Quote (Pollster @ Apr 2 2014 05:41am)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/30/rand-paul-trashed-military-option-for-iran-and-blamed-the-u-s-for-wwii/Resident shill Jennifer Rubin is playing her part in passing along a newly-surfaced video from February of 2012 that captures some of Rand Paul's foreign policy views. Some of the highlights include Paul characterizing an Iranian nuke as merely "not a good idea," and a claim that a member of Israeli intelligence believed that the Iranian nuke wouldn't be an existential threat to Israel. He then goes on to make some pretty bizarre claims suggesting that the United States invited Pearl Harbor and possibly World War 2 overall.
Paul's been getting shellacked on FreeRepublic, Gateway Pundit, TeaParty.org, and other chattering grounds that you would expect. It was always true that his foreign policy views were going to rub Republican primary voters the wrong way but this is the last thing that he needs to surface.
So you twist his words and condemn him for not warmongering enough.
Interesting.
I think its wonderful that he isnt hawking for war with Iran.
Quote (lithfkn @ Apr 2 2014 06:17am)
I see nothing wrong with the bold except forinviting ww2.
He didnt say that. Its just a tactic to make him look bad.
Jennifer Rubin, and Pollster/Jayquik have a very clear anti-rand agenda and this smear-filled hit-piece is part of it.
Heres a counter-article addressing it, coming from a guy who isnt exactly his greatest ally:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/01/jennifer-rubins-amazingly-dishonest-rand-paul-hit-piece/
Heres another from reason.com
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/01/rand-paul-reads-history-likes-bands-that
Quote
Jennifer Rubin, whose blog at The Washington Post serves as a sort of dumping ground for undigested neoconservative talking points, claimed on Sunday that Rand Paul "blamed the U.S. for WWII."
In 2012, you see, Paul suggested that the punitive measures imposed on Germany after World War I helped fuel the resentments Hitler exploited in his rise to power. (The senator specifically cited the Allies' Naval blockade, which extended past the armistice into the middle of 1919.) Paul further offended Rubin by raising the possibility that the embargoes imposed on Japan before World War II played a role in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. Rubin quotes a couple of her acquaintances who think these are very bad things to say (including "a foreign policy expert at a center-left think tank," who apparently needed anonymity to tell us that Paul represents the "unreconstructed Taft-Lindbergh-Buchanan wing of [the] party") before citing Jeane Kirkpatrick's old line, "But then, somehow, they always blame America first." She caps off her post with the boldfaced, italicized question, What else is out there?
Needless to say, Paul's comments are well within the boundaries of mainstream historical debate, and none of them add up to blaming Washington for the Second World War. (One of the policies he criticized—the blockade of Germany—wasn't even really an American project.) Given that his statements came in the context of defending his vote for sanctions on Iran, I'd say the overall thrust of his remarks was, if anything, too hawkish rather than too dovish. There's no need for me to belabor this; Rubin's post is interesting not as a serious critique but as a bellwether. The rise of a relatively anti-interventionist camp in the Republican Party is driving the hawks crazy.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 2 2014 04:41am