Rand Paul on dad’s 9/11 comments: Some terrorists want to attack us whether we’re overseas or not

posted at 8:01 pm on September 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

I wondered in last night’s post whether Rand shares Ron’s fondness for the “blowback” magic-bullet theory of terrorism, so here’s your answer. It feels surreal crediting a U.S. senator and aspiring presidential nominee for having the basic common sense not to blame America for 9/11, especially on 9/11, but given the tenor of the comments among the Paul fanbase on Ron’s Facebook post yesterday, this is actually Rand taking a bit of a risk.

The elder Paul said Wednesday, the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks, that they were “blowback for decades of U.S. intervention in the Middle East.” In a radio interview Thursday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee asked the younger Paul about his father’s comments, which Paul said he had not heard until then.

“What I would say is that, you know there are a variety of reasons and when someone attacks you it’s not so much important what they say their reasons are,” Paul said. “The most important thing is that we defend ourselves from attack. And whether or not some are motivated by our presence overseas, I think some are also motivated whether we’re there or not. So I think there’s a combination of reasons why we’re attacked.”…

“The bottom line is, I think people around the world and our enemies around the world need to know that if we’re ever attacked on something like 9/11, if anyone were ever to use chemical weapons on our soldiers anywhere in the world, the response would be an overwhelming one from America and I think that’s the credibility we always need to maintain,” he said.

Is that true, that it’s “not so much important what they say their reasons are”? Ron Paul would disagree. So would lots and lots and lots of hawks. If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

Back to “blowback,” though. A Canadian columnist wonders: What about the blowback caused by not intervening? Like it or not, as the world’s hyperpower, America’s going to alienate some people abroad when it doesn’t act, not just when it does.

It’s almost impossible to know what a NATO country like Canada should do in a situation like this, with the United States, NATO’s undisputed star quarterback, in a state of dribbling, catatonic paralysis. Canada has already contributed more than $300 million in humanitarian relief to Syrian refugees and to infrastructure and security supports in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. True, there’s a lot more we could be doing.

We could be assisting in the development of police and judicial systems in Syria’s liberated areas, building up field hospitals inside Syria and on the Syrian-Turkish border, funding scholarships, setting up a proper family reunification program for Syrian Canadians — for these kinds of things, it is not too late.

But ultimately, the unforgivable cowardice and indifference to Syrian suffering that has been the primary “international community” context within which Syria’s revolutionaries have been obliged to struggle will surely one day produce something along the lines of the “blowback” thing we hear about from time to time.

Will the repercussions from choosing not to aid Syrians be worse than the repercussions from punching Assad to get him to put down his gas? Probably not, but who knows? Like Rand Paul says, and as I said myself last night, there are lots of reasons that bad actors zero in on America as a hate object. The reason not to intervene in Syria isn’t because there’s a greater risk of blowback from acting than not acting (if not intervening leads to a regional war that hugely damages U.S. economic interests, is that “blowback”?), it’s because there’s no obvious U.S. interest in one side winning versus the other losing to justify risking American lives on the outcome. If the rebels really were the moderate secular freedom fighters of John McCain’s fondest dreams, that would be a strong reason to support them against Iran. As it is, we’re looking at either an Iranian protectorate there or an Al Qaeda statelet. Whatever the U.S. does or doesn’t do, it’ll be hated by whoever emerges.


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

if we’re ever attacked on something like 9/11

You mean, like… ummm… last year?????

The GOP is truly dead.

faraway on September 12, 2013 at 8:06 PM

He nails it on the head. They just gonna hate just to hate no matter what.

watertown on September 12, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Like it or not, as the world’s hyperpower, America’s going to alienate some people abroad when it doesn’t act, not just when it does.

Than being a hyperpower sure doesn’t sound like all that good of a deal…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM

the “blowback” magic-bullet theory of terrorism

Bin laden and his declaration of war against us would seem to suggest otherwise. Or is it that he wouldn’t have known about the reasons for 9/11?

abobo on September 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Senator Rand Paul should simply have said “Ron Paul is my father and I love and respect him and I always will, but that doesn’t mean we agree on every issue, and this is one of those issues on which we disagree. “

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Rand Paul did not condemn his father’s shameful “America had it coming on 9/11″ comments forcefully enough. The day before, Ron Paul rationalizes Al Qaeda terrorism, and Rand says he hasn’t yet heard the comments?

I am very disappointed in Rand.

Ron Paul has also flirted with 9/11 truthers, and I’m not comfortable with someone like Rand who is scared to upset his father’s rabid fans.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM

They attack us for a simple reason. It is mandated by their relgion, straight from Muhammed himself and they have been trying to gain Global Dominion via the Sword since the Prophet himself started it.

Rand is wrong, and Ron is a demented depraved disgusting human being.

jp on September 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Is it okay for me to say, “DUH”? I like the Pauls, but, d@mn, thanks Mr. Obvious.

Anybody with half a brain knows they are already here, and still pouring over the border with Mexico.

Can anyone say “Dearborn, Michigan”? My sister watched them dancing in the streets during 9/11. I suspect they are even here in sleepy Boise. We seem to have an awful large contingent of Muslims here for such a low populated state capitol.

sage0925 on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

So he somewhat disagrees with his father, but is careful not to contradict him.

Well, it’s certainly good that he didn’t agree that 9/11 was just blowback for our own behavior in the Middle East.

But really, if Rand Paul wants to run for president, he’d better make a stronger defense of the country he wants to lead than saying, “Does it really matter why they want to attack us?”

Rand Paul is trying to keep his father’s followers behind him while trying to also build support among national security conservatives. I personally don’t think he can do both. Ultimately, he’s either going to lose the supporters of his father, or lose a whole lot more people.

Now, in this case he was asked specifically to respond to his father’s statements, so weasel words in response may be forgivable. But if he’s going to be taken seriously, he’s going to have to make it more clear in the future that the problem of terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not the fault of the U.S.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I’m sure Rand also had a conversation with Ron, saying, “Dad, you’re killin’ me.”

Ron Paul has also flirted with 9/11 truthers, and I’m not comfortable with someone like Rand who is scared to upset his father’s rabid fans.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Or he honors his father and doesn’t want to call him out in public.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

RP is right. It’s payback for the Barbary coast./

wolly4321 on September 12, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Senator Rand Paul should simply have said “Ron Paul is my father and I love and respect him and I always will, but that doesn’t mean we agree on every issue, and this is one of those issues on which we disagree. “

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised to see him say something very similar to that here soon.

I can empathize with the guy. I have a father, the older he gets, the more he says what he thinks and sometimes it makes me just cringe. I love my Dad but sometimes want to crawl in a hole after things he says. It’s a tough spot.

gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM

But if he’s going to be taken seriously, he’s going to have to make it more clear in the future that the problem of terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not the fault of the U.S.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I don’t care if terrorists attack us because it is our fault or not. Or if someone can argue that it was our fault. What I want is to bring down the hammer on them if the terrorists attack us. That’s what he said he’d do.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM

given the tenor of the comments among the Paul fanbase on Ron’s Facebook post yesterday, this is actually Rand taking a bit of a risk.

Rand Paul is not going to win any Presidential nominations relying on the looney bin his dad cultivated. It’s a risk but not really. His aspirations for higher office go up in flames the minute he starts talking like his crazy daddy.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Or he honors his father and doesn’t want to call him out in public.
besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Honors his father? When you are running for president, you damn well sure better honor your country. Hurting dear old dad’s feelings should take a backseat to that.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Rand P. will have to upset his fathers followers sooner or later. Many of them are rabid anti-war leftists and who hate the military etc. He can not bridge the gap…they will always, in the end, vote for Warren or Sanders.

so he might as well pull the plug now on them

r keller on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I love my Dad but sometimes want to crawl in a hole after things he says. It’s a tough spot.

gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Lucky for you people don’t impugn your motives because you don’t immediately find the nearest stage to stand upon and publicly humiliate your dad.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Ron Paul has also flirted with 9/11 truthers, and I’m not comfortable with someone like Rand who is scared to upset his father’s rabid fans.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Or he honors his father and doesn’t want to call him out in public.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Well, Rand has a little bit of class.

Unlike some lower forms of sea life…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Rand Paul is Ron Paul’s son. Beyond the familial relationship, this means that Rand Paul has been raised in the political class. He has been exposed to the Ron Paul philosophy all of his life, but he has also been exposed to the nuts and bolts, the nitty gritty, if you will, of Ron Paul’s political machinations.

I don’t like the prospect of voting for the children of politicians. Political office was not meant to be, nor should it be, a family business, handed down from parent to child. To suggest that this should be the case is to make the case for an American aristocracy that rules by right of birth.

There should be a healthy distrust of dynasty in this nation. Dynasty is antithetical to the manner of founding of, and foundation principles of, this nation.

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

We seem to have an awful large contingent of Muslims here for such a low populated state capitol.

sage0925 on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Same could be said for white supremacists in your state. But I bet you have never once complained about them.

Longtime Listener on September 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Lucky for you people don’t impugn your motives because you don’t immediately find the nearest stage to stand upon and publicly humiliate your dad.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

:)

gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM

I large shadow to navigate. We always knew the younger would have to deal with his own route. At this point, I’m still with the younger.

Bmore on September 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Well, that goes against Ron Paul’s entire worldview right there. I’m sure Libertarianism will undo any damage somehow, since it’s perfect in all ways.

The Nerve on September 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Honors his father? When you are running for president, you damn well sure better honor your country. Hurting dear old dad’s feelings should take a backseat to that.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

When you are running for POTUS, it also helps if the American people actually like you.

You know what the American people, by and large, find despicable? Sons who beat up on their fathers in public, rhetorically or otherwise…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Honors his father? When you are running for president, you damn well sure better honor your country. Hurting dear old dad’s feelings should take a backseat to that.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive. He didn’t agree with what Ron said and said that he’d attack anyone who attacks us with overwhelming force. You want him to break a Commandment for what? Your self gratification?

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Honors his father? When you are running for president, you damn well sure better honor your country. Hurting dear old dad’s feelings should take a backseat to that.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Are you freaking kidding me with this comment?

This is his father period. Most people get the concept of Honor thy Father. Heck it’s so important even God had Moses write it down.

If anything this makes me respect Rand more.

gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I still vastly prefer Ted Cruz to Rand.

What if Elizabeth Warren ends up beating Hillary for the Dem nomination?

Imagine a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 fight. Yes!

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:26 PM

So would lots and lots and lots of hawks. If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

Not me. I think Rand is pretty much spot on. He didn’t say it was unimportant, he put them in an order and the important thing is to defend ourselves (I’d quibble about his terms but it’s pretty clear that defend and attack are mixed together here). Next in line of importance might be the reason(s) for it.

I don’t know why you’re picking on him for such a small difference in emphasis asking the question, “Why do they want to kill us.” It sounds to me like Rand is a big War Hawk when it comes to dealing with those who attack us.

Dusty on September 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM

I don’t like the prospect of voting for the children of politicians. Political office was not meant to be, nor should it be, a family business, handed down from parent to child. To suggest that this should be the case is to make the case for an American aristocracy that rules by right of birth.

There should be a healthy distrust of dynasty in this nation. Dynasty is antithetical to the manner of founding of, and foundation principles of, this nation.

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

That is all well and good. However, there is a flip side to that argument.

Politics is, and always has been, a craft. Some people have made it a lifetime craft. Some people go so far as to make it an occupation. But at its heart, it is a craft.

And like most crafts, the best education you can get in politics, from a young age, comes from your family. There’s a reason the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Rockefellers, were all good at politics; they learned at daddy’s knee.

Well, I want the best craftsmen available working on my team. Because damn sure, the other side isn’t ashamed about hiring their best craftsmen…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM

There should be a healthy distrust of dynasty in this nation. Dynasty is antithetical to the manner of founding of, and foundation principles of, this nation.

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

If nobody in your lineage has ever reached beyond the lowest levels of government/aristocracy, I don’t think that you can call it a dynasty. Do you call it a dynasty when the son of a knight or baron becomes king?

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I sense dishonesty because of a political calculation by Mr. Paul. He knows foreign policy is what turns many off to his father, and he’s been very careful to be ambiguous about what precisely he would do if president.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Some people are simply motivated by their hatred of you, and will do whatever they can to destroy you, even if you’ve never done anything (or failed to do anything) to them.

You exist, and they hate you. Period.

Kind of like Democrats feel about everyone else.

Which is causing me to begin to feel that way about them.

Midas on September 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I still vastly prefer Ted Cruz to Rand.

What if Elizabeth Warren ends up beating Hillary for the Dem nomination?

Imagine a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 fight. Yes!

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I will take either of them. Or Pence. Or a lot of people (Walker, Jindal, Perry, etc.). But not Christie. But, Cruz, Paul, and Pence are my top 3.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Are you freaking kidding me with this comment?
This is his father period. Most people get the concept of Honor thy Father. Heck it’s so important even God had Moses write it down.
If anything this makes me respect Rand more.
gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

No, I am not “freaking” kidding.

I’m not buying this pathetic “honor thy father” excuse for why Rand Paul refuses to forcefully condemn rationalization of terrorist activity and the “Blame America and Israel” line.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

That’s a terrible photo of Rand. Funny, but terrible.

King B on September 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

gophergirl on September 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I think most people would agree with you, GG, and that’s why it would have been the simplest, most direct answer that the senator could have given.

However, having been raised as part of the Ron Paul political machine, making the separation between his father and his father’s political ambitions has to be tough.

I think he chose what he thought might be walking a line in the middle, trying not to contradict his father, but in my opinion this has harmed his political ambitions as he seems weak and reticent in his ability to take a firm stand declaring definitively that this nation didn’t ‘deserve’ to be attacked, nor did it provoke the attack though our presence in the Middle East, a presence I might add that, through business investment has built the energy sector that has brought wealth to the region, developed the means that enables the distribution of that oil to the world, our financial aid and charitable aid have established hospitals where there were none, schools and universities where there were none, sanitation facilities where there were none, and provided clean water where there was none.

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

he’s been very careful to be ambiguous about what precisely he would do if president.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Just like just about every single other person possibly running for President.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

He’s afraid to stand up to his dad. If he can’t stand up to My Favorite Martian how will he stand up to Your Worst Nightmare?

Longtime Listener on September 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive. He didn’t agree with what Ron said and said that he’d attack anyone who attacks us with overwhelming force. You want him to break a Commandment for what? Your self gratification?
besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

He could have forcefully condemned the remarks in categorical fashion while still being respectful. How can any of you be satisfied with his weak response.

You ask why he should do it? Because it’s the right thing to do!

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Oh, and I get Rand’s manner here.

My father and I are *very* different politically. We don’t talk politics. We love each other enough – and want to continue to enjoy each other’s company, as well as keep the family thing tight and enjoyable – we simply don’t ‘go there’.

My father’s perspective is not mine, and frankly, if people asked me continually to defend or refute whatever my father has to say politically, I’d probably tell them to f*ck off but feel free to ask me to discuss my own perspective – period.

Midas on September 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Longtime Listener on September 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Your nom link appears to be broke.

Bmore on September 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Or he honors his father and doesn’t want to call him out in public.
besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

I don’t know what kind of relationship Rand Paul has with his crazy daddy. But, Ron Paul has had a career in politics. He must understand that, with all the focus on his son’s Presidential ambitions, his words matter. Hell! Look what they did with Gingrich in the infamous mom interview.

If Rand Paul really does want to run for the Presidency, Ron Paul is going to be baggage. There needs to be some private agreement about just how to deal with the media. Best way, IMO, is for Ron Paul to STFU and answer any media inquiries the way that GWB does. Essentially saying that he’s out of public office now and happy he isn’t dealing with [insert issue here]. That would be the father honoring the son.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

Not unreasonable if you’re a “tactics” person, but it really doesn’t matter in the end and will not help you defeat your enemy. If understanding is your goal, fine. If security is your goal, probably not of much use (to wit, BHO’s America is Evil, please love us tour).

For me, I’m in agreement with Rand. It is far more important that my enemy know the result of their aggression against me will be annihilation than it is that I “understand” their motivation.

If they don’t like me because I’m more successful, what would you suggest that knowledge does for me? I should be less successful? And then they will leave me alone?

They will leave me alone because it is in their best interest to do so. That’s it.

IndieDogg on September 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

He’s afraid to stand up to his dad. If he can’t stand up to My Favorite Martian how will he stand up to Your Worst Nightmare?

Longtime Listener on September 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

He already did. It was called a filibuster.

Maybe you read about it in the newspapers…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM

My honest opinion: I think Rand agrees with his father Ron Paul on this. Yep.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM

He could have forcefully condemned the remarks in categorical fashion while still being respectful. How can any of you be satisfied with his weak response.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM

You sure didn’t have any problem with Romney’s refusal to disavow Romneycare and his other record of statism. Rand’s response about his dad’s record was far stronger than anything Romney ever offered about his own statist record.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Just like just about every single other person possibly running for President.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I know more about what Ted Cruz would do BY FAR. It’s not even a close call.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I know more about what Ted Cruz would do BY FAR. It’s not even a close call.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Based on what? He hasn’t laid it out specifically, either. You’re holding them to different standards. Which is fine. But don’t pretend that you’re treating him the same because you’re not.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:39 PM

If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

I don’t see it. Your enemies ‘leave you alone’ after you kill them and I can’t see how their motives are relevant in how you go about doing that. Hitler had a motive. Everyone has a motive.

Buddahpundit on September 12, 2013 at 8:39 PM

If Rand Paul really does want to run for the Presidency, Ron Paul is going to be baggage.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I agree. And I can only assume that every time something like this happens, Rand goes to Ron and says, “You’re killin’ me here!!” We’ll see if Rand is able to get Ron to chill out. But, the GOP spent decades trying to do the same to Ron, with little effect, so I’m not too optimistic.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I sense dishonesty because of a political calculation by Mr. Paul. He knows foreign policy is what turns many off to his father, and he’s been very careful to be ambiguous about what precisely he would do if president.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

You mean like Kerry told us that we’d have to vote him into office before we could find out any of the details of his plan to end the war in Iraq? Funny how he never tried to act on that plan when he went back to the Senate.

I’m okay with vague answers at this point. But Ron Paul is an isolationist which is where we are headed with the Obama foreign policy decisions. America should not be the world’s police, but neither should we withdraw from the international community as Paul advocates. Rand Paul is going have to speak in specifics to allay concerns about the crazy ranting of his father.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM

If Rand Paul really does want to run for the Presidency, Ron Paul is going to be baggage. There needs to be some private agreement about just how to deal with the media. Best way, IMO, is for Ron Paul to STFU and answer any media inquiries the way that GWB does.

First of all, I would have been plenty happy if GHWB had said maybe we should reconsider a full on invasion of Iraq, if he (as I suspect, in light of his decision to not do so in 1991, he does) believed it was a mistake. And I’d have no problem with GWB if he had said he would keep his own counsel.

Second, keeping Ron Paul from saying what he thinks isn’t going to happen. Will that lead to some headaches for Rand going forward? Yes. But the old man has spent half a lifetime cultivating the most fanatic supporter base in my lifetime of politics. If there is any sense that he is being handled, they will revolt against Rand.

And if he is to win this nomination, he needs them. And everyone involved, up to the old man himself, knows it…

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Ron doesn’t understand the region, doesn’t care to, and never will be bothered to.

He uses 9/11 as a cheap shot because AQ has given several reasons for their jihad, and that’s all the opening he needs.

Rand knows this. Rand also knows Ron was doing this as an attempt to turn the heat up on Syria, because that’s how Ron operates.

When the time comes, Rand will break down all the reasons AQ has given and that will be his refute.

budfox on September 12, 2013 at 8:43 PM

But if he’s going to be taken seriously, he’s going to have to make it more clear in the future that the problem of terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not the fault of the U.S.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I don’t care if terrorists attack us because it is our fault or not. Or if someone can argue that it was our fault. What I want is to bring down the hammer on them if the terrorists attack us. That’s what he said he’d do.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM

In practical terms, it may be fine to say, “Well, regardless of whose fault it is, I’ll take all necessary action to defend my country.”

But do you really think the president of the United States should say anything that can be interpreted as “blaming the victim?”

Would you vote for a man who thinks we may have had it coming, even if he’s ultimately determined to do the right thing?

If Rand Paul has any desire to be president, he’d better make it very clear that he will not only defend us militarily, but he’ll defend us against false accusations and claims that we deserved what we got.

You don’t have to believe that the US is blameless of all offenses to believe that 9/11 was a vicious and completely unjustified attack.

What’s notable in Rand Paul’s response is what he did NOT say. I can sympathize with not wanting to completely embarrass or contradict his father, but if he wants to run for president, he’s going to have to do a better job of rejecting such nonsense.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

We’ll see if Rand is able to get Ron to chill out. But, the GOP spent decades trying to do the same to Ron, with little effect, so I’m not too optimistic.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I suspect you are right. But, especially if Ron Paul is going to hit the campaign trail for his son, Rand’s “brand” is going have to be much different from his father’s. There is going have to be some sort of messaging of their differences without making it seem the Pauls are at war with one another.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Based on what? He hasn’t laid it out specifically, either. You’re holding them to different standards. Which is fine. But don’t pretend that you’re treating him the same because you’re not.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bologna.

I like Rand Paul. I think he’d be fine candidate, but when comparing the 2, Mr. Cruz is far superior. He speaks quite plainly about what he would do and what he believes.

And it’s based on his interviews, of which he’s had many. The best are at National Review Uncommon Knowledge where they have extensive interviews of both men. So maybe you just need to break down and do some research before you start accusing people of things you know nothing about.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Does he really need his father’s supporters that badly? They were all kooks anyway. It seems like by now he’s carved out a pretty solid name for himself as it is.

WhatSlushfund on September 12, 2013 at 8:51 PM

My honest opinion: I think Rand agrees with his father Ron Paul on this. Yep.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I honestly don’t know if Rand Paul agrees with his father and is too politically calculating to say so, or disagrees with his father but doesn’t want to do it publicly and lose some of his father’s supporters.

But the uncertainty itself is damaging.

I think we’ve known for some time that Rand Paul would have to tread a thin line here between his father’s politics and, well, sanity.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM

But do you really think the president of the United States should say anything that can be interpreted as “blaming the victim?”

Would you vote for a man who thinks we may have had it coming, even if he’s ultimately determined to do the right thing?

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Tell me, if our debt crisis becomes a money crisis, and we see rapid inflation, or the nation becomes insolvent, should a candidate for POTUS refrain from telling the American people that the profligacy they engaged in brought them to that point?

Because I guarantee the Left will paint that as “blaming the victim”.

If our existence as a hyperpower, the attending rise in internationalist and interventionist foreign policy, the resulting coddling of dictators, and a near endless series of “incredibly small” acts of war have enabled religious suicide cults to recruit cannon fodder, should someone not have the courage to say so…?

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM

It’s almost impossible to know what a NATO country like Canada should do in a situation like this, with the United States, NATO’s undisputed star quarterback, in a state of dribbling, catatonic paralysis.

First of all, if you are from Canada, you should know that mixing sports paradigms will get you into great trouble.

Perhaps you should stick to hockey for your similes, for know that dribbling is the provenance of the basketball player, and is not anything you will ever see a quarterback do to a football.

unclesmrgol on September 12, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I like Rand Paul. I think he’d be fine candidate, but when comparing the 2, Mr. Cruz is far superior. He speaks quite plainly about what he would do and what he believes.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I can’t believe I am bringing this up three years before it matters but Cruz is from a state with a hell of a lot more electoral votes than Kentucky. Now if it were Ohio, that would be a different story. The GOP needs to stay from “electability” in 2016 but a candidate who comes from a state with 38 electoral votes has to be a factor. Kentucky has 8.

In full disclosure, I’m a big Cruz fan right now because he doesn’t flit around staking out positions with anticipation of “electability.” Speaking of which, maybe we should be putting Marco Rubio’s picture on milk cartons or something. He completely went to ground after his push for amnesty blew up in his face.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:06 PM

I thought we were aiding the Syrian rebels. The problem with all this is degrees and timing and lots of folks aren’t going to be happy whatever we do. I have to say that I don’t see what Syria has to do with us. Would Iran have moved to a more secular power had Obama aided them when they were trying to make a stand? Who knows.

Cindy Munford on September 12, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Would Iran have moved to a more secular power had Obama aided them when they were trying to make a stand? Who knows.

Cindy Munford on September 12, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Well, the Ron Paul or Vlad Putin answer would be that you are too short-sighted. This goes back to when the US was supporting Iran against Iraq, then Iraq against Iran. Any problem in post-WWII relations is the fault of America to Ron Paul and many of our enemies (including Obama).

Hard to remember but, under the Shah, Iran was a dictatorship but a fairly westernized one. Same holds true for several other of the places ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.

IMO, at this point the foreign policy failure of Clinton/Kerry/rat-eared bastard is simple. And to a lesser degree Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice. That failure has been trying to pick winners and losers in struggles where there are no good guys. There are times when foreign policy dictates you do what you can, keep the channels of communication open, but you don’t decide to openly interfere in domestic affairs of some other nation. That isn’t to say you don’t try to influence outcomes but you don’t station an armada off the coast of a nation and announce you’re going to kick their ass by an unbelievably small attack with 100 cruise missiles.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:32 PM

In full disclosure, I’m a big Cruz fan right now because he doesn’t flit around staking out positions with anticipation of “electability.” Speaking of which, maybe we should be putting Marco Rubio’s picture on milk cartons or something. He completely went to ground after his push for amnesty blew up in his face.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Yes. Flitting around is a good way to put it.

Rubio was very disappointing. When you start outright lying because you want your bill to pass, you deserve to be thrown into the dustbin of ‘potential candidates’. Nobody can truly believe(and certainly not someone as sharp as Rubio) that fast tracking 10′s of millions of illegal aliens is somehow going to help us economically, help get U.S. debt under control, or fix our entitlement problems.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Will the repercussions from choosing not to aid Syrians be worse than the repercussions from punching Assad to get him to put down his gas? Probably not, but who knows?

In each case, the actors in the play have already made their assessment. That being that whatever the American people think, the American political leadership will ultimately side with whichever player they decide is the “most authentically Muslim” and therefore most mystical, enlightened- and anti-Western. And anti-Israel.

Assad is probably right now looking for a way to quietly tell The One,

OK, I get the message. Let me clean this “rebel” mess up and I’ll go back to attacking Israel.

If Assad did that, The One would probably give him nukes to do it with. As long as He could look shocked and surprised afterward.

When He was giving His trademark “it is a time to move beyond our differences” spiel to get us to overlook the fact that our one actual friend in the region was now a plain of vitrified glass.

You know you’re in trouble when your leaders operate on a worldview based on leftist dogmas and dystopian dreams- and your enemies are smart enough to trim their sails to that sort of “prevailing wind”.

clear ether

eon

eon on September 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 9:32 PM

I’ve seen pictures of Iran from those times and it was amazing. I have to assume that the Shah was pretty brutal to those who didn’t agree with him but it is hard for me to imagine that how they live today was what they intended. I am still of the opinion that left those folks completely alone they would just kill each other. That may be a very incorrect and simplistic view of that region but they have only themselves to blame for that.

Cindy Munford on September 12, 2013 at 9:47 PM

And it’s based on his interviews, of which he’s had many. The best are at National Review Uncommon Knowledge where they have extensive interviews of both men. So maybe you just need to break down and do some research before you start accusing people of things you know nothing about.

Vanbasten on September 12, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Bologna back at you. Any candidate who is precise about what he’d do on foreign policy years before running for president is a fool. And Ted Cruz is not a fool.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 9:59 PM

That’s just stupid.

Foreign policy and intel experts have been trying to tell people for decades that our interventionist policies were creating hostility. Moreover, Osama Bin Laden himself, couldn’t have been more clear about his reasons for 9/11-US interventionism.

Ron Paul is right, albeit impolitic in his timing.

mountainaires on September 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Like it or not, as the world’s hyperpower, America’s going to alienate some people abroad when it doesn’t act, not just when it does.

I’m sorry…but, as of right now, are we even a power, much less a superpower or “hyperpower”.

We’ve got a president driving down our economy and our military at light speed. His only obvious objective in anything he says or does is his own self-aggrandizement among his loyal constituents..people who hate this country with a burning passion. How can a country, which elected such a cow-bird to it’s highest office, even be considered relevant…much less a power, of any degree?

AUINSC on September 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM

But do you really think the president of the United States should say anything that can be interpreted as “blaming the victim?”

Would you vote for a man who thinks we may have had it coming, even if he’s ultimately determined to do the right thing?

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

I didn’t say that. Rand Paul didn’t say that. And, no I wouldn’t. Which is why I didn’t support Ron Paul, even though I agreed with him on domestic policy about 100x more than I did the statist, Romney.

You don’t have to believe that the US is blameless of all offenses to believe that 9/11 was a vicious and completely unjustified attack.

What’s notable in Rand Paul’s response is what he did NOT say. I can sympathize with not wanting to completely embarrass or contradict his father, but if he wants to run for president, he’s going to have to do a better job of rejecting such nonsense.

He wasn’t asked if they were justified. And if he was, I’m sure he wouldn’t hesitate to say they were not. You don’t say that you are going to respond with overwhelming force if you think someone was justified in attacking you. That’s easily inferred.

The context was what motivates them. And what motivates them is whatever propaganda they are fed (by terrorist organizations, oppressive regimes trying to deflect blame for miserable conditions, etc.), which includes things both real and imagined.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM

If the rebels really were the moderate secular freedom fighters of John McCain’s fondest dreams, that would be a strong reason to support them against Iran.

Obama has no interest in helping moderate, secular freedom fighters, only the community organizers of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. Unless the regime they oppose has been friendly and cooperative with the US. Those regimes he will attack without that much concern about who fills the ensuing power vacuum. Because if they were friendly with pre-Obama America, they are evil and must be destroyed to weaken our evil influence on the world.

From a political standpoint, Rand is walking a thin line, trying not to alienate his father’s substantial but loony followers, but trying to clearly distinguish himself from the crazy old man. I have no idea what kind of relationship he has with his father, but walking that line would preclude hammering the old man if he can possibly avoid it.

I’m thinking the old loon got right up on the edge this time. Pretty sure Rand wishes his dad would just stfu.

novaculus on September 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I thought we were aiding the Syrian rebels. The problem with all this is degrees and timing and lots of folks aren’t going to be happy whatever we do. I have to say that I don’t see what Syria has to do with us. Would Iran have moved to a more secular power had Obama aided them when they were trying to make a stand? Who knows.

Cindy Munford on September 12, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Obama seems to be working to make sure that whatever ultimately happens there that the US is in the worst possible position given that outcome. He succeeded with that in Libya and Egypt so far. I think he’s going for the trifecta.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 10:13 PM

It feels surreal crediting a U.S. senator and aspiring presidential nominee for having the basic common sense not to blame America for 9/11, especially on 9/11, but given the tenor of the comments among the Paul fanbase on Ron’s Facebook post yesterday, this is actually Rand taking a bit of a risk.

If he’s serious about being President, there is no risk at all. He in fact has no choice but to put some distance between himself and his idiot father.

Basilsbest on September 12, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Rand Paul is a weezel.

Bleed_thelizard on September 12, 2013 at 10:26 PM

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Daddy Dearest was also a keynote speaker last night at a convention held by a bunch of jew-hating, holocaust revisionist,anti-Vatican II ‘catholics’.
Honor NOTHING. When your father is a piece of sheet like Ron Paul-you have a duty to call publicly call him out.

Rand Paul says the right things usually-but I still don’t trust him and wouldn’t vote for him in the GOP primary.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM

mountainaires on September 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Read my comment. Was Herr Paul right to keynote that group too?
Ron Paul is a scumbag.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Honor NOTHING. When your father is a piece of sheet like Ron Paul-you have a duty to call publicly call him out.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM

If my dad was a crazy crank that I disagreed with politically 100%, I still wouldn’t call him out publicly. Even if I was running for President. Because family is more important than power and a stupid government job.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 10:44 PM

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 10:44 PM

I adore my husband-but if he were as batsh*t crazy as Ronulan-I’d have ZERO problems calling him out. He know it.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 10:49 PM

But do you really think the president of the United States should say anything that can be interpreted as “blaming the victim?”

Would you vote for a man who thinks we may have had it coming, even if he’s ultimately determined to do the right thing?

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Tell me, if our debt crisis becomes a money crisis, and we see rapid inflation, or the nation becomes insolvent, should a candidate for POTUS refrain from telling the American people that the profligacy they engaged in brought them to that point?

Because I guarantee the Left will paint that as “blaming the victim”.

If our existence as a hyperpower, the attending rise in internationalist and interventionist foreign policy, the resulting coddling of dictators, and a near endless series of “incredibly small” acts of war have enabled religious suicide cults to recruit cannon fodder, should someone not have the courage to say so…?

JohnGalt23 on September 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM

That’s very revealing that you would make that particular analogy.

The difference between your analogy and what Ron Paul said is that in your analogy, you could actually point the finger at American policy and be right. We spend too much money, and that does create problems.

It appears you also think it’s our fault that the terrorists hate us. And that is truly as stupid as blaming the victim of a rape for what happened to her.

No, we haven’t been perfect in the world at large. We’ve tried to keep the world essentially stable to prevent a recurrence of World War 2. That is, we don’t want to have to draft every able-bodied male and send them to war halfway across the world just to prevent the real possibility of having to accept world domination by an unfriendly power. We threw everything into World War 2, because we had no choice.

Ron Paul made some remark about “no, they don’t hate us because of our way of life.” And while that is technically true, it’s a half-truth.

They hate us, quite simply, because we are in the way. They want to rebuild the caliphate, and we’re the world power that keeps them from it. They want to expand the reach of Islam and sharia law, and not only are we the world power that can potentially stop it, we’re about the only Western power that has the guts to stand up for our way of life.

So to argue that Ron Paul is right, you’re arguing that we deserved 9/11.

Rand Paul had better be smarter than that if he wants to be elected president.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Is that true, that it’s “not so much important what they say their reasons are”? Ron Paul would disagree. So would lots and lots and lots of hawks. If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

This. Worrying about the why isn’t as important as letting enemies know that we don’t care what your rationale, we will punch back but hard if you attack us.

If Pearl Harbour had happened in this day and age we’d be beset by hand wringers moaning about chickens coming home to roost.

AH_C on September 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM

I adore my husband-but if he were as batsh*t crazy as Ronulan-I’d have ZERO problems calling him out. He know it.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Calling out and calling out publicly are oceans apart. If you have no problem publicly calling out your spouse when he disagrees with you, all that I can say is that I thank The Lord that I’m not married to you.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:03 PM

I meant to quote Rand’s own words, not AP’s opinion/query.

AH_C on September 12, 2013 at 11:05 PM

But do you really think the president of the United States should say anything that can be interpreted as “blaming the victim?”

Would you vote for a man who thinks we may have had it coming, even if he’s ultimately determined to do the right thing?

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM

I didn’t say that. Rand Paul didn’t say that. And, no I wouldn’t. Which is why I didn’t support Ron Paul, even though I agreed with him on domestic policy about 100x more than I did the statist, Romney.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM

No, you didn’t say that, and neither did Rand Paul. But Ron Paul did, and people are naturally going to wonder if Rand Paul agrees or not.

My point was that Rand Paul failed to clearly say that he rejected any claim that we provoked 9/11.

Now, it may be that he can be excused in this instance because he didn’t want to publicly disagree with his father. But he can’t afford to let people think that he might agree with his father’s sentiment if he ever expects to run for president.

Right now, Rand Paul is a trumpet giving an uncertain sound. It’s not clear whether he thinks his father has a good point or not.

And if he’s going to run for president, as he seems to desire, he’s going to have to disagree with his father sooner or later.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 11:06 PM

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:03 PM

I said IF my husband was as unhinged as Ron Paul. My husband is a rational thinker. Rational thinking is something the Ronulan has no familiarity with.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM

So to argue that Ron Paul is right, you’re arguing that we deserved 9/11.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Uh. That doesn’t necessarily follow. And you even illustrate an example where it doesn’t. If they hate us because of our presence in the Middle East because we are in the way of their caliphate, they still hate us for being there. And that in no way means that they are justified in attacking us. It just means that they may not have attacked us if we weren’t there. Then again, maybe they would have found another reason to hate us and attack us. The terrorists and failed local governments certainly have reason to externalize who their unemployed citizens hate.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:11 PM

And if he’s going to run for president, as he seems to desire, he’s going to have to disagree with his father sooner or later.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I suspect he’s hoping to get him on a short leash sooner rather than later. I doubt that it will work though. And I suspect that he won’t ever call his dad out (I wouldn’t call my dad out in his situation), so I think it will hurt him. Which I think is too bad because I like Rand. But there are a lot of other good candidates too.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM

But really, if Rand Paul wants to run for president, he’d better make a stronger defense of the country he wants to lead than saying, “Does it really matter why they want to attack us?”

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Maybe that’s his truth and really just the brass tacks.

Trying to make sense of the insensible is impossible sometimes. Sometimes there doesn’t need to be a valid (or what we’d consider valid) for these people to act.

Sometimes there’s nothing we can do – inaction, action, behavior modification, appeasement, fighting back – they’re still going to do what they do.

I can see his point and he may have been using some shorthand (much like Romney’s women/binders comment). Sure, it’s nice to know in case it was something that can be learned from or a mistake to not repeat, but at the end of the day it’s still an attack.

kim roy on September 12, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Never forget that Ron Pauls first thoughts about 9/11 was that it was Americans (or possibly the jews) killing other Americans.

Alberta_Patriot on September 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM

So to argue that Ron Paul is right, you’re arguing that we deserved 9/11.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Uh. That doesn’t necessarily follow. And you even illustrate an example where it doesn’t. If they hate us because of our presence in the Middle East because we are in the way of their caliphate, they still hate us for being there. And that in no way means that they are justified in attacking us. It just means that they may not have attacked us if we weren’t there. Then again, maybe they would have found another reason to hate us and attack us. The terrorists and failed local governments certainly have reason to externalize who their unemployed citizens hate.

besser tot als rot on September 12, 2013 at 11:11 PM

I would certainly interpret “blowback for our policies” to be arguing that we deserved 9/11. And I think we can find other statements from Ron Paul to the same effect.

But I’ll grant that it’s more an implication than a direct statement. I frankly don’t see how anyone can miss the implication that we caused 9/11, but I’ll let it lie there.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Senator Rand Paul should simply have said “Ron Paul is my father and I love and respect him and I always will, but that doesn’t mean we agree on every issue, and this is one of those issues on which we disagree. “

thatsafactjack on September 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Well stated ma’am.

arnold ziffel on September 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM

But I’ll grant that it’s more an implication than a direct statement. I frankly don’t see how anyone can miss the implication that we caused 9/11, but I’ll let it lie there.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM

In general, that’s the inference that I make as well, which is one of the reasons that I never supported Ron Paul. I’m just saying that it’s not a necessary inference. The “blowback” type language is really over the top and I sometimes wonder if Ron Paul is purposefully trying to get a rise out of people by using highly inflammatory language when a similar point could easily be made with less incendiary language. But, that’s his MO and I’m sure Rand wishes he’d knock it off.

besser tot als rot on September 13, 2013 at 12:48 AM

I heard no rebuke and no repudiation.

I did hear Rand say over and over and over again there was no distance between Ron’s policies and his during two long presidential campaigns, though.

Adjoran on September 13, 2013 at 1:00 AM

It appears you also think it’s our fault that the terrorists hate us. And that is truly as stupid as blaming the victim of a rape for what happened to her.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Well, I tell young women that if they want to avoid getting raped, they should probably avoid dressing like sluts, getting loaded in public, and going into neighborhoods where they are not wanted. If they choose to ignore my advice and get raped, I still blame the rapist. But that hardly makes my advice any less salient.

Likewise, I tell my country that if it wants to avoid having terrorists fly planes into our buildings, they should probably avoid bombing other nations willy-nilly, stationing troops where the populace resents them, and supporting dictators who repress dissent in their countries. If a terrorist blows up a building, I blame the terrorist.

But it doesn;t make my advice any less salient.

But then again, I suppose you are the type who advises women to go around dressing like sluts, going into strange neighborhoods and tying one on. And do so, just so the locals get the message…

JohnGalt23 on September 13, 2013 at 2:34 AM

Rand Paul did not condemn his father’s shameful “America had it coming on 9/11″ comments forcefully enough. The day before, Ron Paul rationalizes Al Qaeda terrorism, and Rand says he hasn’t yet heard the comments?

I am very disappointed in Rand.

Ron Paul has also flirted with 9/11 truthers, and I’m not comfortable with someone like Rand who is scared to upset his father’s rabid fans.

bluegill on September 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM

WELL SAID

KBird on September 13, 2013 at 5:32 AM

Ron Paul can’t seem to figure out that some people just want to see the world burn.

Rand Paul seems to have figured that out.

ajacksonian on September 13, 2013 at 7:52 AM

I don’t know what kind of relationship Rand Paul has with his crazy daddy. But, Ron Paul has had a career in politics. He must understand that, with all the focus on his son’s Presidential ambitions, his words matter. Hell! Look what they did with Gingrich in the infamous mom interview.

If Rand Paul really does want to run for the Presidency, Ron Paul is going to be baggage. There needs to be some private agreement about just how to deal with the media. Best way, IMO, is for Ron Paul to STFU and answer any media inquiries the way that GWB does. Essentially saying that he’s out of public office now and happy he isn’t dealing with [insert issue here]. That would be the father honoring the son.

Happy Nomad on September 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

If you want to defeat your enemy, or at least figure out how to get him to leave you alone, knowing what motivates him is helpful.

Not unreasonable if you’re a “tactics” person, but it really doesn’t matter in the end and will not help you defeat your enemy. If understanding is your goal, fine. If security is your goal, probably not of much use (to wit, BHO’s America is Evil, please love us tour).

For me, I’m in agreement with Rand. It is far more important that my enemy know the result of their aggression against me will be annihilation than it is that I “understand” their motivation.

If they don’t like me because I’m more successful, what would you suggest that knowledge does for me? I should be less successful? And then they will leave me alone?

They will leave me alone because it is in their best interest to do so. That’s it.

IndieDogg on September 12, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Two posters who get it!!!

What I see is the arrogance of Ron Paul. He who has been retired from running for the presidency, etc. all of a sudden, due to the name recognition of his son, Rand Paul, decides that anything he says is relevant. Not true. It is totally classless of this man to say anything (even if he believes it and the comments are not for shock value in order to gain attention) to hurt the good work his son is doing right now. Rand Paul is a conservative who is one of a handful that are putting their fingers in the dyke holding back the socialist/Marxist/communist lefty thugs in government.

Ron Paul is a politician and even he knows that his crazy a$$ comments will be used as a hammer against his son. STFU!!!

Amjean on September 13, 2013 at 8:05 AM