An attack on Israel is an attack on the US, says … Rand Paul?

posted at 8:31 am on January 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit wrote Wednesday that Rand Paul is working hard to differentiate from his father’s brand, but … wow. Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro asked Paul the Younger about aid to Israel, which Paul says he’d like to eliminate only after eliminating all foreign aid — and that the effort should start with nations where the people “burn the American flag,” and perhaps Israel last. If President, Paul pledges to send a message that American troops will intervene on Israel’s behalf if attacked, regardless of aid decisions, using the NATO formulation:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.

Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.

“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

Can you imagine Paul the Elder ever saying, “An attack on Israel is an attack on the US”? I doubt he’d even say that about NATO countries.

Needless to say, this will go a long way with Republicans and conservatives to put their trust in Paul the Younger’s judgment. What, though, will it do for hopes that Rand Paul could create a fusion between traditional Republicanism and the more rational elements of Ron Paul’s followers? It’s one thing to establish a separate brand from his father, but this looks more like repudiation — and the Ron Paul Revolution will almost certainly feel the same way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And let me go on record for being against US super power status.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Oh, will we ever.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM

In case you’ve forgotten, or more likely are too dense to know, everyone wants to spy on us.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Lots of British spies sitting in US prisons, are there?

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Lots of British spies sitting in US prisons, are there?

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Funny thing about spies: their #1 job is not to get caught…

Regardless of your non-point, the fact is that we are (for now) the biggest, strongest military power in the world. It’s worth spying on us just to get hints of what intelligence we got our mittens on – because we’ve got billions in equipment and spy rings that other nations literally cannot have.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Careful Mein Herr, your true feelings are showing. Israel has never knowingly and deliberately attacked a US vessel.

And there are those who were on the ship who have a different point if view.

Iran on the other hand, funded and supported the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon resulting in the deaths of 241 US servicemen.
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

And how about the 290 people who perished on Iranian Flight 655?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#mw-mf-search

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM

It’s one thing to establish a separate brand from his father, but this looks more like repudiation — and the Ron Paul Revolution will almost certainly feel the same way.

I’m not so sure, Ed. How much Paul the Elder’s following is a personality cult? If he does not repudiate Rand, if he in fact endorses Rand, will not the faithful follow suit and follow Rand?

novaculus on January 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Oh, will we ever.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Great!!! Can I count on you to pick up the portion of my Federal income tax bill that’s used to maintain a world’s superpower war machine? If you want it, you should be happy to pay for it.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Funny thing about spies: their #1 job is not to get caught…

Regardless of your non-point, the fact is that we are (for now) the biggest, strongest military power in the world. It’s worth spying on us just to get hints of what intelligence we got our mittens on – because we’ve got billions in equipment and spy rings that other nations literally cannot have.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM

And funny how we manage to catch spies from Russia and Cuba.

And Israel.

Or are they just less competent than the British spies?

Or have you just not thought this one through? Again.

As far as it being worth it… had the US Congress decided in the wake of the Pollard Affair that any country that has actively engaged in espionage against us is ineligible for US aid or diplomatic support, something tells me Israel would have seen the value of spying against the US in a bit of a different light.

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM

All I did was state some facts.

No you didn’t. You tried very hard to not state any facts at all.

Like the fact that US ship you were referring to was parked almost directly between two warring powers, almost begging to get shot at.

The scoreboard doesn’t lie.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Your scoreboard lies like a democrat (making the above quoted statement itself a lie). You left out Iranian backed attacks on US ground forces and flat out lied about Iranian attacks on US ships in the Persian gulf in the 1980s.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Your scoreboard lies like a democrat (making the above quoted statement itself a lie). You left out Iranian backed attacks on US ground forces and flat out lied about Iranian attacks on US ships in the Persian gulf in the 1980s.
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Question. Are there any Iranian attacks on US warships that you would like to cite?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM

And there are those who were on the ship who have a different point if view.

Actually, the views of those on board the ship itself were very limited. Ten separate investigations by the US government in the incident have found zero evidence of malice by the Israeli government.

And how about the 290 people who perished on Iranian Flight 655?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#mw-mf-search

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM

A tragic malfunction of a weapon system, not a deliberate attack. Itself an arguably inevitable consequence of Irans policy of attacking neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf, drawing larege foreign naval forces into the area increasing the likelihood of just such an accident.

Ironically, it is getting increasingly obvious whose side you’re on in spite of your claim that Americans shouldn’t be choosing sides.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Great!!! Can I count on you to pick up the portion of my Federal income tax bill that’s used to maintain a world’s superpower war machine that protects my worthless hide?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Why not, what’s a dollar more or less, even to me?

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Question. Are there any Iranian attacks on US warships that you would like to cite?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM

USS Samuel Roberts, 1988

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Actually, the views of those on board the ship itself were very limited. Ten separate investigations by the US government in the incident have found zero evidence of malice by the Israeli government.

So you just accept the government’s report without question? There are other points of view.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer was 89 years old (b.1912, d.2004) when he summed up the Liberty incident in 2001:
“It’s ridiculous to say this was an accident. There was good weather, she was flying the U.S. flag and the planes and torpedo boats attacked over a long period of time.”[10]

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Why not, what’s a dollar more or less, even to me?
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Your sarcasm is noted. You are a typical taker. You want something from the Federal government but you want to pass the bill to someone else.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM

So you just accept the government’s report without question?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM

The same way you assume the jews are always guilty and the muslims are always innocent?

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM

You want something from the Federal government but you want to pass the bill to someone else.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Oh look: lying, projection, and hypocrisy from the anti-American coward.

Hey moocher – YOU are the one who wants the protection of the American military without having to pay for it, hence your comment about passing the buck.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

USS Samuel Roberts, 1988
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Is running into a mine field an attacked. Also, should the US retaliated against the Israelis as harshly as it retaliated against the Iranians.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Hey moocher – YOU are the one who wants the protection of the American military without having to pay for it, hence your comment about passing the buck.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

I don’t want your war machine. For hundreds of years my family lived in the US safely and didn’t have to pay high income taxes to maintain a large war machine. I can just as well do without it.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM

For hundreds of years my family lived in the US safely and didn’t have to pay high income taxes to maintain a large war machine. I can just as well do without it.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM

For hundreds of years a fleet of sail-powered vessels were the biggest threat to the nation. We didn’t need a war machine and frankly we couldn’t have made one for quite some time if we’d wanted to.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM

For hundreds of years a fleet of sail-powered vessels were the biggest threat to the nation. We didn’t need a war machine and frankly we couldn’t have made one for quite some time if we’d wanted to.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM

And in order to be safe today the US needs to spend as much on defense as all other countries combined.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM

And in order to be safe today the US needs to spend as much on defense as all other countries combined.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM

False choice.

We’re going to have to quit pouring money and food at the Starvin’ Marvins because A: we can’t afford it and B: it’s time for them to feed themselves like everywhere else.

We’re going to have to quit babysitting Europe for the same reasons, except for them it’s time to FEND for themselves.

The Bush Wars and Obama Occupations should’ve ended yesterday.

We need a handful of nations as checks against the local loonies from having the entire place to themselves (Israel and S. Korea), but that’s about it.

That will not cost “as much on defense as all other countries combined.”

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Long story short, we have a treaty with Isreal. Unless we want to show that we cannot be counted on to honor treaties, and therefore invalidate all the positive treaties we’ve signed that benefit us, we darn well better treat an attack on Isreal like an attack on America.

WolvenOne on January 25, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Is running into a mine field an attacked.

When high explosives are dumped into the path of US flagged civilian vessels escorted by US military vessels, then yes, that is a direct attack on those vessels.

Also, should the US retaliated against the Israelis as harshly as it retaliated against the Iranians.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

As long as we’re asking stupid questions, Should Canada bomb the United States in retaliation for the Tarnak Farms incident?

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Long story short, we have a treaty with Isreal. Unless we want to show that we cannot be counted on to honor treaties, and therefore invalidate all the positive treaties we’ve signed that benefit us, we darn well better treat an attack on Isreal like an attack on America.
WolvenOne on January 25, 2013 at 1:44 PM

It sounds like this is a treaty is full of obligations and no benefits. I suggest that the US withdraws from it.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM

When high explosives are dumped into the path of US flagged civilian vessels escorted by US military vessels, then yes, that is a direct attack on those vessels.

We’re the explosives intended for the US ship? There was a hot war between Iran and Iraq going on.

As long as we’re asking stupid questions, Should Canada bomb the United States in retaliation for the Tarnak Farms incident?
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Did the US intentionally bomb Canada like Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM

It sounds like this is a treaty is full of obligations and no benefits. I suggest that the US withdraws from it.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM

There are only two real benefits: back-and-forth trading of tech and being a diversion of Muslim wrath. The former is merely nice. The latter is huge. Because if Israel were to fall, the “Great Satan” (us) would face the full wrath of Islamic fury basically on our own.

And we are not ready for that in any way. Not culturally, not mentally, not militarily. Nevermind the casualty rate in a real war fought on our own would be playtime compared to our current BS occupations.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM

There are only two real benefits: back-and-forth trading of tech and being a diversion of Muslim wrath. The former is merely nice. The latter is huge. Because if Israel were to fall, the “Great Satan” (us) would face the full wrath of Islamic fury basically on our own.

And did the US survive the full wrath of Islamic fury prior to Israel’s founding? There is 62,770 days between July 4th 1776 and May 14th 1948. How did we survive all those days?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM

And did the US survive the full wrath of Islamic fury prior to Israel’s founding? There is 62,770 days between July 4th 1776 and May 14th 1948. How did we survive all those days?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM

1. They were utterly impoverished and had absolutely nothing to trade that they didn’t steal, making waging war rather difficult. This all changed when someone discovered what you could do with that black stuff coming out of the ground, and the barbarians happened to be squatting on a sea of it.

2. Again, until very recently in all of human history, there was nothing faster than a sail-powered vessel. So even if they had assembled a blue-water invasion fleet big enough to actually have a prayer of a successful land invasion (doubtful) and managed to get across the Atlantic without most of it sinking or getting lost (even MORE doubtful), we’d have had years to prepare.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 2:02 PM

We’re the explosives intended for the US ship?

You’re an idiot.

If someone plants an IED in your driveway, is it intended for your car?

Did the US intentionally bomb Canada like Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Ugh.

Listen carefully, you swastika swinging, Hitler Heiling, Mohammed Morsi ass kissing, cross burning, white dress wearing moron… Israel did not knowingly and/or intentionally attack a US ship.

And before you go there, jews didn’t cause the market crash of 1929, they didn’t fake the Holocaust,they didn’t cause the crash of 2008 nor were they behind 9/11.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

My Federal income tax bill is not insignificant. When any politician pledges to fight wars on behalf of another country they are pledging my resources, labor and time that has nothing to do with the defense of my property, life , or family. Also, by engaging with foreign people, I become a party to all the resultant death and destruction whether I agreed to it or not.

That’s what it means to me.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

My apologies. I should have been more clear. What I was wanting to know was that point proved what to you?

anuts on January 25, 2013 at 2:08 PM

1. They were utterly impoverished and had absolutely nothing to trade that they didn’t steal, making waging war rather difficult. This all changed when someone discovered what you could do with that black stuff coming out of the ground, and the barbarians happened to be squatting on a sea of it.
2. Again, until very recently in all of human history, there was nothing faster than a sail-powered vessel. So even if they had assembled a blue-water invasion fleet big enough to actually have a prayer of a successful land invasion (doubtful) and managed to get across the Atlantic without most of it sinking or getting lost (even MORE doubtful), we’d have had years to prepare.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 2:02 PM

1. Middle East countries are primarily oil oligarchies. The oil money is concentrated at the top. Typically, the powerful want to maintain their position of power at all cost. No matter how much they may loathe the US, I’m willing to bet my right arm that they would rather use their money to maintain their position of power (e.g. Stifling internal descent) and maintaining their lavish lifestyles than they would launching an offensive attack on the US.

2. I would advise that you perform an assessment of the offensive military capabilities of ME countries. They have no nuclear navy. They have no ICBMs. It takes, fuel, food, and a lot of man power to launch an offensive war. Iran, for example, has to import its own gas. How can they invade or attack the US?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM

We’re the explosives intended for the US ship?
You’re an idiot.
If someone plants an IED in your driveway, is it intended for your car?

Lets do a quick comparison. My driveway is on my private property. Also, my driveway is very narrow. So of course an IED would be intended for me. The Persian Gulf is not private property and its pretty wide. Many ships pass through the Persian Gulf. So it’s possible that sea mines could have been intended for other targets.

Listen carefully, you swastika swinging, Hitler Heiling, Mohammed Morsi ass kissing, cross burning, white dress wearing moron… Israel did not knowingly and/or intentionally attack a US ship.
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

And why are you 100% assured of this. In your mind is there any possibility that you’re being lied to?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM

And even if the statement did bother me, the economy is still the most important issue.
Nephew Sam on January 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You can’t separate the two. Israel’s war with her neighbors will be eternal. By promising to go to war on Israel’s behalf means that the US will have to maintain a perpetual war machine. You can’t effectively address budget problems while trying to maintain a $1T/yr national security state.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The federal government spent 24.0% of GDP in 2012. ($3.796T/$15.8T)

The government took in revenue of 15.6%. ($2.469T/$15.8T)

Military spending was 8.96%. (generously: $1.415T/$15.8T)

This means domestic spending was 24% – 9% = 15%. The deficit was 24%-15.6% = 8.4%.

If the government cut all domestic spending, we could cut every tax rate by over 42% (1-8.96/15.6) to break even.

Even a 20% tax cut would do wonders for the economy, including charities and middle class employment, and would allow us to begin paying down the debt.

Otherwise we could cut defense entirely and keep domestic spending. But then we can’t cut taxes, defend ourselves, or pay down the public debt.

Nephew Sam on January 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer was 89 years old (b.1912, d.2004) when he summed up the Liberty incident in 2001:
“It’s ridiculous to say this was an accident. There was good weather, she was flying the U.S. flag and the planes and torpedo boats attacked over a long period of time.”[10]

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM

You are a Phucking imbecile. My father was on the USS Liberty, what Admiral Thomas Moorer said was a straight up lie and he knew he was lying.

The USS Liberty was not flying her flag, and was camouflaged to look like an Egyptian Cargo vessel. They were engaged in electronic counterintelligence (spying) on a Russian Nuclear Attack submarine that was stuck on a sandbar off Cyprus.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

You are a Phucking imbecile. My father was on the USS Liberty, what Admiral Thomas Moorer said was a straight up lie and he knew he was lying.

Isn’t There is sworn testimony in the Navy’s Court of Inquiry that the USS Liberty was flying its colors during the attack. Would you consider that maybe your father is mistaken? I have heard other statements my crew members that it was flying its colors.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Isn’t There is sworn testimony in the Navy’s Court of Inquiry that the USS Liberty was flying its colors during the attack. Would you consider that maybe your father is mistaken? I have heard other statements my crew members that it was flying its colors.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Isn’t is possible they struck the flag AFTER the attack began ?
As a way of identifying themselves AFTER the attack began ?

If they were spying as per SWalker, I highly doubt the flag was up prior to the attack.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Also, my driveway is very narrow.

Compared to an oil tanker convoy and military escorsts, so is the Persian Guulf and the Straits of Hormuz.

The Persian Gulf is not private property and its pretty wide. Many ships pass through the Persian Gulf.

it’s not Iranian property either, which means they had no righ to be laying mines there.

So it’s possible that sea mines could have been intended for other targets.

No it isn’t.

Israel did not knowingly and/or intentionally attack a US ship.
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

And why are you 100% assured of this.

because ten separate inquiries and investigations found no evidence of Israeli malice.

In your mind is there any possibility that you’re being lied to?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Yes… you’ve been lying non-stop since before I joined the thread.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

So you just accept the government’s report without question? There are other points of view.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer…

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Admiral Moorer worked for the government.

Just FYI.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Isn’t There is sworn testimony in the Navy’s Court of Inquiry that the USS Liberty was flying its colors during the attack. Would you consider that maybe your father is mistaken? I have heard other statements my crew members that it was flying its colors.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Man you really are a Phucking imbecile. No, my dad was not mistaken, he was the senior intelligence officer on board. What kind of ship was the Liberty you moron… It was not a “Normal” Naval vessel was it. Noooo it was a converted Liberty class merchant vessel. NOT a WARSHIP a damned CARGO SHIP. It was a Cold War SPY SHIP.

The United States Navy tried to cover the incident up because they did not want the Russians to know what the USS Liberty was doing. They did not want the Russian to change the codes they were using to communicate with their Nuclear attack submarines. Because we had broken those codes.

My dad told me the whole sordid story on his deathbed, and anti-Semitic a$$hole that he was, he admitted that it was not the Israeli’s fault. He was pissed off at the US Navy because men that he knew died on the USS Liberty and their family’s were never told how or where or even why they died.

Yes, the US Navy lied their asses off in the official records.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Isn’t is possible they struck the flag AFTER the attack began ?
As a way of identifying themselves AFTER the attack began ?
If they were spying as per SWalker, I highly doubt the flag was up prior to the attack.
Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM

How about reading the quote with this flag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/USS_Liberty_second_ensign_2.jpg/768px-USS_Liberty_second_ensign_2.jpg

“I noticed that our Ensign had been shot away during the air attack and ordered a second ensign from the yardarm. During the air attack our normal ensign was flying. Before the torpedo attack a holiday size ensign was hoisted.”

Captain William L. McGonagle

I guess he’s a liar too. I think SWalker’s dear ol dad may have some of his facts mixed up.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

I think SWalker’s dear ol dad may have some of his facts mixed up.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

You go right ahead and cling to your racist anti-Semitic bullshit, just don’t forget to wash the stains out of your White Supremest sheet before you wear it to your next White Pride meeting. You are the perfect example of why everyone mocks, ridicules and hate Ronulans. Stupid to the bone.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

You go right ahead and cling to your racist anti-Semitic bullshit, just don’t forget to wash the stains out of your White Supremest sheet before you wear it to your next White Pride meeting. You are the perfect example of why everyone mocks, ridicules and hate Ronulans. Stupid to the bone.
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Typically charges of racism are used as a substitute for a real argument. Either way, I don’t care.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

“I noticed that our Ensign had been shot away during the air attack

Which wasn’t visible from a fighter jet cockpit screaming across the wavetops at 300 miles per hour.

Before the torpedo attack a holiday size ensign was hoisted.”

Which wasn’t visible through the smoke.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Typically charges of racism are used as a substitute for a real argument.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Given your disconnection from reality, and your habit of ignoring evidence and restating your original charge, it’s a logical conclusion.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Typically charges of racism are used as a substitute for a real argument. Either way, I don’t care.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Dude, when one person calls you an a$$hole, maybe their wrong or just having a bad day, when two people call you an a$$hole, perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but when everyone is calling you a Anti-Semitic racist a$$hole, it really is YOU.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Dude, when one person calls you an a$$hole, maybe their wrong or just having a bad day, when two people call you an a$$hole, perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but when everyone is calling you a Anti-Semitic racist a$$hole, it really is YOU.
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Ok. You win. I’m anti-Semitic. As long as you understand that I don’t care then we will both get along.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Ok. You win. I’m anti-Semitic. As long as you understand that I don’t care then we will both get along.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 4:29 PM

I’ll give you this: you have the brains of a gnat but you don’t lack for balls.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 4:52 PM

I’ll give you this: you have the brains of a gnat but you don’t lack for balls.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Thanks. When I think of the level of adolescent here, it makes me feel grateful that your party is not in power to drag the US into more wars based on lies.

Hillary 2016!!!!

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Thanks. When I think of the level of adolescent here, it makes me feel grateful that your party is not in power to drag the US into more wars based on lies.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Which wars has the US involved itself in that were based on lies? Which were those lies, exactly?

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Which wars has the US involved itself in that were based on lies?

Here are few off the top of my head

1. Spanish-American War (lied about the Spanish sinking of the USS Maine)
2. WWI (Lusitania carried munitions which made it a valid target of a U-boat attack) http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Divers-find-ammunition-in-sunken-Lusitania#.UQMRcidZWSo
3. Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) where are they?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM

test

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 6:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM

……the nut rarely falls far from the tree.

Happy Nomad on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Ron Reagan Jr. ???

cableguy615 on January 25, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Man, this antifederalist tool is getting knocked around like a hooker. I almost feel sorry for him.

The Notorious G.O.P on January 25, 2013 at 8:00 PM

1. Spanish-American War (lied about the Spanish sinking of the USS Maine)

That famous “you furnish the photo, I’ll furnish the war” thing? it never happened.

2. WWI (Lusitania carried munitions which made it a valid target of a U-boat attack)

The US didn’t enter WW1 until two years after the Lusitania. The germans continued to sinks ships bearing US citizen after the Lusitania and before US entry into the war. US entry into WW1 had more to do with the Zimmerman Telegram, wherein the germans promised Mexico most of the southern US if they invaded to keep American troops at home and off Germanys back.

3. Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) where are they?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Ask the families of 20,000+ kurds killed by them.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Ask the families of 20,000+ kurds killed by them.
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 8:17 PM

He had them in the late 80s when he used them against the Kurds. The Iraq War started in 2003. If Bush used 15 year old intelligence as the basis for dragging this country into a war then he is a bigger idiot than I thought.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Man, this antifederalist tool is getting knocked around like a hooker. I almost feel sorry for him.
The Notorious G.O.P on January 25, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Dealing with Hit Airheads is like being in a romper room with a bunch of 5 year olds. It may look trying but it isn’t as tough as it looks. So please don’t feel sorry for me.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM

He had them in the late 80s when he used them against the Kurds. The Iraq War started in 2003. If Bush used 15 year old intelligence…

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 8:56 PM

“I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. What it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.”

- Secretary of State Madeline Albright, December 17th 1998

You’re not terribly bright or well read, are you antifed?

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 10:22 PM

You’re not terribly bright or well read, are you antifed?
Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 10:22 PM

If you must know, I’m well aware of the claims by democrats in 1998 claiming that Saddam had WMDs.I have no doubt that Clinton Administration lied about WMDs too in order to justify an air strike against Saddam in order to distract attention from the Lewinski scandal. This doesn’t change the fact that Bush, Chaney, and the neocon cabal are a bunch of lying sons of b¡tches.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

If you must know, I’m well aware of the claims by democrats in 1998 claiming that Saddam had WMDs.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

And yet you claimed that Bush was working from fifteen year old intelligence.

You should really stop. Maybe find an interest more appropriate for your intellectual skills, like running a bronie chat room or something?

Alberta_Patriot on January 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

And yet you claimed that Bush was working from fifteen year old intelligence.

I guess you didn’t pick up on the sarcasm in my statement. I obviously gave you too much credit. I promise I won’t do it again. I was trying to point out your flawed logic that because Saddam had WMDs in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds that means that Bush didn’t lie when he began beating the war drums against Iraq during the 2002 SOTU speech. Most normal people wouldn’t assume that because a country had WMDs in 1988 that they would necessarily still posses them them 15 years later. Never mind the fact that within those 15 years there numerous inspections, a lot of stuff got destroyed and the fact that WMDs have a limited shelf life. You and your neocon ilk fabricated a bunch of lies and plunged this country into a senseless war that resulted in thousands of US deaths, scores more maimed for life, and many with their minds shattered. I know that’s a heavy burden to bear. So keep grasping for those straws. Whatever it takes to keep denying to yourself that your lies ruined a lot of lives.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Looks as if Rand has a higher intelligence quotient than his daddy. Thank God for that!

He’s got my vote if he runs in 2016.

TXJenny on January 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Looks as if Rand has a higher intelligence quotient than his daddy. Thank God for that!

He’s got my vote if he runs in 2016.

TXJenny on January 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

More like Rand is a better neocon bootlicker than Ron.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I guess you didn’t pick up on the sarcasm in my statement. I obviously gave you too much credit. I promise I won’t do it again.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 2:39 PM

No.

You said that Bush relied on fifteen year old intelligence and that’s literally what you meant.

Just like how you declared that Iran never attacked a US ship or that the Lusitania caused America to declare war on Germany (President Wilson demanded Germany suspend U-boat attacks and they complied, Wilson then won reelection declaring that he kept the US out of the war) without bothering to look any of these things up.

You’ve shown your knowledge of history to be a vast empty blank space occasionally interrupted by urban legends, conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods. Now, having humiliated yourself yet again, you’re attempting the transparently self-serving tactic of claiming you weren’t serious.

Alberta_Patriot on January 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM

You said that Bush relied on fifteen year old intelligence and that’s literally what you meant.

First of all I didn’t say Bush used 15 year old intelligence for the war. Here is my exact quote:

If Bush used 15 year old intelligence as the basis for dragging this country into a war then he is a bigger idiot than I thought.

The 1st sentence is not an assertion of fact but a conditional clause. And that condition what based on a non sequitur that you brought up about asking the Kurds where are Saddams WMDs.

Ask the families of 20,000+ kurds killed by them.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 8:17 PM

And honestly, the whole “asking the Kurds” is just another canned talking point in order to distract from the lies you and your neocon ilk all perpetuated in order to get your war. You were the person who decided to bring up a chemical weapon attack that occurred 15 years prior to the start of the 2nd Gulf War, which I considered to be a non sequitur. I felt the need to dumb down the conversation to your level. I was left trying to argue based on something that is completely irrelevant that you brought up. I am sorry for the miscommunication this all led to.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM

If Bush used 15 year old intelligence as the basis for dragging this country into a war then he is a bigger idiot than I thought.

This is stupid, hypocritical and insane coming from someone who wants to bomb an allied modern western liberal democracy for a crime they didn’t commit.

And honestly, the whole “asking the Kurds” is just another canned talking point

The deaths of 20,000 people is never “just a talking point” you sociopath.

You were the person who decided to bring up a chemical weapon attack that occurred 15 years prior

I was pointing out Saddam Husseins established behavior of keeping and using WMDs. And yet you seem to be willing to take Saddams word for it when he swears he’s been a good boy.

I felt the need to dumb down the conversation to your level.

antifederalist on January 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Let’s recount, shall we?

You didn’t know what the date of the Lusitanias sinking was.

You didn’t know Americas and Germanys response to it.

You didn’t know what the date of Americas entry into WW1 was.

You didn’t know what caused Americas entry into WW1.

You didn’t know that the Liberty incident was the most heavily investigated friendly fire incident in history.

You didn’t know Irans history of attacking US vessels and military forces.

I’ve rarely observed a person talk so much about things which they know so little. You’re the poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Alberta_Patriot on January 26, 2013 at 11:46 PM

This is stupid, hypocritical and insane coming from someone who wants to bomb an allied modern western liberal democracy for a crime they didn’t commit.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The deaths of 20,000 people is never “just a talking point” you sociopath.

It is when it is used to distract people from the fact that you and your neocon ilk perpetuated lies to sell a war to this country.

Let’s recount, shall we?

You didn’t know what the date of the Lusitanias sinking was.

You didn’t know Americas and Germanys response to it.

You didn’t know what the date of Americas entry into WW1 was.

You didn’t know what caused Americas entry into WW1.

OK, you got me here. My WWI history is a little fuzzy. Although I don’t WWI is not entirely relevant to this subject, I will concede this point. If the worst thing that can be said about me is that I am not a WWI historian, what we can conclude that the worst thing that can be said about you is that your lies resulted in this young woman having live the rest of her life without her arms and hands

http://starstorage.blob.core.windows.net/archives/2009/1/9/lifefocus/f_24mary.jpg

and that this young man must live the rest of his life without feet and legs:

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070530/070530_amputee_bcol_2p.grid-6×2.jpg

and that these poor souls lost their lives altogether

http://www.markdroberts.com/images/caskets-iraq-360.jpg

And for all the suffering you and your neocon ilk has caused, you still have the nerve to still try to defend your lies. You should feel proud of yourself.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

There’s a lot you don’t have a clue about.

You said that Bush would have been stupid to have attacked Iraq over 15 year old intelligence.

And said that the US should bomb Israel.

You are mentally ill, you are unintelligent and you are a giant flaming hypocrite.

OK, you got me here. My WWI history is a little fuzzy.

I got you on the Liberty investigations and Iran attacking US ships too.

what we can conclude that the worst thing that can be said about you is that your lies resulted in this young woman having live the rest of her life without her arms and hands

It’s amazing, and revealing, that you don’t put any of that on Saddam Hussein and/or Osama Bin Laden. It’s like you have no moral compass at all.

And for all the suffering you and your neocon ilk has caused…

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Antisemitism is a major component of each the bloodiest ‘isms in history, nazism, communism and islamofascism. Your ilk are responsible for the slaughter of 100 million to possibly 200 million people over the last 100 years.

Alberta_Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

And said that the US should bomb Israel.

And said that the US should bomb Israel.

Gotta quote for that? If you are referring to this, I should have attached a question mark at the of the sentence. But it is still phased as a question, which was the intent. Such are the drawbacks when pecking on a smartphone. By the way, the first sentence should have had a question mark too.

Is running into a mine field an attacked. Also, should the US retaliated against the Israelis as harshly as it retaliated against the Iranians.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

There is a difference between saying “the US should have retaliated against Israelis….” and “should the US retaliated against the Israelis….(?)”

Antisemitism is a major component of each the bloodiest ‘isms in history, nazism, communism and islamofascism. Your ilk are responsible for the slaughter of 100 million to possibly 200 million people over the last 100 years.

Alberta_Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The last time I checked I’m a anti-war pacifist. Warmongers (such as yourself) is the major component in the bloodiest incidents in human history. You and your ilk are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths throughout human history.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Maybe because the purpose of NATO was never just about Soviet Russia, but was designed to prevent the national militarization of Europe which caused WWI.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I think it was/is partially about Russia…nobody wants to see them get too powerful.

Most of the rest was about protecting a form of socialism in Western Europe where profits could still be made, keeping us and the Europeans in a state of perpetual war, a way to provide the abridgement of personal Liberty, a way to profit off of military industrialization, a means to keep the U.S. Federal government powerful through the excessive taxation of the citizenry, a way to channel the energies of the nationalists and the militarists so they would be less likely to cause political problems at home, a means of money laundering, a way to maintain U.S. military and political presence in Europe, North Africa and the near Middle East, an excuse to maintain our military-industrial complex (because you might really, really need it some day)…and probably a bunch of stuff I haven’t even heard of yet.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The last time I checked I’m a anti-war pacifist.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Your understanding of what pacifist means is as @#$%ed up as you knowledge of 20th century history.

I supported the liberation of a brutal genocidal dictatorship with a history supporting terrorism, unprovoked aggression against its neighbors, feeding people into industrial plastic shredders and of stockpiling and using WMDs and then lying about it.

You called for a military strike against an allied modern western liberal democracy on the basis of a discredit racist conspiracy theory.

Do you know of any country in history that attacked others based on racist conspiracy theories? Were they considered “pacifist”?

Alberta_Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 6:39 PM

You called for a military strike against an allied modern western liberal democracy on the basis of a discredit racist conspiracy theory.

Gotta quote for that?

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Pretty exciting.. Rand Paul just a big leap out of the pack into the lead for my choices for 2016

DaMav on January 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM

<blockquoteI supported the liberation of a brutal genocidal dictatorship with a history supporting terrorism, unprovoked aggression against its neighbors, feeding people into industrial plastic shredders and of stockpiling and using WMDs and then lying about it.

I bet you also supported a decade long sanction on the Iraqi people that severely impoverished them and reportedly killed over a half million children So please don’t tell me how much you think you care about the people over there.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 7:23 PM

I supported the liberation of a brutal genocidal dictatorship with a history supporting terrorism, unprovoked aggression against its neighbors, feeding people into industrial plastic shredders and of stockpiling and using WMDs and then lying about it.
Alberta_Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I bet you also supported a decade long sanction on the Iraqi people that severely impoverished them and reportedly killed over a half million children. So please don’t tell me how much you think you care about the people over there.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I bet you also supported a decade long sanction on the Iraqi people that severely impoverished them and reportedly killed over a half million children.

antifederalist on January 27, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Your moral depravity and ignorance continues to amaze.

I opposed Saddam Hussein building more than 70 massive marble encrusted gold plated palaces rather than feed his people.

The Victory over America Palace was unfinished when we invaded in 2003. Today, it’s not only unfinished, but it’s also damaged from U.S. bombs. The enormity of the VOA Palace is mind boggling. As we walked through it, I couldn’t help but think of how much money was spent building it. Money that could have gone to helping his people. He built it to satisfy his ego and impress the Iraqi people of his power. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the palace was three-fourths completed. It had a ballroom that was the length of a football field, with windowed rooms overlooking the ballroom. On the grounds he also had a smaller housing palace where he kept his women. In fact, practically everyone of his nearly 70 palaces across the country had places to house Saddam and his son’s harem. I asked our military tour guide, “How many women does one guy need and how in the hell did he satisfy all or any of them?” There was no answer. Another note, the staff at all of his palaces were required to prepare a meal for him each day in case that palace was where he came to eat that night. Seventy dinners to pick and choose from.

Iraqi’s starving? Must be Americas fault!

You’re a grotesquely stupid individual. Is there anything that an animal like Saddam Hussein could do that you won’t blame on America (or the jewish people)?

Alberta_Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Your moral depravity and ignorance continues to amaze.

I opposed Saddam Hussein building more than 70 massive marble encrusted gold plated palaces rather than feed his people.

Who would have guessed that sanctions would hurt the general populace and not those in power
/s

By the way, Saddam had no more responsibility to feed his people than Obama has to feed you or I. It is markets that bring essential goods and services to people. Economic sanctions stifle markets. The oil for food program was a form of economic central planning. With economic central planning it was inevitable that any benefits would be directed towards the top with very few benefits to the general populace.

Iraqi’s starving? Must be Americas fault!

Since the US advocated and then later enforced UN trade sanctions that would be a true statement. And this is the consequences of those actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sJeqXB0BX9M/TIPtFIXDoLI/AAAAAAAAA1g/Lb-31YwrxhE/s1600/Iraqi_children_under_sanctions.jpg

If you could not effectively engage in commerce, what would be the consequences? I am sure that you would have a hard time feeding your family.

At least Madeline Albright thought it was worth it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

antifederalist on January 28, 2013 at 5:10 AM

Who would have guessed that sanctions would hurt the general populace and not those in power

Your dogged defense of Saddam is disgusting.

By the way, Saddam had no more responsibility to feed his people than Obama has to feed you or I. It is markets that bring essential goods and services to people. Economic sanctions stifle markets.

Add economics to the list of things you know nothing about.

It’s confiscatory taxation that stifles free markets. Where do you think that Saddam got the money for palace construction from? Like Obamacare, Saddams palaces were empty monuments to the vanity of an egomaniacal fascist that were built from wealth all but stolen from the people.

Saddam Hussein is as responsible for depriving the people of Iraq of their prosperity to feed his own ego as Barack Hussein is for doing the exact same thing to Americans.

Alberta_Patriot on January 28, 2013 at 5:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2