it by 60%, which will leave the U.S. still spending double what its closest competitor is spending and more than the closest three competitors combined. I would reduce America’s role by getting the military out of the close to 130 countries it currently, and needlessly, finds itself in.

5.) Did you think American support of Britain under Lend-Lease before our entry into World War II was appropriate? Or do you think America should have remained neutral?

ANSWER – No, it was not appropriate. It was a deliberate attempt by the Roosevelt administration to ensnare the country in a war that was none of America’s business. America should have remained neutral, as most Americans at the time wished.

4.) In what circumstance could you imagine authorizing a military strike to set back Iran’s nuclear program? If, for instance, you became convinced that the Iranian leadership could not be convinced to halt their program diplomatically, and American intelligence said that the window for such an attack was rapidly narrowing, would you be willing to authorize a strike? Or do you think an American strike on Iranian nuclear installations would be worse than allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

ANSWER – A strike would be far worse as it would doubtless cause massive unanticipated blowback. The only reason Iran wants a nuclear program is to defend itself from an attack by Israel and/or the United States. If the heated rhetoric coming from Washington and Jerusalem were to cool considerably, the Iranian nuclear problem could be solved more quickly.

3.) The U.S. has hundreds of military bases around the world. Should we significantly reduce our overseas presence? What do you think of America’s heavy presence in South Korea on the border with North Korea?

ANSWER – Yes, reduction is necessary. What possible benefit to the American people is there for the American military to still be on the Korean peninsula almost six decades after the end of the war?

2.) Where do you stand on America’s use of drones? Do you think it is appropriate for us to violate a country’s sovereignty in order to take out those we believe pose us harm, like we regularly do in Pakistan?

ANSWER – Drones are evil. We shouldn’t use them.

1.) What do we owe our allies? What do they owe us?

ANSWER – Nothing.

I hope all of my answers have strayed sufficiently from the 3×5 card to have been absolutely infuriating to all neo-cons out there.
Anon

Aligning with Republicans will be the downfall of the Paul family and most importantly, for libertarianism and potential libertarian leaning leaders. RP’s tweet is a good example – it is possible like other tweets that RP didn’t know about it or didn’t do it, but his mainstream dems/repubs advisors control it. Their advice will crush the Pauls. The 10 questions and visit of Israel are a set-up to fast track Rand’s full conversion to Judeo-christian beliefs and neocon policies.

Jim Rogers is wise to say he will give money to RP campaign only if it gains traction.

You cannot run on the Republican platform and have any significant differences with them – reality is that they don’t work that way and they do not compromise. It is delusional or lying to say otherwise. Tea Party is just slightly off in a few topics from mainstream Repub, and even those tea partiers are getting hammered. Sure you can spew a bit of rhetoric, but bottomline is that you must get into all these wars and lie that deficits are entirely due to entitlement programs like social security (and lie that it just needs a bit of tweeking).

I am not exaggerating. You cannot retain any of your core principles and still have any influence in GOP/DNC, much less have an above 10% chance of winning. If you stick with principles followed up by especially by solutions and well articulated beliefs that are assertively spoken, then all of media including the radio talk show hosts will stick it to you. If you just want a bit of influence and platform to speak, then you lose as well but just a bit less. If you really want to have more than 10% chance of winning, then you have to merge with them and give up your soul.

Yes, it takes a lot of courage and convictions that you willing to act upon to go out on your own – do Paulites have that?
anon

Rand’s answers will be the flip opposite of yours. Rand is like a nerd in high school who desperately wants to be part of the popular crowd, and hence is willing to do absolutely do anything to gain acceptance, to the point he has become oblivious and callous at the same time to his country.
(Although the tweet from Ron Paul’s staffer today is behaving the same as Rand.)

Your answers are coming from libertarians who believe in anarchy.

I would recommend Rand be more subtle but also avoid all of those questions like Hillary did and fall back on high-level foreign policy principles and not be specific or get pinpointed on any answer. This would give him some breathing room and a bit more time before having to become a full fledged neocon in order to remain with the Republican party as he is hell bent on doing.