In a packed room at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) on Wednesday gave a speech attempting to differentiate himself on foreign policy from the neoconservative camp that still reigns supreme in the Republican Party.
“I am a realist,” Paul insisted, “not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.”
Paul tried to advocate for a less interventionist foreign policy. “I’d argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy,” he said, “as it includes two basic tenets of true conservatism: respect for the Constitution and fiscal discipline.”
But with almost every prescription of restraint Paul declared, he negated it in the following sentence.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Glaser: Rand Paul Speech a Foreign Policy of Restraint, but Couched in the Rhetoric of Interventionists
John Glaser on Rand Paul's call for restrained interventionism or maybe it's non-interventionism at times, but not other times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
More neocon verbiage: calling it "isolationist" instead of "non-interventionism" even though his father has explained a zillion times what the difference is.
ReplyDeletezillion is not enough when you have multi-billion $ megaphones like CNN, NBC, CBS and FOX indoctrinating 24/7 to captive masses.
DeleteI think Rand Paul is correct. He is not an isolationist, -which is what he said, that he is not an isolationist-. He is a non-interventionist.
DeleteLOL. Even the interventionists are not completely consistent interventionists. They're quite non-interventionistic at times as well which is another huge logical problem with their outlook.
ReplyDelete