Rand Paul Has Officially Sold Out on Israel

This is outrageous. Rand is now officially off the list of potentially acceptable 2016 candidates. His dad needs to put that boy over his knee and give him a good whipping and send him to his room.

“…absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and I think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United Sta tes.”

Read more…

We really need to start to identify potential candidates who can carry the non-interventionist banner in 2016, because Rand Paul is not one of them.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

59 thoughts on “Rand Paul Has Officially Sold Out on Israel

  1. Savrola

    How do you infer that? I’m not sempronius.

    And to my knowledge Hezbollah is not seeking US intervention on its behalf.

  2. Hawthorne

    Sempronius is the yang to Raimondo’s ying. They are blinded by over considering one country, out of many, from entirely different angles, producing radically different outcomes.

    If we dial back to Serbia, would Semp have suggested the neocon position to work with Muslims against those hated Communists? Should the ‘non-Interventionist thing’ have supported aiding Serbia against it’s threats?

    Or should we do what we did and say–boo Clinton, interventionism!? That my oh so grand above it all position, and all I got was George W. humble foreign policy for it.

    I am sure there was some middle ground we could have worked out that we can yet apply right now to Syria, on the home turf of our enemies.

  3. Kirt Higdon

    I don’t get the reference to Raimondo. He’s an across the board non-interventionist and doesn’t favor siding with either Palestinians or Israelis. And he and the other founders of antiwar.com did so to oppose US intervention in the Balkan wars. Again, he did not favor taking any side. The US is in fact intervening in the Syrian civil war both by supplying “non-lethal” materials to the rebels and encouraging Turkey and various Arab countries to supply weapons and provide safe havens for the rebels. The proper course should be strict non-intervention. As far as the “home turf of our enemies” is concerned, I thought that was Iran or Mali or Libya or Pakistan or (oh, what the hell!) half the world.

  4. RedPhillips Post author

    Raimondo supports non-intervention, but he is clearly emotionally invested in the plight of the Palestinians. It comes through in his language. I suspect this is what Hawthorne was referring to.

  5. Pingback: Rand Paul Clarifies His Israel Security Guarantee | Conservative Heritage Times

  6. Kirt Higdon

    Red, I’m not sure about what you mean by Raimondo being emotionally invested in the plight of the Palestinians since you don’t give any specific examples. I’ve contributed to Palestinian charities and for that matter to a Serbian charity. The Catholic Church (and I’m sure other churches) takes up collections to aid Palestinian Christians. If that sort of thing is what you are talking about, it has nothing to do with urging either military or non-military government aid, let alone intervening in actual fighting. Still less is it interventionist to criticize severely a foreign government. Why should the Israeli government be exempt from my or Raimondo’s criticism when the US government is not?

  7. C Bowen

    Red—exactly, if I mean in a critique of language employed to tactically lead towards the stated end.

    Just like Raimondo’s refusal to give the BNP’s Nick Griffin any credit for standing a forefront against the globalist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if being supportive of Israeli nationalism–the point Raimondo zeroes in on for criticism (and of course Nick is the bete noir now of British nationalist circles so maybe everybody won–which is not to say the criticism of Griffin is not warranted, only that non-interventionism is my goal for my country so I don’t care about England.)

  8. Sean Scallon

    At this point I don’t believe any potential candidate would have such serious differences with Rand to make any potential candidacy viable and credible. Nor are the even closely to be President. For better or worse Rand has inherited the mantle of leadership. But if one puts not their trust in prices, then offer critiques of Rand Paul is much healthier for a broader, mature community than blind worship does.

  9. Pingback: Rand Paul Does the PC Pander at Howard University | Conservative Heritage Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>