17 votes

Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments

"The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel. In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state.

Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.

He was not discussing any offensive or preemptive war, nor was he describing the skirmishes that come up from time to time in that region. He was discussing a hypothetical all-out attack on Israel by her neighbors.

Of course, he also fully believes that the power to declare war and therefore commit the United States to a war lies with Congress.

This is a point he has fought for often in the Senate. So he was speaking as one person. He does not believe the President has or would have the authority to commit the United States forces to defending Israel without the authorization of Congress.

Finally, if this is indeed the likely action of the United States in the event of an attack, stating so in advance is likely to lead to a smaller chance of such attack ever taking place, not greater as some have asserted. Senator Paul never has war as a goal or a preferred policy, only as a last resort."

Doug Stafford

Comment viewing options

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

I think this clarification is

I think this clarification is fair. And I am glad he is answering questions from the liberty wing. Kudos.

I thought this clarification

I thought this clarification allievated my concerns at first, but now I read an article about how Rand has been meeting with neo-conservative foreign policy people lately. That worries me very much. I'll likely at least vote for Rand in 2016 as he'll still be the best Republican running, but he's not going to receive a lot of money from me and others like me if he walks too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.

What neocons people are you refering to?

What was the purpose of those meetings? Can you point me to reports regarding those please, did a search came and I out short.

Thanks

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Translated...

...'so, now that I am seeing the underlying truth, I will still support him and the globalist-collectivist cabal that he seems to be climbing into bed with. I am projecting reluctance, dissatisfaction and minimization for those who read this, in an attempt to assuage my inner queasy-feeling over my betrayal of bedrock principles by my knowingly continuing my support.'

Got it.

I don't believe that voting

I don't believe that voting for someone is the same as "support." I think that "support" includes donating money, making phone calls, putting out yard signs, etc. I think that voting for the best option on the ballot is just something that can be done to try to minimize the damage.

I am sure that you do not...

believe that.

Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that without the 'support' of voting and placing people into office where they can work their ills, the ills would not be wrought.

Aside from that, the old 'paradigm of the lesser turd' is exemplified in the remainder of your 'point'.

Nothing personal, just calling it as I see it, primarily to illustrate and 'compare & contrast' the issue for those who may read this and who subsequently may ponder it in a different light.

Such illustrations are what 'I' do, consistently, to attempt to awaken certain understandings in the advancement of liberty.

I think we need to change the

I think we need to change the concept that violence is a "last resort". It makes it seem like viable option, when by definition it is not "viable" (which is defined as "capable of living").

To resort to violence is to admit failure, it is an abandoment of our humanity and our capacity for reason in preference to solving problems like animals.

When Bibi gets a standing

When Bibi gets a standing ovation from OUR congress - guess Israel owns us. At the very least we should, outlaw dual citizenship being heads of state today.

The madness has to end

Welfare countries like Israel, Haiti, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, half the African continent, etc need to be cut off so they can stand up and develop fully on their own. I should also include the pseudo-country Palestine on that list.

If Americans are concerned about the state of different countries, let them donate or send money individually, of their own free will instead of by the state's decree.

Out of our country of over 300 million people, there are about 135 million who file tax returns, and of those there are about 65 million who actually pay federal income tax.

The foreign aid and foreign war aid combined budget for 2012 was about 53 billion USD. So the average taxpayer is sending almost $1000 USD a year overseas. That's JUST foreign aid.

Will you stop on that

or will you also cut US aid to EU banks, military aid to Japan and NATO?

I want to see socialistic programs in Greece, Ireland, Spain and France fail.

In short - Yes.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO now stands for North American Totalitarian Organization....essentially it is just a branch of the U.S. defense department. We allow other countries token membership and let them supply a few jets or whatnot.

Programs in other countries are a sovereign issue of that individual country, ergo none of our concern.

They played the Israel 'Gotcha' game with Ron...

... and Rand is defusing it.

Every little thing they pulled on Ron, Rand has a plan for.

I'm sorry - they aren't playing a fair game... With Ron, it wasn't "Dr. Paul, you would end all foreign aid..." - it was always "Dr. Paul, you would cut foreign aid to Israel. Why don't you support Israel?"

But Bill,

that is exactly why so many anti-Semites have joined our Libertarian movement. Many of them do not care about capitalism that much. They more like an idea to weaken Israel. Such anti-Semites listened to the media attacking Ron Paul regarding aid to Israel and assumed that Ron is against Israel. That was enough for them to pledge their allegiance.

After the allegiance was made, the focus faded. When Ron made several statements supporting Israel, our anti-Semites downplayed that as a possible disguise. But Rand is wakening them up to reality how dumb they were from the start. ....

Your logic is wrong on two counts

What does disagreeing with Israeli policy have to do with anti-semitism?

Does that mean everyone who disagrees with Obama's policy is anti-American? Your argument is flawed.

Those who argue to eliminate aid to Israel do not intend to weaken Israel. How can they? Israel already possesses the ultimate defense which is the nuclear deterrent.

And with all the foreign aid Israel has received over the years, it could not even pacify Hezbollah when Olmert was running the show.

The biggest problem for Israel right now is that its intelligence community is still based in reality but Netanyahu is in fantasyland.

You put your words into my mouth

Correct logical statements cannot always be reversed to produce correct statement. Thus, capitalism is necessary for a free society. Not all capitalist countries are free.

My statement should be understood directly. Israel does not kill 1 million muslims since 1990s as USA have done. Muslims killed hundreds of thousands during that time. B[i]tching against Israel means two things 1) people mistake group demands between Arabs and Jews with individual rights or fake "human rights." 2) people have certain bias against Israel. I can understand that you might want to be in the category #1.

Dang, That is even more explicit and clear than how Ron answers.

And it's more/less the same policy as his father.

.

Rand has learned the game

Rand has learned the game well.

Many folks are not focused.

Cutting aid to ALL will BENEFIT Israel. Therefore, unless you want US aid to muslims and to EU to contiue, you should understand that anti-Semites who support Ron Paul's "cutting aid to all" slogan do that only out of false belief that such an action will weaken Israel.

Both Rand and Ron are pro-Israel. They just do not use rhetoric. Even if Rand and Ron are personally neutral about Israel, free-market capitalism and non-interference will benefit Israel, not Sharia Law.

You are wrong

Cutting aid to all won't benefit Israel, it will benefit ALL. No country should have welfare status, it hinders proper development.
All countries would benefit in the long term.

Your weaknes of this argument

is that you confuse armchair theory with reality. 1) Most people today do not support free-market capitalism; 2) Proxeology cannot give certain interest groups exactly when their life will be better; 3) many people feel happy only in comparative term, knowing that others (especially their old friends) are not much richer or when they are in position of control and power or when they fight for Utopia.

I disagree

Just look to history. Germany post-world war 1 was a welfare state. No matter how many times the debt was re-structured things just got worse and worse.

It is late and you are not focused

Material things do not bring happiness. The fact that we live better than royal princess 500 years ago do nothing for our good mood today. My point was that certain interest groups live today better (ammount of work they spend vs what they get: comparative advantage or power over others) than they would under free-market capitalism (merit and hard work.)

What most politicians are not focused on

is our burgeoning debt and the negative consequences it has on our currency and nation.
Ron Paul taught me that.

Rand Paul

brought Israeli pime minister on par with our camp by forcing Bibi to say that he is for cutting aid to all. Will president of Egypt and prime minister of Pakistan do the same?

Even if they're "camping" buddies

A U.S. Senator does not need permission from an Israeli prime minister to support elimination of all U.S. foreign aid.

???

I do not see where my argument mentioned that. Israel supports cutting aid to all. Now we need to get other "friends" on board - Turkey, Jordan, Abbas, Egypt, Pakistam, EU banks, Japan, etc.

So Cut It!

Elected U.S. representatives do not need permission from foreign "friends" or enemies to eliminate financial aid to their countries.

Good point

Instead of complaining about Israel, bankers, Rand Paul and our government, we should put the focus where it belongs - American people. And if you understand Ayn Rand, it is not people to blame for being people, but the failure of people to use their rational thinking consitently. For instance, if one can ask god to give him parking space on a busy street, then why not to ask government for free stuff?

Thanks for clarifying how wrong it is!

It doesn't matter what hypotheticals they use to explain away their Neocon Zionism. I don't care if every nation in the region launched a nuclear missile at Israel - It is still not a reason to risk American lives. It is still not our business. It is still interventionism.

Plus, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, which means the Middle East would turn into a hellscape. I'm fine with that.

Sorry, no landing strip for Jesus. Boo.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Can he answer why Israel is

Can he answer why Israel is so important to the US?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...