-103 votes

Rand Paul: An attack on Israel is an attack on the United States

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.

Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.

“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/rand-paul-u-s-should-make-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Exactly. You have to

judge the fruit. There are a lot of Neocons on here trying to give the appearnace that Rand has Paulian support.

To all of you

To all of you who have had a man-crush on Rand for so long, what are you going to do now that you have learned he is a total whore, a Neocon, a RINO, a fake infiltrator?

I would vote for Obama before I would support Rand for president. I'm starting to doubt that Rand is Ron's biological child.

End of subject, Rand is not the candidate for those of us in the Liberty Movement.

GJ is I presume?

Give it a rest.

maybe rand learned something ron (and us) hasn't

Surely, Israel is a key part of the next stage of world order. Perhaps they let rand in on the big picture and rand likes it.

Please just read my thoughts before you conclude your opinion

And if Rand were to say he wouldn't protect Israel, he'd be banished from the inner circle forever just like his father.

Unlike us here at the DP, the majority of Americans see Israel as a country we must protect. And in the GOP, being pro-Israel is SACROSANCT. That is the severity of the pro-Israel mindset we're dealing with in Republicans.

So it would be political suicide for Rand to say anything else. What one must see, is that Rand has the backing of all the true fiscal conservatives in the GOP, which are the neocons and the tea partiers. Those two voting blocs are the biggest among the GOP, and Rand has the majority of them backing him.

But have you seen his record? It aligns 99% with Ron Paul. The big differing difference is his vote to put sanctions on Iran (he and his father disagree on sanctions, and I disagree with it as well). But he's not some interventionist because of it! He was the only Senator to vote no, 98-1, when the Senate gave Obama the permission to "use any means necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon".

And yet with such a record of Liberty and such a record of non-interventionism that even puts Democrats to shame, Rand has these neocons, these Sean Hannity viewers, these Sarah Palin voters, these voting blocs that make up the largest part of the Republican party backing him. And it's because of rhetoric like this. He is slowly warming those people up to an alternative foreign policy. The libertarian foreign policy. Go look at his Facebook page, libertarians are constantly converting tea partiers and neocons to our side. When he speaks of things like ending foreign aid and following the constitution for war, those are baby steps one must take with these people. You can NOT just go out and say we don't need to be foreign interventionists, that will lose his whole GOP base in an instant, something that has been undoubtedly and meticulously planned by himself and his father.

Rand voluntarily chose to learn Austrian economics at the age of 11, listened to his father philosophize on the ideas of Liberty as a teenager, has seen the trials and tribulations, has seen the mistakes, and now knows how to use the GOP as an effective vehicle to carry the message.

God I love Ron Paul. He's my darn hero for goodness sake! Without his 30 years of unwavering principles I don't think I would have ever given this politician the light of day without it. That integrity brought most of us here. So I get that desire for wanting another Ron Paul. But Rand is right there. Yes, his record is 99% alike to Ron Paul and isn't 100%, and he has sacrificed some Liberty talking points in exchange for status quo Republican rhetoric. But the answer is staring you right in the face if you look hard enough.

This is why Rand needs to

This is why Rand needs to tell Americans the truth. Israel did 9/11. See War By Deception 2013. We have to start telling the truth, even if it leads to ridicule. Eventually, the truth will out. Be on its side first!

To add. Rand said he will end

To add. Rand said he will end foreign aid starting with our enemies. He would wean Israel off so they could achieve economic independence from America.

We are not in this to make enemies.

cancer can grow slowly but you don't cut it slowly

Foreign aid is a cancer on all us you don't cut it slowly.

All those countries getting it will survive fine without it.


Listen...I agree...what's

Listen...I agree...what's right is right! But is it tactical?

what makes Israel an ally? I

what makes Israel an ally? I don't call a nation that attacks us on 9/11 with truck bombs, and other explosives via Mossad, an ally. I don't call the greatest spy threat, an ally.

The vast majority of

The vast majority of Democrats would not make such an unqualified statement. This was not a saavy nuanced statement this was neocon chest thumping.

Ventura 2012

Yeah, but Democrats still

Yeah, but Democrats still vote for the wars. Rand is playing the rhetoric card, but last I checked, he was the only Senator, 98-1, to say the President doesn't have the authority to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon by any means necessary.

Actions speak louder than words.

But he did vote for

But he did vote for sanctions, so....

Ventura 2012

He absolutely did. Ron Paul

He absolutely did. Ron Paul wouldn't have. I wouldn't have. That is the one thing differing thing in his record. But one thing he did do, was the only Senator not to give the President the go ahead to take military action if he wanted to. 98-1. The only nay.

So his record is of 99% of Ron Paul's. Gary Johnson was very pro-choice, wanted the fed to legalize gay marriage instead of just getting out of the marriage business, and supported military action for humanitarian reasons. Did that stop people from voting for him? No. He wasn't Ron Paul, but he was still pretty good.

Some people are holding Rand up to this microscope, and if he does just the slightest thing Ron wouldn't do...OH HE'S A TRAITOR AND THE WORLD'S OVER. But some of the same people voted for Gary Johnson or supported him or never criticized him in the same light like they do Rand who is more libertarian. It's just ridiculous.

Well said


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

It depends on how important

It depends on how important you think foreign policy is. I think it is the ultimate measure of the man, it tells you whether he is moral or not. Look at a man like Andrew Jackson, he was certainly a patriot but he was a warmonger because of his virulent racism(and I think Rand is probably tribalistic at a minimum) and so while he stopped the Bank in his time he totally discredited the movement going forward.

To some people here, human life is not the primary issue nor do they apparently see that most of our current problems flow from our foreign policy apparatus. So I would put Rand at about 75% of his Dad at this point. There are a lot of people in Congress that are closer to his dad especially in their ability to weigh the issues. Of course Im assuming he actually means what he says...which I think you can assume because the idea that he is some Mikhail Gorbachev is childish and asinine. That will not be allowed to happen again. What is a lot more believable is that he is selling out for power or is blackmailed.

A vote for Gary Johnson was no more relevant that upvoting this post is. You were voting for the party not the man, because the man could not win. Rand Paul is more dangerous because Rand Paul is the last best hope for this movement and if he's a judas goat then the movement probably dies with him. There's a lot riding on this thing. The loss would be incalculable.

Ventura 2012

I agree with much of what you

I agree with much of what you said. Only thing is, 75% is pretty harsh. That's based on his rhetoric. And sure there's nothing that says you can't, but my assessment of him is of his record. And the only blemish has been the vote on Iranian sanctions where he and Ron have said that is something they disagree on. And that worried me a little bit, but when he stood up as the only Senator to not give Obama the green light to attack Iran if necessary, I firmly believe he's not supportive of military attacks.

So while I think people absolutely are within their logic of doubting Rand, I think it's ridiculous to throw all hope away and condemn him as a neocon. Because so far, he's clearly anything but..

So like I said, you weigh

So like I said, you weigh genocidal sanctions on Iran and open-ended war for to "defend" Israel, along with spending bills for Israel, as "1%" of his Dad's record. I'd weigh it a lot more heavily. We all know that sanctions are the first step towards war, as they were with Iraq. 1% of his dad's record is some harmless vote for a social safety net or congressional medal for some civil rights leader. And don't say that the war for Israel statement is just words, because I think I dealt with that pretty swiftly with my "Gorbachev" comment. Just words would be "support Israel" and "we're friends" not "if you attack them its an act of war against us". Radical position. And those words have been backed up with actions: sanctions for Israel and continued aid for Israel.

Ventura 2012

There have been a few

There have been a few interviews where Ron and Rand say there only big disagreement is with sanctions being an act of war. Rand is in the minority with that opinion here at the DP.

But sanctions is where the buck stops with Rand, and not going by rhetoric but his record -- which proves that statement. Last year when the Senate voted to give Obama permission to stop Iran by "any means necessary", Rand was the only nay -- 98-1. And while foreign aid continues to Israel and other countries, Rand's the only Senator really putting in effort to stop it.

If you or anyone throws Rand in the dumpster over rhetoric he's using to keep the GOP base behind him, I think that's ridiculous. Now I think it's perfectly reasonable to doubt him, be skeptical of him, be pretty pessimistic about him. My only grief is with the people that are viciously criticizing him, and it's only because his name is Rand Paul and is being held to a different standard than all the other Liberty candidates out there. If Rand were to say military force for humanitarian reasons are okay, and would support invading Uganda to kill Kony, he would be getting just as much flak as he is right now for the Israel comments. And the kicker is, there was a Liberty candidate that said that. There is a pretty biased standard with Rand, and it's ridiculous.

For every poster "throwing

For every poster "throwing Rand in the dumpster" there is a poster defending the indefensible with childish conspiracy theories about "rhetoric". If we could all agree that what rand said and did is wrong there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Ventura 2012

And you're correct with that

And you're correct with that statement. I think we all need to not let our emotions get the best of us and continue to think reasonably and not irrational like many of us are guilty of on this issue. Instead of the people that are calling Rand a Saint, they should acknowledge there are some things he does that could become troubling realities, and become cautiously optimistic of him at most. And the people calling Rand a traitor should acknowledge that some of the things he's doing could be a ruse, and they should be cautiously pessimistic of him at most. Because the facts are, we really don't know the true intentions of Rand. And that fear of the unknown really is what's driving such polarizing emotions on the Rand Paul subject.

On the subject of Rand Paul, we can remain cautiously optimistic or cautiously pessimistic, but we must not let our passions drive us over those emotional cliffs until it's all out on the table and we definitively know who we're dealing with.

Yup, I think you make a good

Yup, I think you make a good point. And the reason we need to be cautious is because of what is at stake with a Rand Paul campaign.

Ventura 2012

Of course the Israelis were kind to Rand.

If he was just some dumb sucker American he would be singing a different tune. I was the dumb sucker American for a couple of weeks. The Israelis have an outward loathing of Americans.

I am just dumbfounded how half the liberty movement is still conned by Rand. Anyone who is that giddy about being POTUS has some serious power issues. Ron Paul never wanted to be President. He was quoted as saying he wished he could be the President of Switzerland because nobody can even name them.

Is there a reason to get mad

Is there a reason to get mad at others unless you use that energy to take action? You can not put your trust in others. Trust yourself and run for office or educate. Do something constructive that you can control.

The Real Rand.

And this is exactly why I've never trusted Rand.
Acting on the behalf of and at the behest of Israhell is not in USA's best interest. It is NOT the US of IZ, even if D.C. is run from Tel Aviv, and we need to take our country (esp our govt) back, today.

I get so sick of us being involved in all of these, "non-wars", for IZ. How is it helping us? We are creating more enemies, all over the world, for this little lunatic-state? I know we are wrong; completely wrong.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

If Congress is to...

...declare war, instead of a President acting as king, how can Rand guarantee that an attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on us? Unless there's some treaty I'm unaware of. I'm not saying there is NO circumstance under which we respond to such an attack ourselves, but isn't that for the People to debate and decide?

Not a single person in Washington Disease represents majority

Even the famous Reagan landslide only garnered about 33% of the eligible voters. Forty-five percent did't vote for anybody for President.

We have a faith-based election system. Not one in office can prove that they got the votes to win.

The people should debate and decide, but we lack representation in government.

Free includes debt-free!


That's what I tried to explain here:


Rand's comments mean practically NOTHING because as president he would only allow Congress to declare war.

We can STAND

with Israel and other allies all day long but it doesn't mean we'll go to war for them or with them.

Not if Rand is president and a vote to go to war is brought to Congress by way of the American people ---the right way. What will that vote look like?

I don't think we will shed blood and money for Israel, oil, and the military industrial complex. Especially when Israel is armed to the teeth with nukes.

Rand easily could have said...

"any unprovoked attack on any friendly trading partner of the United States will be considered as a serious threat to the security and well-being of the United States and any country considering such actions should weigh such plans accordingly.".

But he didn't. Why? Poor and hasty phrasing? Pandering? Insight into his actual philosophy and beliefs? Is he a zionist? Or is he just pretending? Close our eyes, vote for him and hope for the best? It's a mystery. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~