A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Advocates a Neocon Foreign Policy

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Recently, a video of Peter Schiff discussing, among others things, the possibility of preemptively bombing Iran has caused enormous controversy within the Freedom Movement. Some have even gone so far as to accuse him of advocating the "the same foreign policy as the Bush administration neocons”.

However, if we fail to understand the context of the quotes and the most fundamental basics of campaign strategy we can reach the same conclusion for Rand Paul. On his campaign website, he begins his article on national defense with this:

“Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.” (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

This could also be misconstrued if taken out of context:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy." (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

These men are trying to get elected and so they must pick their battles. In other words, until they both have their Senate seats, they will have to make certain appeals (i.e. they will have to lie) to the McCain-Palin sheep. If you look at everything both Peter Schiff and Rand Paul have said about national defense, you realize that they can both help to gradually steer the party toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy.

Politicians have to pick their battles. But we don't have to — we can fight the entire war.

A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Supports a Neocon Foreign Policy http://www.wearechangenewjersey.org/?q=node/884

 

[Chester Copperpot]

the article says peter schiff, but the title says rand paul???

huh?

 

[Paulitey]

I do think that Rand's foreign policy about Afghanistan, from 2001-2004 era, seems a bit neoconish. He would have voted against a declaration of war, he said against Afghanistan. He also does not understand the concept of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

He also does not support shutting down Gitmo Bay, a military Naval base overseas in Cuba. I think he take this position just in order to win in a neocon state, Kentucky.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Article raises some good points.
Rand and Schiff are certainly not neocons.

 

[klamath]

Recently, a video of Peter Schiff discussing, among others things, the possibility of preemptively bombing Iran has caused enormous controversy within the Freedom Movement. Some have even gone so far as to accuse him of advocating the "the same foreign policy as the Bush administration neocons”.

However, if we fail to understand the context of the quotes and the most fundamental basics of campaign strategy we can reach the same conclusion for Rand Paul. On his campaign website, he begins his article on national defense with this:

“Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.” (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

This could also be misconstrued if taken out of context:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy." (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

These men are trying to get elected and so they must pick their battles. In other words, until they both have their Senate seats, they will have to make certain appeals (i.e. they will have to lie) to the McCain-Palin sheep. If you look at everything both Peter Schiff and Rand Paul have said about national defense, you realize that they can both help to gradually steer the party toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy.

Politicians have to pick their battles. But we don't have to — we can fight the entire war.

A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Supports a Neocon Foreign Policy http://www.wearechangenewjersey.org/?q=node/884

I wish people would just listen to what a candidate says!
Rand believes the war in Afganistatan is a war to protect America but wants it declared. I disagree but he is not a neocon. There is nothing out of context in his statements. He would push to have a war declared if elected. Simple as that.

Schiff would vote to bomb Iran if they refuse to let instectors in. There is nothing quoted out of context either. Schiff is not a neocon either but is a strong defence conservative. I disagree with him as well.
This is the way both of these candidates believe, take it or leave it but don't justify in you minds that they are just saying this stuff to get elected. I don't want to hear people coming back screaming that Rand and Schiff lied and broke their promises when they vote in line with their statements.

Neither one is a Neocon because they don't believe in nation building. I wish people would learn what the HELL a neocon is!

 

[devil21]

What the hell is this? Schiff's flat out interventionist video somehow translates to Rand being the same?

Can a mod move this elsewhere please? It's misleading.

 

[silverhandorder]

This is bs. Some people can not critically think for them selves. Both Rand and Schiff are doves. However it does not prevent them from discussings things hypothetically.

Point being if we had 100 of them in the Senate we would not be in wars in the first place. However now that we are waging wars and it does not look like we are going to pull out they can have input on how they are waged.

It's like accusing Ron Paul for adding an amendment to that FED power grab bill.

 

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

There's already a thread on this, I should have just posted there first. My mistake .

I replied to everyone here in the Schiff on Iran thread.

Please close if possible, thanks

 

[nobody's_hero]

I think RJ Harris has the best summary of how we should have responded to the 9/11 attacks. Basically, it wasn't so much an act of war as it was a criminal act. Had we responded through the channels of due process and began building the case against the attackers, we could have handled the situation in a way that would be worthy of the justice system the founders of this nation put in place, without usurping the Bill of Rights or destroying tens of thousands of lives in the process.

Of course, the time to present the evidence to, and ask the assistance of, the Arab nations that were not overwhelmingly resentful of us, was before we went rip-roaring across the Middle East killing everything that moves.

Everyone seems to think that you must either be for "complete retaliation" or "nothing at all."

Special forces in secrecy, even, doesn't seem necessary.

I hope this doesn't steer the thread off topic but here's RJ's article, "The Way forward in the War on Terror"
http://www.rjharris2010.com/blogs/thewayforwardinthewaronterror.asp

 

[dimaniak]

YouTube - Peter Schiff P3 Wethersfield, CT

 

[American Nationalist]

Recently, a video of Peter Schiff discussing, among others things, the possibility of preemptively bombing Iran has caused enormous controversy within the Freedom Movement. Some have even gone so far as to accuse him of advocating the "the same foreign policy as the Bush administration neocons”.

However, if we fail to understand the context of the quotes and the most fundamental basics of campaign strategy we can reach the same conclusion for Rand Paul. On his campaign website, he begins his article on national defense with this:

“Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.” (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

This could also be misconstrued if taken out of context:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy." (http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h...ional-defense/)

These men are trying to get elected and so they must pick their battles. In other words, until they both have their Senate seats, they will have to make certain appeals (i.e. they will have to lie) to the McCain-Palin sheep. If you look at everything both Peter Schiff and Rand Paul have said about national defense, you realize that they can both help to gradually steer the party toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy.

Politicians have to pick their battles. But we don't have to — we can fight the entire war.

A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Supports a Neocon Foreign Policy http://www.wearechangenewjersey.org/?q=node/884

I heard what he said, I don't need this article to obfuscate the issue. He said he would have supported attacking Iraq if they had weapons and said he supported sanctions and a strike on Iran if they attained weapons. He has lost my support.

 

[RileyE104]

I heard what he said, I don't need this article to obfuscate the issue. He said he would have supported attacking Iraq if they had weapons and said he supported sanctions and a strike on Iran if they attained weapons. He has lost my support.

I think he pretty much just meant that he would rather bomb iran than send troops in which would put Americans in harms way..

The video I saw was just a short clip. I'd like to hear the full question that was asked before he answered before I rush to any judgment..

 

[American Nationalist]

I think he pretty much just meant that he would rather bomb iran than send troops in which would put Americans in harms way..

The video I saw was just a short clip. I'd like to hear the full question that was asked before he answered before I rush to any judgment..

Both are forms of preemptive aggression. Peter Schiff is for preemptive war. I don't support attacking Iran or Iraq period, he does.

 

[devil21]

I think he pretty much just meant that he would rather bomb iran than send troops in which would put Americans in harms way..

I find both to be unacceptable and certainly not a platform of non-intervention, not to mention either just gives more motivation to terrorists re: blowback. If Iran wants nukes, it's not our problem. Let Israel fight its own wars. If we are attacked then we respond as per the Constitution.

eta: Had to laugh at the scrolling ad at the bottom of the page: "STOP SPENDING! - Peter Schiff for Senate" t-shirt, being advertised on a thread discussing how he would spend tax money to bomb a nation that has never attacked nor even threatened us.

 

[Imperial]

Both are forms of preemptive aggression. Peter Schiff is for preemptive war. I don't support attacking Iran or Iraq period, he does.

He said he was against Iraq from the beginning in the video, thought it would be a quagmire. Then said if the war was worth fighting it should be paid for. He said Iraq wasn't worth fighting though...

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

well,

maybe Schiff is a zionist. Does anyone know how he feels about AIPAC? TOnes

 

[American Nationalist]

He said he was against Iraq from the beginning in the video, thought it would be a quagmire. Then said if the war was worth fighting it should be paid for. He said Iraq wasn't worth fighting though...

" I might have gone into Iraq if I thought there was weapons of mass destruction there. If we had intelligence that we knew where they were I might have gone in to take them out, just like we think Iran might be building nuclear weapons. Well, if we really believe that, if we really think that, we tell the Iranians: ‘This is where we think those weapons are, you need to let our inspectors in there.’ If they don’t let us in, just blow the place up.”

Peter Schiff

 

[Bman]

well,

maybe Schiff is a zionist. Does anyone know how he feels about AIPAC? TOnes

I'm sure you and your buddies in the brotherhood over at stormfront would love that if you already haven't tried to say it.

A guy who wants to end the Fed and he's a zionist. How cute.

 

[devil21]

I'm sure you and your buddies in the brotherhood over at stormfront would love that if you already haven't tried to say it.

A guy who wants to end the Fed and he's a zionist. How cute.

I think it's a valid query and the stormfront accusation is a cheap shot, no better than Ben Stein's. Im kinda starting to realize that Ive been supporting Schiff based on who I want him to be, not who he actually is. I'm familiar with his economic policies (btw, there's another thread here where he admits he isn't committed to ending the Fed, just "reign it in") but knew little or nothing of his other policies. Yes, he's still better than Dodd or the run-of-the-mill RINO or neo-con, but he's not Ron Paul and that's becoming clear. Questioning his allegences in the context of his own comments is valid.

 

[American Nationalist]

I'm sure you and your buddies in the brotherhood over at stormfront would love that if you already haven't tried to say it.

A guy who wants to end the Fed and he's a zionist. How cute.

Nowhere on his issues page does it say he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, or even want to audit it.

http://schiffforsenate.com/?q=issues