-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’d be open to cutting — or even eliminating — U.S. aid to Israel within the broader context of eliminating all foreign aid, and so I thought it was a bit unfair that Sen. Rand Paul was being condemned for getting rid of aid to Israel when it was part of $500 billion in budget cuts that got rid of all foreign aid. That said, I think there’s a constructive way for Paul to make his point, and to fight the perception that he’s as anti-Israel as his father is, and a really clumsy and awful way to make the point.
This (via Politico) is a contstructive way to speak about it:
Paul also defended his calls to end aid to Israel, saying they’re just part of his bigger efforts at fiscal responsibility. “I’m not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel, but not with money you don’t have,” he said. “We can’t just borrow from our kids’ future and give it to countries, even if they are our friends.”
This is not:
“I think they’re an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world,” he said. “Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don’t think so.”
The first statement is one that I — as both a supporter of Israel and a spending hawk — can sympathize with. Yet the use of the word “welfare” to describe military aid to a key strategic ally is one that makes me worry that, deep down, he shares his father’s hostility toward the Jewish state.
View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/04/rand-paul-decries-welfare-to-i
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.11 @ 12:40PM
Philip,
fortunately, he is only one vote in 100.
Hey, all of us have dumb ideas.
Sean| 2.4.11 @ 3:07PM
You more so than other. I am sure liberals like you would love a Senate dominated by McCainGraham clones. Give me 67 Rand Pauls and then the Republican can actually get some fiscal and conservative bills going in the Senate.
I now see why Texas is represented in the Senate by Cornyn and Hutchison. Two useless liberal suck ups.
Patty| 2.5.11 @ 2:41AM
Sean probably lives in Taxachusettes, that bastion of conservatism.
Sean| 2.5.11 @ 2:10PM
No that is where Patty and Ken's Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was governor.
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 7:42PM
sean and i like little boys.
Sean| 2.4.11 @ 12:41PM
So you can't call welfare, welfare now? Rand's father is not anti-Israel. He has the same policy as George Washington had towards other countries.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.11 @ 1:06PM
Sean,
forgive my abruptness. You are a definition of stupid!......or at best, ignorant of history.
Sorry, we can't cure stupid here.
In case you are the latter, I will take just a moment to guide you. Free peoples need to stand together.
We give Israel money and munitions...they give us priceless intelligence.
Clint| 2.4.11 @ 1:21PM
A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.
"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.
"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.
Another member of the committee, Ehud Yatom, said Israel had told the Americans it believed the weapons existed but had not seen them.
On Sunday, the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, told Y-Net, an Israeli newswire, that the Israeli intelligence services reached the conclusion years ago that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.11 @ 3:26PM
Clint,
Your whole thesis comes tumbling down around the reality that we found tons of WMD in Iraq.
The final shipments of yellow-cake (rich uranium ore), were delivered to Canada from Iraq just last year.
Yes, the Bush team decided the "threat" of wmd being given to terrorists was too great to ignore.
I tend to agree.
Red Phillips | 2.4.11 @ 1:29PM
Ken, where is defending other "free peoples" with American tax payers' money in the Constitution? Must be right next to that maintaining "pax Americana" clause I can't find either.
Sean| 2.4.11 @ 2:56PM
Ken I know more about history than you. Israel gave Pollard money and he use to give them our secrets. you ever hear about that?
Quartermaster| 2.4.11 @ 6:13PM
I like Ken, but he often suffers from target fixation. We have given a lot to Israel, but they have no repaid in kind, unless you consider treasonous SOBs like Pollard repayment in kind. Over all, Israel has been a conditional friend. Jesus Christ, alas, described them quite accurately.
As we have seen repeatedly, Klein and Goldstein are vile, small men.
Cato| 2.4.11 @ 12:45PM
I really don't see such a dramatical difference between the first and second statements of Paul's.
Israel is really a rich country, and any kind of intergovernmental transfers is always a government welfare. I would be worried if Paul said for example that Americans should not support Israel or should not sell them all state-of-the-art weaponry. Or if he started to repeat the idiocies about the jihadists as heroic freedom fighters who just resist the "American empire", a type of idiocy his father so often engages in.
However, I don't see any anti-Israel element in Rand's statements, just a reasonable, libertarian argument against foreign aid as such.
Richard Baker| 2.4.11 @ 1:16PM
The US was instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel due to what happened under the Nazis (call it the result of disgust or a guilty conscience, if you wish). Do we then cut them loose and reprise that destruction? I was stationed in Germany during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and our re-supply of M-60 tanks and other military aid saved the day. Cut foreign aid to the multitude of countries who hate and obstruct us while taking the money but support the only friend we have in that part of the world. Rand and his Father need to remember our part in Israel's creation and survival. If not us, then who?
Smirking Weasel| 2.4.11 @ 1:26PM
If you're primarily concerned about a foreign nations' welfare, give up American citizenship and become a citizen of that nation and work for its' betterment.
The problems of Israel, or any foreign nation, are theirs' alone, not the United States. The continued existance of Israel, or any other foreign nation, is solely up to the citizens of that nation, not the United States.
Smirking Weasel| 2.4.11 @ 1:17PM
So, what is 'anti-Israel'? What specific evidence can you cite that would make one believe that Ron Paul meets the definition that you would
put forth in answer to that question? Why should Americans accept your definition? More importantly, why the hell should Americans care
about an American politicians' views towards any country except America -which should be 'pro-American'. What's that last? It may be up for debate in totality, but ending welfare payments to all foreign nations would seem to be an easy inclusion. Except possibly to hacks who actually define themselves as supporters of any foreign nation.
Conservative Bob| 2.4.11 @ 1:19PM
Timing is everything... regardless of the view/need to get our fiscal house in order. I am not certain that this exact moment in time is a helpful of beneficial one to be making these kinds of statements.
This WH has been less than friendly to our staunchest allies.
As we all hold our breath to see how things turn out in Egypt and indeed the whole region our friends need to be assured of our reliable support. There is plenty of time to work out how and where we will tighten our belt, best not to add to the uncertainty in this time of upheaval.
Richard Baker| 2.4.11 @ 1:26PM
Are you willing for the 3-4 million Israelis to have to fight to the death alone against 100-200 million Arabs while we maintain a voyeur attitude towards the whole thing? I understand Washington's desire for a stand alone posture but even he understood the nature of the need for some alliances. Read my previous message and tell me if you're willing for the Doomsday scenario to come to fruition.
Smirking Weasel| 2.4.11 @ 4:05PM
I am neither willing or unwilling to tell Israelis or other foreigners what to do about their problems. As long the problems, or attempted solutions to same, don't impact my nation, I don't care. Darfur,Kosovo Egypt, Israel, Palestine, blah, blah, blah.
Solve your own problems, maybe even figure out how to coexist-while maintaining discrete nations and borders-with each other. Or, slaughter each other in the street-and it's their fight to the death(or flesh wound), not Americas. Whatever. Leave US out of it. Those of you who wish to boss around/save the world and its' various hellholes should get off your butts and go do it, but you speak and act only for yourselves, not America or its' citizens, and we're not supporting you financially or in any other manner.
Richard Baker| 2.4.11 @ 1:28PM
My last post was for Weasel.
Steven Costello| 2.4.11 @ 1:28PM
The last time I checked, Israel had (and has had for decades), pound-for-pound the mest military and intelligence capacity in the world. As to the rest of the country, it is basically Western European. They need assistance from us about as much as Belgium does. By contrast, Sierra Leone has among the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates in the world, is an economic basket case where people live on subsistance, has a crumbling infrastucture, and is a struggling post-conflict democracy. I see it as far more moral to have tax dollars go to the latter.
Conservative Bob| 2.4.11 @ 1:58PM
Moral?
US tax dollars should only be spent furthering our national interests. Every dollar spent should yield measurable results.
The exception to this is immediate humanitarian relief in response to natural disasters.
If individuals wish to donate to global charities they are free to do so and history indicates that we are quite generous in that regard.
Steviec| 2.4.11 @ 2:39PM
Well I dont see it that way and will vote against those who do. Yes, moral. "Immediate humanitarian relief in response to natural disasters" is not in our "national interests" as you define it. Why should the USG respond to that at all? Because it's the right thing to do, and it reflcts what our government stands for. As does economic assistance to developing nations - which to varying degrees yelds measurable results that are far too compilcated to go into here. But handing out bags of rice after an earthquake is meaningless without long-term development initiatives. If you're not willing to engage in them, dont send anything. I wouldnt worry about it - we give far less than most wealthy countries based on GDP, and it's less that 1% of the federal budget.
Conservative Bob| 2.4.11 @ 3:49PM
It is not moral to take money at gun point (taxes) from US citizens so that politicians and their camp followers can pat each other on the back and claim they have done something. A large portion government to government aid given to these countries is squandered through corruption with little real impact on the people in need.
It can be described as many things but moral is not the first that comes to mind.
steviec| 2.5.11 @ 5:42AM
I dunno about "at gun point". Seeing it that way any government requirement is at gun point. My parents sent me to public school at gun point. And I also dont think foreign aid is done for self-gratifying reasons. Politicians usually inact policies that they can boast about in their campaigns and to constituents, and international development is rarely an issue. But you're correct, corruption is a major problem. But that paints the enterprised with too broad a brush, and it needs to be examined contextually on a country by country basis. But things are improving in that regard with microfinance efforts and there is certainly impact. Anyway I, for one, see the very difficult job done by those at USAID as an exmaple of the government (both parties) trying to do the right thing.
Red Phillips | 2.4.11 @ 1:37PM
Ron Paul is not "anti-Israel," and Philip knows it. He is just using inflamatory rhetoric to keep dissent at bay. Ron Paul is pro-neutrality.
Re. Rand Paul's two statements, Philip is being a wee bit sensitive. I don't see that much difference. In the second he simply points out that Israel is a rich country. How is means not an appropriate issue to raise with regard to who we give free money?
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 1:44PM
and if rand paul said "we need to cut ties with israel " that would be a crime??
Red Phillips | 2.5.11 @ 3:50PM
We do not need to "cut ties" with Israel. We need to have a relationship with Israel that is like the relationship we have with every other friendly country, and that should not include foreign aid or defense guarantees.
JimH| 2.4.11 @ 1:38PM
Actually much of the money to Israel is corporate welfare for American defense companies, as this is where much of it is spent.
louis tully| 2.4.11 @ 1:59PM
Right, and eliminating welfare to Egypt would be anti-Islamic, and eliminating welfare to S Korea would be racist, and on and on.
Seriously, if this is representative of elite thinking on the right, we're going to need some new elites.
Kenny| 2.4.11 @ 2:47PM
How can foreign aid to Israel, our 51st state, be considered welfare?
Oops, did I let the cat out of the bag?
Sean| 2.4.11 @ 3:02PM
Neocons are going to try to stop 500 billion in spending cuts to protect their special interest welfare state of Israel.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.11 @ 3:38PM
Philip,
Do you see what I mean now? You toss out those labels and every isolationist, coward, and silly ass, comes boiling out of the woodwork.
Here is a fun question to ponder; was it welfare when France sent their fleets and some good soldiers and gun-powder to help us defeat the British?
Smirking Weasel| 2.4.11 @ 4:13PM
No, it was France making a judgment on what was in its' own best interests, based on a centuries-old
enmity with England. And it was terrible judgement, because the fellow that ok'd it was, barely a decade later, overthrown, had his head sliced off(as did his family and associates) and was then succeeded by sustained revolutionary anarchy, followed by a short , hand in his shirt dictator who generated a near constant state of war on the European continent for close to two decades.
Quartermaster| 2.4.11 @ 6:16PM
And France has never recovered from the revolution.
Kenny| 2.4.11 @ 6:02PM
Hey Ken, what happen, Mexico turn off your electricity?
mortimer| 2.4.11 @ 6:42PM
the 9-11 terrorists were motivated by americas political and military support for israel.....9-11 commission report.
Cameron| 2.4.11 @ 10:59PM
You forgot about your quest for the Caliphate, moron. Stop lying.
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 12:22AM
caliphate ??? that's the ludicrous theory jewish think tanks put forward to american media to deflect from the fact that supporting israel caused terrorist to kill 3000 americans, "they hate your freedom" lol fortunately only fox news still repeats that nonsense. cameron beinng a jew doesnt care if america is attacked again in fact he hopes it does so we can hate muslims more
Patty| 2.5.11 @ 2:36AM
I don't hate anybody, but you are consumed with it. You need to look in the mirror if you can stand it.
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 12:28AM
cameron isnt a conservative he is here to push pro israel propaganda. google "paid jewish internet bloggers" the israeli ministry of defense pays 21 million annually to american jews to influence american public opinion on issues related to israel or jewish concerns. google it. these are the same deceitful slime who made it a point to buy 87 percent of all american media(google jewish media ownership) tell me why we allow jews to live in america
Patty| 2.5.11 @ 2:39AM
Cameron has blogged here for years. You, on the other hand, have just crawled out from under the fetid rock you call home.
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 1:46PM
patty do you think aipac should be able to influence our foreign policy and draft pro israel legislation??
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 7:44PM
i think little boys are tasty.
mortimer| 2.6.11 @ 2:28PM
www.giyus.org www.jidf.org this ia where cameron,old ken,and anyone pushing the idea we need to take from OUR citizens and give it to israel mobilize from... btw 3 billion us tax dollars = 5,639 for each jew!!! while americans are getting forclosed on and 1 out of evey 5 americans are on FOOD STAMPS!!!