Wednesday, February 6, 2013

On Rand Paul's Praise of Reagan

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter | G+

During Rand's 'I'm not a neoconservative' speech, he had some nice (and hyperbolic) things to say about Reagan, which included:
Everybody now loves Ronald Reagan. Even President Obama tries to toady up and vainly try to resemble some Reaganism. Reagan’s foreign policy was robust but also restrained.
Key word: "restrained".

Later on, Rand spoke of Obama's foreign policy:
We did not declare war or authorize force to begin war with Libya. This is a dangerous precedent.
Key word: "precedent".

Obama set a precedent for this type of behavior?

Perhaps we should rewind to 1983 to a tiny caribbean island known as Grenada. This island was part of what Reagan called "The Caribbean Triangle" which contained Grenada, Cuba and Nicaragua.

Some of you may be thinking thinking....hmmm....Reagan's "Caribbean Triangle"....Bush's "Axis of Evil". Yes, that's how government explains things to the boobus.

Reagan trumped up threats of Commie activities in Grenada; until finally, invasion. This was the first time that the U.S. committed combat troops since Vietnam. And wouldn't you know, Reagan didn't get Congressional authorization!

It was the restrained Reagan who was setting a precedent!

There was also another BIG precedent set in the Grenada press. You see, a psychological turning point happened during the Vietnam war with the U.S. public. Reporters were on the ground showing vividly what was going on.

Reagan, and the military, wouldn't let that mistake happen again. And to this day, foreign wars are see no evil, hear no evil for Americans. War is just stuff that happens on the other side of the world to keep us safe. That's all an American needs to know.

If they were to to see what previous generations saw during the Vietnam War, perhaps there would be more opposition, and a better understanding as to why more active duty troops die from suicide than from battle.

Finally, let's not forget the kicker...Reagan's trumping up of Grenada propaganda turned out to be false...Bad intelligence evidently.

Yes....I know...just like Bush & Iraq.


  1. Devil's Advocate...
    On the whole, you're exactly correct. Except...
    The Caribbean Community "requested" Reagan to invade (intercede) when some crazy faction kidnapped Mr. Bishop and his family and started firing squads. I know, I've seen the bullet holes.
    The whole "medical students in danger" WAS bullshit, as was the whole "Cuban threat".

    Anyhow, things WERE scary bad in Grenada, the neighboring countries (St. Vincent, St. Lucia, etc.) DID ask us to intercede, so there was SOME cover.
    The OTHER thing that Reagan did that wasn't so bad was he pulled troops out post haste after the ruckus. Unlike this "nation building" occupation crap.
    Lastly, in my defense, at the time, I was vociferous in my condemnation for the action. I was quite alone in this opinion. I haven't changed my mind since.

    1. Capn Mike,

      You're right on with your analysis of why Reagan sent troops into Grenada. That analysis is also backed up by Stephen Kinzer's book: "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq."

      According to sourced information in Kinzer's book, Reagan also sent troops into Grenada to get the US a "win" after the debacle/defeat in Vietnam.

      Lastly, Reagan's "precedent" of going to war without a declaration was set long ago. Presidents have not obtained a declaration of war, to my knowledge, for any war after World War II.

      Good post though. Rand is a weasel and his use of Reagan as some sort of protective political shield will only fool the boobs who don't pay attention, don't know their history, and don't respect limited constitutional government.

    2. Derek I put that in for effect...But yes, you are right, the last time Congress declared war was WW2.

      If I was to be more accurate, Reagan was continuing the precedent set by Truman and the Korean "conflict".

    3. WWII was certainly declared, but long after FDR got into the fight:

  2. And there is the restrained Reagan's 1986 airstrike on Libya--I'm sure if he'd had drones available, he would've been happy to set a precedent for their use too.

    1. But his Libya attack did set a precedent for unilateral executive action (accompanied by the obligatory bi-partisan "consultation" with Congressional leaders) to initiate acts of war against what in its sole determination were "terrorist havens." It sparked international outrage at the time, and it took another twelve years for another president to cite the precedent, but such actions are so commonplace now they hardly get a mention. Thanks a lot for your restraint, Ronny--I'm so thankful you returned the presidency to it's proper constitutional role, just like Rand will.