Wow, I've been sitting in my car the whole day and haven't been able to get to my computer, but I did spend my time trying to call into Tammy Bruce's show when she was talking about Bhutto being assassinated. The Pondering Penguin has a nice piece about her (pilfered from Conservative Belle)
Here's Ron Paul and his reaction on Fox News:
5 comments:
Here via C. Belle. Thanks for the mention. Nice post yourself.
RM, I listened to Paul in this video.
I don't disagree about the Musharif point (military dictator support), but to say "I'm scared to death" is not very presidential.
He was whining about it. He's being "Chicken Little" about it.
Honestly, to me Paul isn't oozing with presidential authority in the way that makes me feel secure. He doesn't have to say the solution is bombing countries, but he could say we shouldn't interfere in any way in Pakistan's political process. He never acknowledges the threats from radical Islamic terrorists without blaming America's foreign policy. And with that he insults all Americans who believe in a strong military and believe aid and sanctions are often in our best economic interests as well as national security.
Am I being too cynical about it?
@Conservative Belle:
I don't think that you are being too cynical at all. This is THE ONLY reason that I cannot support Ron Paul (I agree with him almost entirely on every other issue).
The quote I read from Paul after he heard about the assassination yesterday continued his blame America first mentality and his refusal to acknowledge evil outside of American foreign policy. He said something to the effect that our support of the Musharref regime has resulted in civil unrest. I wonder if maybe radical Islamists are threatened by a democratically elected woman - but to Paul, it is clearly because the US is allies with Pakistan that she was killed.
CB and Strapz-
I don't see Paul's position as "blame America first". The way I see it, our foreign policy is currently limited to 3 options, either tax it (sanctions), or subsidize it (foreign aid), or bomb it (we all know that part). All of which I would be OK with if the results were predictable. But based on what we have seen ever since we started our interventionism (not just in Iraq), the results have definitely been less than predictable.
As an example, look at the concept of foreign aid as similar to welfare here at home (a subsidy). While the intent and purpose of welfare is noble, what have been the results? One of the unintended consequences are that it gives people an incentive NOT to work.
But take it a step further, does wanting to change or eliminate welfare mean that it's America's fault there are poor people out there? Not at all, it's just that maybe there are other ways to help them then resorting to the options that our government gives us.
I don't see Ron Paul as "blaming America first" I see him offering a fourth option in foreign policy to what we currently do, leaving others alone, and giving them an incentive to work things out on their own.
RM,
Thanks for trying to explain it.
Actually, just like welfare subsidies, foreign aid has its dependencies too. However, with welfare we have certain expectations (or we are supposed to). You are supposed to continue looking for work, pursuing an employable skill and to live within your means.
Why can't America expect certain loyalties or assistance (aka accountability) with the aid we provide to foreign nations? The way I see it is that most of the decisions we make with regard to foreign policy changes are strategically for economic reasons first and national security second.
And the "leaving others alone" policy cannot work because there will always have to be economic trade and with that comes the responsibility and hypocrisy of dealing with rogue nations and terrorist thugs (once your friend now your enemy). If you remove the trading part from the equation, then you have isolationism, which Ron Paul SAYS he opposes.
Post a Comment