Rand Paul discusses immigration reform, Iran and Benghazi - WMAL Radio 1/31/2013

[LibertyEagle]

He said that a preemptive strike on Iran should remain on the table, which is still going way too far for me.

Are you sure he said "should"? I didn't hear that. It sounded like a declarative statement stating that it will and of course it will, because all the other wankers want it that way.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Are you sure he said "should"? I didn't hear that. It sounded like a declarative statement stating that it will and of course it will, because all the other wankers want it that way.

LE, you didn't hear it because he never said it.

OP video @ 6:37 mark (exact quote):

I think all options are on the table, but I think it's hard to come down with a final conclusion when we don't know exactly what the future brings yet. So, you know, I do agree with those who have said "All options are on the table". Those include military, but those also include diplomatic and I don't think we've exhausted the diplomatic or the sanctions.

 

[phill4paul]

Are you sure he said "should"? I didn't hear that. It sounded like a declarative statement stating that it will and of course it will, because all the other wankers want it that way.

Seems he's been doing a lot of this lately. It's confusing. I'll just let teh Collins or Rand's chief of staff tell me what he really meant.

 

[Rudeman]

He said that a preemptive strike on Iran should remain on the table, which is still going way too far for me.

No he didn't, you've been corrected on that several times yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Rand did not say it should remain on the table. He simply stated it was an option. Just because you have an option to do something does not mean you support the action.

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Rand Paul said during his run that he wouldn't take nuking Iran off the table because you don't weaken your position.

Obviously, it is not necessary to nuke Iran to take out their nuclear facilities. Not even the biggest neocon in the world would preemptively nuke Iran.

 

[Brett85]

No he didn't, you've been corrected on that several times yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Rand did not say it should remain on the table. He simply stated it was an option. Just because you have an option to do something does not mean you support the action.

You and Occam's Banana are simply parsing words to try to justify what Rand said.

 

[fr33]

OP video @ 6:37 mark (exact quote):

I think all options are on the table, but I think it's hard to come down with a final conclusion when we don't know exactly what the future brings yet. So, you know, I do agree with those who have said "All options are on the table". Those include military, but those also include diplomatic and I don't think we've exhausted the diplomatic or the sanctions.

Why can't he tell the truth and say preemptive war should be off the table in this case? Why can't we expect him to represent sanity rather than playing with words so he makes sure the truth doesn't get out?

 

[Brett85]

And I never said that Rand said that he explictly supported the action of bombing Iran. I just said that saying it should be an option is going too far for me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You and Occam's Banana are simply parsing words to try to justify what Rand said.

Huh? But, he didn't say what you claim that he did. Why do you keep saying that he said something that he did not say?

 

[Rudeman]

Seems he's been doing a lot of this lately. It's confusing. I'll just let teh Collins or Rand's chief of staff tell me what he really meant.

It's confusing but clever. It basically allows people to interpret it the way they want. Personally I thought Rand made his stance clear enough for me when he pushed diplomacy and rebutted the interviewers attempt to box him into agreeing with pre-emptive war with Iran.

Others may feel differently, but I just don't put too much weight in what Rand or anyone else says. As they say actions speak louder than words and really the only action I've opposed were his sanction votes.

 

[Rudeman]

You and Occam's Banana are simply parsing words to try to justify what Rand said.

If you believe that is something he believes in that's another issue but the fact is he did not say it should be an option. Your interpretation does not make something factual.

 

[Brett85]

If you believe that is something he believes in that's another issue but the fact is he did not say it should be an option. Your interpretation does not make something factual.

So it comes down to the difference between "are on the table" and "should be on the table." We're talking about a one word difference. Whatever. I just know that Ron would never say anything like this.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why can't he tell the truth and say preemptive war should be off the table in this case? Why can't we expect him to represent sanity rather than playing with words so he makes sure the truth doesn't get out?

Asked & answered:

[If ...] Rand's position is "just the same" as the Establishment's, then why wouldn't he just come right out and say, "Yes, I support [the idea of] a pre-emptive strike against Iran"? After all, that is what all the other Establishment GOPers say - so why wouldn't Rand say it, too?

The only explanation is that he does NOT, in fact, support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But if he comes right out and says that (like Ron did), no one but members of the Liberty Movement are going to want to hear it. By refusing to paint himself into that corner, he gets a hearing for the pro-peace-and-diplomacy position from people who otherwise would not have bothered listening to him (they would just dismiss him as a "kook" who is "soft on Iran", like they did to Ron).

Ron Paul categorically rejected pre-emption as an option for dealing with Iran (or any other country) - or he used rhetoric that strongly implied that he would do so.

This is why so many rank-and-file Republicans said things like, "I really like Ron Paul ... except on foreign policy ...".

If Rand categorically rejects pre-emption (or uses rhetoric that strongly suggests that he would do so), the same thing will happen to him - and for the same reasons.

Rank-and-file GOPers will end up saying, "I really like Rand Paul ... except on foreign policy ..." - and give their support & votes to some other candidate who doesn't say such things.

 

[Brett85]

In other words, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

 

[July]

Rand Paul said during his run that he wouldn't take nuking Iran off the table because you don't weaken your position.

Well an argument can be made that, as a deterrent, weapons are really only effective to discourage enemies if they believe you're willing to use them, or might, if they attack. It might be an absolute last resort, but... you might not necessarily advertise that by saying your weapons are off the table. Rand brought this argument up in his speech when he opposed the resolution to ruling out containment as a strategy. That is neither a pro intervention nor anti intervention position, IMO. I don't know if that is Rand's position, but I have heard him make it before.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You and Occam's Banana are simply parsing words to try to justify what Rand said.

I have no desire whatsoever to justify what Rand said. I am a hard-core non-interventionist and I would love *nothing* more than for Rand to come out and say what both you and I would like to hear. The fact that Rand is not a non-interventionist is one of the primary reasons I am not as enthusiastic about him as I was about Ron. It is one of the primary reasons I will vote for him but will not support him financially.

Parsing words is the *only* way to understand what other people say - and the simple fact is that Rand did not say what you keep saying he said.

So it comes down to the difference between "are on the table" and "should be on the table." We're talking about a one word difference. Whatever. I just know that Ron would never say anything like this.

"I think we should worship the Devil and eat Christian babies."

"I think we should not worship the Devil and eat Christian babies."

One word difference - completely different meanings.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In other words, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Personally, I don't think he did that. But, I'm going to watch and see what he does.

 

[fr33]

Asked & answered:

Well don't expect me to do anything for him except maybe show up and vote for him. (unless the LP has a candidate that is actually a libertarian; not likely)
I don't want anything to do with legitimizing these wars and acts of aggression. I don't want anything to do with starving people with sanctions.

The fact that he supports sanctions, and equating Israel to the US, while saying preemptive strikes are on the table; makes me think that he thinks preemptive war should be on the table. I don't trust a man that acts like this and I'd rather drag my feet than participate in the aggression.

 

[Brett85]

The most that I'll do at this point is simply show up and vote for him as well. I won't donate money to any political candidate who won't rule out preemptive war.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The most that I'll do at this point is simply show up and vote for him as well. I won't donate money to any political candidate who won't rule out preemptive war.

TC, that is a long way off. We have a long time to watch him before that comes.