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

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

It's been discovered that the

It's been discovered that the video that was put out by Daily Caller was only a very small part of the overall interview. They just put out a small clip which was taken out of context when compared to the entire video.

Hence the clarification. Do

Hence the clarification. Do you really agree that we should be in an entangling alliance with wartorn Israel? That was the complaint then and its the complaint now.

Ventura 2012

I don't believe that we

I don't believe that we should be involved in any treaty that forces us to come to the defense of any nation that gets attacked. I believe this is actually what our founding fathers referred to as an "entangling alliance." I don't necessarily think that Washington and Jefferson meant that the United States should never intervene overseas under any circumstances at all. They just wanted us to stay out of treaties that create entangling alliances.

Ok, so in other words you

Ok, so in other words you disagree with Rand Paul? Because he is proposing exactly that, a de-facto treaty to defend Israel if attacked

Ventura 2012

I do disagree with that if

I do disagree with that if that's what he's saying. But, I would also disagree with someone who says that under no circumstances at all should we ever help out Israel militarily. I do believe in a generally non interventionist foreign policy. I support closing down all of our overseas military bases and bringing our troops home, I support ending all foreign aid, I oppose pre-emptive war, I oppose sanctions on foreign countries, etc. Still, I think that there has to be exceptions to every ideology, and I think that you have to adapt and respond to the world that we live in. I think that there probably has to be an exception to non interventionism in extraordinary situations. I'm sure you and others disagree. I respect your opinion.

I do disagree but I

I do disagree but I understand your opinion, I really do. Beating Hitler and all.

Ventura 2012

This clarified some of the

This clarified some of the concerns I had about Rand's comment. I don't have a problem with what he said when put in this context.