-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The rest of Sen. Paul’s speech at Heritage yesterday wasn’t awful, but one paragrap was so incredibly asinine as to… well, words almost fail. But really, talk about jaw-droppingly awful! Read about it here.
Okay, please do go to the link above to read my comments on it. But so you’ll at least see what I’m objecting to, here is the paragraph in question, which manages to fit five myths into just a few sentences:
In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.
The statement would be laughable, except that if people believe it, it will actually be dangerous.
Come on, Sen. Paul: You make a lot of sense on domestic matters. Surely you can avoid spewing junk like this when making a prepared speech about foreign policy. Surely.
View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/02/07/rand-paul-flunks-foreign-polic
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
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.7.13 @ 1:50PM
I've yet to see Rand's response to his father's remarks on Chris Kyle.
Jack in Wi| 2.7.13 @ 10:12PM
I must read Rand's speech. If you guys thought it was awful it must have been pretty good. Of course it's true we armed the most radical Islamists in Afganistan. We are doing the same thing in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. The whole Iraq war let the radicals rise to the top. We support extreme radicals in Israel and extreme radicals in Saudi Arabia. With friends like this we don't need any enemies. I wish Rand would just get up and tell the Republicans to go to hell. We could build a new party in 2 years and drive the Republicans out of business once and for all. We did it in 1854 and the Whigs were gone by 1856. The Republican brand is dead.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.7.13 @ 2:48PM
Excellent analysis Quin. I doubt seriously that Rand Paul will differ much from the loony foreign policy ideas of his dad. Scratch a Paulista and you'll find a McGovernite, or worse.
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 2:56PM
The issue here, is that the generation now taking control of our government, were toddlers, if even alive during VietNam or later, the fall of the USSR.
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 2:57PM
President Obama is only 5 years younger than I, but his world view is more akin to that of my 26-year old daughter, than it is to mine.
Quin Hillyer| 2.7.13 @ 2:58PM
Make no mistake: I'm not a big critic of the senator. I want very much to like him. I agree with him on many domestic fronts. But he really needs to learn what he's talking about on foreign affairs. The paragraph I cited was offensive to Reaganites and anti-Communists, as well as being factually wrong.
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 3:06PM
Mr H,
As I indicated above, it may be generational. We have a new generation taking the con, who to paraphrase Ronaldus Magnus, "...know so much, that just isn't so."
Regards,
Mike
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.7.13 @ 3:11PM
Many of those (though certainly not all, and unknown if it is even a majority) who are attracted to both Obama's foreign policy as well as Ron Paul's brand of isolationism were not yet born or were too young to recall the threat to freedom, world peace and the US that was posed by the Soviet Union before its collapse in 1991.
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 3:24PM
There was many a day during that time period, when I was assigned to the 82nd Airborne, when I called the wifey & told her to make sure the car had a full tank of gas....and all the survival stuff was up to speed.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 3:56PM
Obama is only slightly less hawkish than Bush was on foreign policy.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.7.13 @ 4:10PM
Actually, they like Ron Paul because they want to smoke pot.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 5:37PM
Actually I prefer vodka.
Ryan| 2.7.13 @ 3:14PM
That's the type of statement that Rand needs to back up with something. The statement, I think, may be false on two counts - the words "official policy" and the words "radical jihad." Those are both VERY specific terms that would have to be in state department docs or statements regarding the reasoning behind arming the mujaheddin.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 4:01PM
I'm going to let Zbigniew Brzezinski himself prove that you are wrong on this one Quinn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 5:04PM
"...I'm going to let Zbigniew Brzezinski himself ...."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Oh please stop! Hahahahahahahahahah! Please, this is a serious site!
spike59| 2.8.13 @ 5:28AM
he might as well have cited li'l Minka Brzezinski
spike59| 2.8.13 @ 5:29AM
one thing Paultards and Libtards have in common: they never let 'facts' get in the way of their silly narratives
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.8.13 @ 6:51PM
So Brzezinski as National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter traveling to Peshawar, Pakistan and telling Afghan refugees that their war is just and "God is on their side" is not evidence that the United States was involved the conflict? What about the U.S. manufactured stinger missiles, did the Mujahadeen just happen to trip over a box of them in Kandahar? You're wrong Spike. You're the one who never lets the "facts" get in your way. Actually if the truth came down and smacked you upside the head you'd still deny it.
aware| 2.7.13 @ 3:31PM
This in no way is to defend Rand Paul, who is a Statist and conformist.
Quin knows nothing about the collapse of the Soviet Union if he says "...Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets’ ultimate loss of the Cold War."
The Soviets never deployed more than about 2% of their military to the war. So how could it have been any "factor" at all?
Here, try and educate yourself, if you can stop being a tool for powers you don't perceive or understand for a minute: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N.....oviet.html
The communists collapsed because of economics and because Western Shadow Rulers stopped funding them. Just as it is about to be with us. Do you really think a socialist economy can stand the test of time and plain economics? Are you an economic dunce or just blinded by stupid ideology?
Rand, damn him, happens to be much closer to the truth about events than you are. The Mujaheddin WAS armed by us or maybe you think they got those Stinger missiles at the local gun store. THEY considered and CALLED the war a Jihad, so you are clueless about any "patriotic war" with (implied) no Islamic motivation.
Last, don't get your neocon panties in a wad. I'm quite sure he will "see the light" if he wants to advance in the political arena and become every bit the imperialist you are.
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 3:34PM
"The Soviets never deployed more than about 2% of their military to the war. So how could it have been any "factor" at all?"
Because it had the same corrosive effect on their own populace that the VietNam conflict had on ours
aware| 2.7.13 @ 3:51PM
I think you, too, give the communists to much credit. Quin thinks their economic system was fine and you think they had an "informed" public and the ability to have mass demonstrations to "pressure" their leaders?
You really think the Soviet rulers cared about what the "public" thought about anything?
mike 3/505| 2.7.13 @ 5:03PM
"You really think the Soviet rulers cared about what the "public" thought about anything?"
Yep....and they spent millions/billions? in rubles to form/control/influence their public opinion.
aware| 2.7.13 @ 5:16PM
And when that didn't work, the camps and executions. That's controlling "public" opinion, not following it.
To believe that Soviet involvement in Afghanistan had some effect on "public opinion" after mass starvation, mass arrests, mass murder, and mass terror for 70 years is ludicrous. And glaringly ignorant.
It's simple: without honest price mechanisms the whole economy is flying blind until it flies into a mountainside. Mises predicted it perfectly in 1923 in "Socialism".
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:27PM
Aware: did Vietnam ever take away from our troops in Korea and Europe? (No) Did it involve our National Security directly? (No) Did it traumatize the crap out of our military, especially the front-line warriors (hell, yes).
Afghanistan was to the Soviet Cold War military what Finland was to the pre-WWII Soviet military. Neither of those wars jeopardized the Soviet Union directly; both of them ripped the ethos of the military apart.
aware| 2.7.13 @ 6:34PM
It is as absurd to compare the Soviet soldier to the American soldier as it is to do so with the two societies. If anything the military was even more conditioned than the society. They thought as was approved for them to think.
And the Soviets went back to Finland, didn't they? And didn't play around . If anything it made the Soviet military "mad"(actually terrified once the executions ensued for the first debacle).
Again lack of pay, letters detailing shortages and despair at home, and 70 years of abject failure to bring the goods to market through central planning is what destroyed the Soviets. It would have come about much sooner but for our stupid alliance with them in WW2, which they naturally used to fund communist control, as well as what they stole in Eastern Europe at the close of the war.
Socialism/communism is an economic impossibility and contrary to all natural law. It can be temporarily propped up but never self sustaining. Collapse is inevitable even with absolutely no outside attempts to bring it about.
And our kind of "socialism" is just as unsustainable.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 3:39PM
No you're wrong. It's you Quinn and your fellow neo-conservatives and your liberal interventionist cousins in the Democrat Party who "flunk the foreign policy test".
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 3:54PM
"In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out." -Rand Paul
What's wrong with this statement Quinn?...That its 100% on the money...right?
Did we not (with the help of the Saudis and the Pakistanis) fund, arm, train and radicalize Muslim volunteers to wage a jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980's? We are doing the same damn thing in Syria right now using the FSA (which is full of Sunni Islamists not unlike Bin Laden) to fight the Assad regime and non-Sunni minorities (including Christians) are being killed because this policy.
aware| 2.7.13 @ 4:51PM
This has more to do with the New World Order than American security. That is why there is so much contradiction in our policies from a security standpoint.
Quin Hillyer| 2.7.13 @ 5:00PM
In a word: No.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 5:38PM
That's a lie and you know it. We set it up between the Saudi financiers and the Pakistani ISI. We made the Osama Bin Laden's of this world to fight the Soviet Union.
Quartermaster| 2.7.13 @ 9:33PM
I don't think Hillyer is lying here. I am firmly convinced he hasn't done much research and is pig ignorant because the statement is on the button. We armed the Muj in Trashcanistan specifically to fight Ivan and we knew what we were arming. The Muj were open about what they were and that they were Jihadis. Bin Ladin recruited from all over teh Umma to establish his organization in Afg, and he was open about what he was starting up.
Hillyer doesn't know this because either he hasn't read the history of the conflict and is simply rambling on like the leftist he is, or he is simply trying to fake it and make it seem he's something he's not.
You faux conservatives here really need to get over the ridiculous statement about Paul's "Isolationism." Requiring we go to war only over vital interests and going the proper route for a declaration of war from Congress is not isolationism except in your puny Neocon minds.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 10:05PM
All right Quinn I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just don't know the history there, or maybe you're in denial that our government would ever use Al Qaeda types for their own geopolitical goals. Whatever the reason you should educate yourself on our involvement in the Soviet Afghan war before completely writing off Rand Paul's statements on the matter. Just take this into consideration. In 1979 most of the Mujahadeen were fighting with flintlocks or bolt action rifles. By the end of the war they were equipped with U.S. manufactured stinger missiles.
aware| 2.8.13 @ 6:04AM
Neocons own what's left of the conservative movement. They've been purging paleos like Buchanan, libertarians like Paul, and anybody else who isn't a globalist for 20 years. This while ironically pushing a "Big Tent", the latest inclusion to be Hispanics.
I gave up on this kind of "conservatism" with Bush the Lesser. The movement is now controlled by Trilateralists, CFRs, and assorted globalists. This is what controlled "opposition" looks like.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:22PM
The Mujuahedin did their job in helping to destroy the Soviet Union. It should be pointed out that the man who provided excellent weather forecasts to our B-29s for their bombing runs over Japan in 1945 in exchange for American supplies was: Mao Tse-Tung.
Times, and needs, change. Militant Islam was not a major American concern in 1984 in relation to Communist concerns. And now, the Soviet Union is of less worry to us than Iran having a nuke.
Rand is better than his dad. But West and Pence on their worst days are better than either of the Pauls on their best. I do hope, Quin, that you manage to get to the Ruth's Chris in Mobile. It's very good, although not as good as the one in B'ham. My family (in-laws) lives in Good Hope.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 5:42PM
Thank you Occam for having the courage to admit that we worked with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. I wish Quinn would do the same. You and I disagree on many things if not most things but at least in this case we can agree that the sky is blue.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:22PM
Oh, and if you ever find yourself in the B'ham area, TRY the Greek Steak at the Bright Star in Bessemer. Magnifique!
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.7.13 @ 5:40PM
I could go for a lamb souvlaki about now.
William R| 2.7.13 @ 5:40PM
Good gawd, Hillyer you're beyond belief.
Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001–2003, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."[2]
In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[3] Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden once expressed appreciation for the United States' help in Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said:[4]
Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?
Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.
Bandar bin Sultan: Right.
You're part of the problem Hillyer, you were in lockstep with Bush and Cheney when the drove the country over the cliff.
Quartermaster| 2.7.13 @ 9:35PM
Hillyer, like most who post here, have drunk deep from the Neocon's punch bowl.
spike59| 2.8.13 @ 5:32AM
ahhhh...'neocon, neocon, neoco'...the mating call of the Deranged North American Paultard
what takes the humor to the next level is that none of you Paultard dumbasses have even the slightest idea what the word even means
William R| 2.8.13 @ 11:01AM
You're dumber than a load of bricks.
Exit Neocons stage left
http://americasfuture.org/doub.....tage-left/
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.8.13 @ 2:38PM
It never ceases to amaze me Spike that when you've lost an argument you immediately resort to insults and name calling.
Quartermaster| 2.8.13 @ 4:52PM
He's a leftist. That's why he does it. He just can't help himself.
spike59| 2.11.13 @ 6:19AM
Leftist, my arse-it's you Paultards with your worship of a nutjob whose foreign policy 'ideas' are only a millimeter different than that of Code Pink and Dennis Kucinich, who need to be looking in the mirror
spike59| 2.11.13 @ 6:20AM
it never ceases to amaze me that you are too ignorant to understand the difference between an argument and an observation...
Quartermaster| 2.8.13 @ 4:51PM
Ah yes. The standard leftist knee jerk reaction to someone that is winning an argument.
I happen to not be a Ron Paul supporter. I actually voted for Mittens, scum bag that he is. You, on the other hand, have drunk deeply from the Neocon punch owl as well. You have so little knowledge of history that you haven't the slightest idea of what a true conservative looks like. I can assure you, not one leader of the GOP is a true conservative. They are overwhelmingly moderate leftists. That, my ignorant friend, is what you are in actuality supporting.
And, yes, you are a Neocon. And William R. is on the button about your low info ways.
spike59| 2.11.13 @ 6:22AM
too bad none of you Paultards (denial doesn't become you, LIAR) even know what 'neocon' means; it's just a convenient little throwaway 'insult' that only impresses other Paultards and Progressive 'thinkers'...do you get them by the gross from PuffHo?
7-08| 2.8.13 @ 9:45AM
When I think of the Rand, Jeb Bush, Santorum upcomming primary feel that the painless way out is just to rent a law enforcemnt unifrom and drive around in LA county.
stp| 2.9.13 @ 11:06AM
If you want to talk about talk about jaw-dropping, it's QUIN HILLYER's utter ignorance of history. Everything Rand Paul said was true, Tom Hanks even made a movie about it, "Charlie Wilson's War".
Freedomist | 2.10.13 @ 4:20PM
It would be laughable if it weren't true.
spike59| 2.11.13 @ 6:15AM
the chip didn't fly too far from the stump