Will the Right Wing Bubble Burst?

[_Kevin Graham]

Rand Paul pulls a stunt in his questioning of Clinton, asking her about a talking point that originated from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. No evidence to support it of course, but he thought he'd throw it out there anyway. The look on Hillary's face and her response was priceless! Check it out on this video at about 5:40 mark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... 58111.html

[_Brackite]

Isn't Senator Rand Paul more anti-war than Hillary Clinton???

Rand Paul on War & Peace


It is unacceptable not to hate war

I'm not a pacifist, but I do think it unacceptable not to hate war. I'm dismissive of those who champion war as sport and show no reluctance to engage in war. Any leader who shows glee or eagerness for war should not be leading any nation. I believe truly great leaders are reluctant to go to war and try mightily to avoid war.

Though I detest violence, I could kill someone who injured or threatened my family. Though I hate war, I could commit a nation to war, but only reluctantly and constitutionally and after great deliberation. I believe that though some would find this a contradiction in terms that there is a such thing as a Christian or just theory of war, that a just war is a war of self-defense. At the same time I'm conflicted. I don't believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense. I'm conflicted.


Opposed to Iraq War; no direct threat & no declared war

Unlike Afghanistan, I would not have voted to go to war with Iraq, not only because there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but because that country did not pose a threat to the United States.

I will not vote to go to war without a formal declaration of war, as our soldiers deserve and the Constitution demands.


Would have voted against a declaration of war against Iraq

In contrast to Palin's rote recitation of justifications for overthrowing Saddam, Paul says he would have voted against a declaration of war against Iraq. During the runup to the U. invasion, he says that there "was some question whether intelligence was manipulated."

"The strange thing about Hussein & Iraq is that we actually had been their biggest ally for 20 years because we saw them as a bulwark against the Iranian dominance of the region. I don't think there was a reason to go into Iraq," he said.

Link: http://www.ontheissues.org/internationa ... _Peace.htm

On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War. [77]

By February 2007, Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire. [78]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... am_Clinton

[_EAllusion]

Isn't Senator Rand Paul more anti-war than Hillary Clinton???

By far. Rand Paul is much closer to the progressive view of foreign policy than Clinton is in general. This doesn't have much to do with Kevin's point though. On the one hand, I'm not a fan of these events becoming an opportunity for soap boxing, which is exactly what it turned into. On the other, most of what he had to say I think was on point. He does include an irrelevant conservative talking point of dubious factual basis that Kevin is referring to, which is a good symbol for Paul. You get a little bad with the mostly good when it comes to these things.

Paul vs. Clinton is actually a pretty feasible 2016 presidential matchup and provided Kevin doesn't have a dizzying change of heart, it will be humorous to see him reflexively support Clinton who is very George W. Bush-like in approach to foreign policy over Paul, who is much closer to George McGovern. Partisanship can make people flip scripts so easily.

[_EAllusion]

I'd add that that there is a very strong case to be made for liberals doing everything in their power right now to ensure that Paul gets to the top of the pile of Republican power. If you don't like the prospect of the Republican party being an insane asylum that marries the religious right with a burning desire for American imperialism and expansive military spending, Paul is your best chance at stopping and reversing that trend through the power of partisan following.

If you are a liberal who would like to see budgetary deficits meaningfully fixed and done so by not leaving military spending as a sacred cow, Paul is your best shot. He's your best shot to see a resurgence of non-interventionism and civil libertarianism from conservatives. A Republican can get significantly reduced military spending and presence through the government for the same reason Obama was able to get Democrats on board with Bush's war on terror policies like domestic spying and indefinite detention without due process. Some of the most strident opposition to it will become relatively muted when the person in charge of their political party is doing it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Isn't Senator Rand Paul more anti-war than Hillary Clinton???

No. You can't seriously take his assertion, that he wouldn't have voted to go to war with Iraq, seriously. Hell anyone who wasn't in office at that time could make these kinds of claims now, just to make themselves look genius. He has nothing to lose, politically speaking, by throwing himself out there like that. But if he were in office at the time, well we'd be talking a different story, and no one can really say where he would have stood on that issue given the support for War by his constituents in Kentucky. The job of a Congressman is, after all, to represent the will of their constituents.

If supporting the war in Iraq is the best evidence you have that Hillary is "pro-war", then that's pretty pathetic. Everyone was lied to at the time and politicians voted accordingly. But since when does this matter to Republicans anyway? Obama was a vocal critic of the Iraq war at the time, and he was a politician who was putting his career at stake by standing up against something that had overwhelming support everywhere in the country. Yet, I'm old by EA that he is no different than Bush when it comes to war mongering.

[_EAllusion]

No.

The fact that he has belonged to a robust tradition of conservative non-interventionism since forever, has articulated that position frequently, uses his pulpit to advocate reduced military spending and presence in Republican circles often, and has a voting record that more or less matches what we'd expect of conservative non-interventionism counts for nothing against Clinton's stated positions, voting record, political associations, and being the secretary of state for a neoconservative foreign policy.

You are no different than when you were a huge GWB fan. You've taken the same approach to facts and interpretation and just applied it to rooting for a different political team.

that he wouldn't have voted to go to war with Iraq, seriously. Hell anyone who wasn't in office at that time could make these kinds of claims now, just to make themselves look genius.

Like Obama? Apparently not, as evidenced by this post.

If supporting the war in Iraq is the best evidence you have that Hillary is "pro-war", then that's pretty pathetic. Everyone was lied to at the time and politicians voted accordingly.

Ron Paul voted against the war. If only there was some way to know if Rand Paul behaves politically like him...

You act as though everyone favored the Iraq War at the time. Because you did doesn't mean everyone did. The majority of Democrats in the house voted against it along with something like half of the Democratic senators. There was substantial opposition to it, but politicians like Hillary Clinton helped usher it through by moving the Democratic base just enough.

Clinton favors Clintonian interventionism. Her adviser team has the same philosophical constitution as her husband's, and we have the advantage of knowing what that foreign policy looks like. It is a far more war-mongering view than the Paul end of he spectrum.

Obama was a vocal critic of the Iraq war at the time, and he was a politician who was putting his career at stake by standing up against something that had overwhelming support everywhere in the country.

Obama was running to be the leftwing candidate in a Democratic state with a base of support in a highly liberal district in Illinois. His position at the time, while spot on, was a laundry list of progressive talking points on the war from that period. He lost. If anything, we now have reason to believe he was staking that territory out of political convenience given his reversals on just about every other similar issue when he actually got power. It's hard to know, but it was a smart political gambit to take that view, not a dumb one.

[_Kevin Graham]

The fact that he has belonged to a robust tradition of conservative non-interventionism since forever, has articulated that position frequently, uses his pulpit to advocate reduced military spending and presence in Republican circles often, and has a voting record that more or less matches what we'd expect of conservative non-interventionism counts for nothing against Clinton's stated positions, voting record, political associations, and being the secretary of state for a neoconservative foreign policy.

Paul is all about small government, which is the center of his philosophy. Naturally that means less military, which means less military action. It isn't because he hates war more than Clinton. That argument is idiotic. He just knows that war cannot happen without government, and government is the thing he hates.

You are no different than when you were a huge GWB fan. You've taken the same approach to facts and interpretation and just applied it to rooting for a different political team.

You seem to be very distraught by the fact that unlike some folks here, I'm able to change my mind. Your constant mockery of that fact reflects poorly on no one else but you.

Like Obama? Apparently not, as evidenced by this post.

Obama was against the war at the time while serving in the Illinois Senate. He didn't have to speak against the war but he did. And he did so knowing full well that it wasn't the popular thing to do. As President he ended US military involvement in Iraq.

You act as though everyone favored the Iraq War at the time. Because you did doesn't mean everyone did. The majority of Democrats in the house voted against it along with something like half of the Democratic senators. There was substantial opposition to it, but politicians like Hillary Clinton helped usher it through by moving the Democratic base just enough.

Yes, and she firmly believed what the intelligence agencies were telling them at the time. Acting on the available data, presented to her by intelligence agencies from Russia and Europe, doesn't make her generally "pro-war." That's dumb logic. And it is also dumb logic to think Rand Paul is more "anti-war" than anyone else. Assuming you're right, and Rand Paul is just his Dad's little puppet, then he is against war in Iraq not because he is "against war" in general, but because he just didn't believe they presented a threat. Otherwise, why is he supportive of war in Afghanistan? And why the hell would we want a President who is always going to be against war no matter what? The issue here is a matter of who got what right and who didn't, it isn't an issue of one person being "pro-war" and another "anti-war." The Paul family is notorious for going against conventional wisdom, propping up conspiracy theories, and assuming government is the devil that will lie about anything and everything. Most times they have no clue what they're talking about. But in this instance they just happened to be right. Hell, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Clinton favors Clintonian interventionism. Her adviser team has the same philosophical constitution as her husband's, and we have the advantage of knowing what that foreign policy looks like. It is a far more war-mongering view than the Paul end of he spectrum.

Interventionism is not synonymous with war, at least not with the examples which took place during the Clinton administrations; all of which were based on humanitarian interests just as much as national security interests.

[_EAllusion]

Paul is all about small government, which is the center of his philosophy. Naturally that means less military, which means less military action. It isn't because he hates war more than Clinton. That argument is idiotic. He just knows that war cannot happen without government, and government is the thing he hates.

So you haven't spent much time understanding the paleolibertarian views Paul comes from. Paul is strongly non-interventionist because he takes a fairly isolationist view of the US's proper role in world affairs. Conservative non-interventionism used to be a fairly robust tradition in Republican party politics going back to the 1920's. Even George W. Bush campaigned on a moderate version of it against Clinton's then history of repeated military interventions, though that obviously was posturing. It's only in the post-911 world has neoconservative approaches to war dominated Republican party politics. Paul opposes wars that are not a matter of immediate self-defense on principle. It isn't a simple matter of less government spending, therefore less funding for wars. It's thinking that the US should not be interfering in the affairs of other nations, both for practical and ideological reasons.

You seem to be very distraught by the fact that unlike some folks here, I'm able to change my mind. Your constant mockery of that fact reflects poorly on no one else but you.

I'm more interested in the fact that you were an irrational jerk when you were a hyper-Republican partisan, which you appear to recognize, and seem to have carried over the same habits despite thoroughly switching political allegiances. That you don't appear to recognize. I would think such a rapid, dizzying switch would cause some self-reflection rather than simply changing what partisan sources you choose to read.

Obama was against the war at the time while serving in the Illinois Senate. He didn't have to speak against the war but he did. And he did so knowing full well that it wasn't the popular thing to do.

He was a state senator from Hyde Park. Opposition to the Iraq war in that district was wildly popular while supporting it would be politically dangerous.

As President he ended US military involvement in Iraq.

He followed through on the Bush negotiated terms of withdrawal after his administration failed to renege on that and extend US military presence longer than the timetable. Yay?

Yes, and she firmly believed what the intelligence agencies were telling them at the time.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with a political miscalculation about seeming soft on terror for her anticipated presidential run in the future or the humanitarian argument she has supported in several other analogous instances.

Acting on the available data, presented to her by intelligence agencies from Russia and Europe, doesn't make her generally "pro-war." That's dumb logic.

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq even if the WMD argument was accurate as there still would've been no meaningful threat to the US. Iraq would've just been akin to N. Korea, which we are not and should not be invading. Clinton favors a relatively interventionist approach to the military. She also favored Clinton's various military interventions - Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia ... - whereas Paul would not. Ditto for Obama's constitutionally dubious military intervention in Libya. That's because she's more pro-war as a tool of foreign policy.

And it is also dumb logic to think Rand Paul is more "anti-war" than anyone else. Assuming you're right, and Rand Paul is just his Dad's little puppet, then he is against war in Iraq not because he is "against war" in general, but because he just didn't believe they presented a threat.

Being more pro-war than someone else means being more willing to start a war. The list of reasons a paleolibertarian like Paul would engage in military action are simply much smaller than Clinton's. Like, obviously.

Interventionism is not synonymous with war, at least not with the examples which took place during the Clinton administrations; all of which were based on humanitarian interests just as much as national security interests.

Invading a foreign nation with US military action is war, undeclared or no. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

Paul is far less likely than Clinton to use the US military to invade other nations for humanitarian interests. You might support Clintonian interventionism, but that just makes you also more pro-war, which is the point being made.

[_Kevin Graham]

It isn't a simple matter of less government spending, therefore less funding for wars. It's thinking that the US should not be interfering in the affairs of other nations, both for practical and ideological reasons.

So morality doesn't play into it at all. Who cares if people are being raped and slaughtered in the streets by some bully who leads a military force (i.e. Kuwait). We should just turn a blind eye because to intervene in these situation would make us "pro-war"? You have a very one-dimensional approach to this issue. Most of these interventions under Clinton were collaborative efforts with the UN, and the goal was not to "start war," but rather to prevent one or to end an already existing civil war that was leading to genocide. The latter can hardly be called "war mongering."

I'm more interested in the fact that you were an irrational jerk when you were a hyper-Republican partisan, which you appear to recognize, and seem to have carried over the same habits despite thoroughly switching political allegiances

Just changing my worldview wasn't enough for me precisely because I was such a staunch defender of an incorrect ideology. I felt I had to do some repenting by arguing against what I used to believe is true. It is very much the same reason why I frequently engage in what LDS defenders like to call "anti-Mormonism." For them, they'd just rather you leave the faith and shut the hell up. They don't want you talking about why you believe Mormonism is false.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that just because I didn't "switch sides" for the reasons you'd prefer, that my conversion is no less sincere or legitimate. My initial conversion from Right Wing ideology began when I realized I was trusting very untrustworthy sources. I was being lied to. It was just the first step to my deconversion and it all revolved around economic issues during the financial collapse in 2008-2009. I gradually became a convert to a Keynesian approach but the issue of war and legitimacy of invasions never really played a factor in any of that. Finding out that I was actively misinforming people with Right Wing rhetoric, was the first thing that gave me cause for pause and I began to reflect on why I believed what I believed. I was a product of a Right Wing propaganda machine and I felt the need to make amends for my stupidity.

That you don't appear to recognize. I would think such a rapid, dizzying switch would cause some self-reflection rather than simply changing what partisan sources you choose to read.

But this isn't true, as you yourself admitted recently. The sources I use typically come from places like, Mediamatters which you already said was light years away from the kind of subjective, craziness that Republicans here typically fall back on.

He was a state senator from Hyde Park. Opposition to the Iraq war in that district was wildly popular while supporting it would be politically dangerous.

Who aspired to expand his career to the national level, which would make his decision to be against Iraq counterproductive.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with a political miscalculation about seeming soft on terror for her anticipated presidential run in the future or the humanitarian argument she has supported in several other analogous instances.

Hillary was on record, several times during the late 90's, speaking on this intelligence that alleged Iraq had a WMD program and posed a threat. It would have been hypocritical for her to do an about face just because a Republican was President.

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq even if the WMD argument was accurate as there still would've been no meaningful threat to the US.

OK now that's just dumb. Obviously you agree with the Paul family on this though I don't understand your reasons.

Iraq would've just been akin to N. Korea, which we are not and should not be invading.

Thanks to Clinton, North Korea had stopped its Nuclear weapons program. Diplomacy worked with N. Korea until Bush screwed it all up. It didn't with Iraq. And Iraq is notorious for its possession and use of WMDs on innocents. You don't seem to appreciate the finer details that really show just how different these two countries were.

Clinton favors a relatively interventionist approach to the military. She also favored Clinton's various military interventions - Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia ... - whereas Paul would not.

Paul is a lunatic with a twisted sense of morality that is probably tied to a belief that being born American means you're special in the eyes of God.

That's because she's more pro-war as a tool of foreign policy.

No, she is pro-intervention. They call it intervention because it isn't war. Your attempt to equate the two is stunning.

Being more pro-war than someone else means being more willing to start a war.

But in the examples you cite we didn't start war. Did we start the war in Haiti? No. Hell, our troops weren't even opposed by Haitian security forces because Jimmy Carter brokered a deal. We went there to restore a democratically elected leader who was ousted in a military coup. We left within a year.

Did we start war in Somalia or was war already present and we were trying to prevent further genocide? Did we start war in Bosnia or did we intervene with NATO after 37 people were senselessly slaughtered? Did we start war with Liberia or did we go there to evacuate those who were holding up in the embassy? According to your narrow definition, we must have started a war with them and the humanitarian effort to evacuate the defenseless just means we're "pro-war." Sigh!

You know you like to come across as someone who appreciates nuance, but moments like these suggest quite the opposite. You're projecting when you try to paint me as the simple-minded ideologue who only sees black or white. In your world, we're no longer allowed to make distinctions between things like humanitarian interventions and a full blown "war."

The list of reasons a paleolibertarian like Paul would engage in military action are simply much smaller than Clinton's. Like, obviously.

Obviously. That doesn't make either of them pro or anti war.

[_beastie]

Kuwait is problematic, although I am not clear in how you were using it as an example. The leadership of Kuwait, much like some exiled Iraqis did later, manipulated evidence and the media to convince the US to intervene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

In addition, the US had actually given Saddam a "go-ahead" prior to the invasion, by assuring him that we didn't really care about their border disputes. You know, back in the good old days when we were best friends with Saddam, armed him, and turned a blind eye to his atrocities.

Moreover, the Kuwaiti dictatorship was hardly a friend to democracy.

(from link above)

Viewed in strictly moral terms, Kuwait hardly looked like the sort of country that deserved defending, even from a monster like Hussein. The tiny but super-rich state had been an independent nation for just a quarter century when in 1986 the ruling al-Sabah family tightened its dictatorial grip over the "black gold" fiefdom by disbanding the token National Assembly and firmly establishing all power in the be-jeweled hands of the ruling Emir. Then, as now, Kuwait's ruling oligarchy brutally suppressed the country's small democracy movement, intimidated and censored journalists, and hired desperate foreigners to supply most of the nation's physical labor under conditions of indentured servitude and near-slavery. The wealthy young men of Kuwait's ruling class were known as spoiled party boys in university cities and national capitals from Cairo to Washington.