On Iran, if they don't let our inspecters in, we need to "just blow the place up"Woodbury, Connecticut, Nov. 19, speaking to a local Young Republican group from YouTube video:
QUESTIONER: I take it you wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq...Some of his supporters from the Ron Paul faction are now threatening to pull their support for Schiff. From Sean Booth of PoliticalLore.com:
SCHIFF: I might have gone into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but I wouldn't have been there to occupy the country. I might have gone into Iraq, if I thought there were weapons of mass destruction. We had intelligence, and we knew where they were. I might have gone in there to take them out. Just like we think that Iran may be building nuclear weapons. If we really believe that, and we think that, and we tell the Iranians, and we tell the Iranians this is where we believe those weapons are, you need to let our inspecters in there, well, if they don't let us in there, we need to just blow the place up...
He says that if their was proof of WMDs in Iraq he would have approved of the invasion. Like so many others in Congress, unless Schiff was willing to do his homework on foreign policy, he may very well have followed his potential colleagues in the vote to invade.(Note - In contrast to Mr. Booth's views, though under-reported by the mainstream media, WMD were found in Iraq on numerous occasions, including weapons cache's found by both American and Polish troops, and most recently, 1 1/2 years ago, when 500,000 tons of yellow cake from Iraq were found.)
The bottom line is that Schiff needs to take a principled stand on foreign policy issues, and not just economic issues if he expects the already great sums of money ($1 million plus) to continue to flow into his warchest from his legion of followers nationwide.
Other Ron Paulist candidates moving away from strict Non-interventionAnother Ron Paul-oriented candidate, Rand Paul running for US Senate recently caught flack from Paulists nationwide for issuing a press release staunchly opposed to the closure of Gitmo and transfer of Gitmo Prisoners of War to the mainland United States.
A third Ron Paul-oriented prospective candidate, Gary Johnson who's eying a Presidential run for 2012, recently stressed in a TV appearance that unlike the common view, he supports a "Strong National Defense," and "Defense of our Borders."
From a recent press release from the Johnson exloratory effort:
Governor Johnson has also been a strong advocate of the war on terror... “Our efforts should be directed towards protecting U.S. citizens and our allies from terrorism...Political realities may be setting in for these candidates, or perhaps more likely, realities of foreign affairs stemming from recent Muslim attacks on the US, may be having an impact.
Pro-Defense Libertarians who wish to contribute to Schiff's campaign are urged to visit schiffforsenate.com
Or, show your support for RandPaul2010.com
And GaryJohnson2012.com
13 comments:
From Rand Paul's website:
"However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy."
It will be interesting to see how quickly Lew Rockwell throws Schiff "under the bus," as they say.
If not for sane reasoning, political motivation could be behind some of these stances. The American people are more National defense oriented now, than a few years ago...............a lot of things changed with Obama, including the American people beginning to understand Bush was right on Defense.
I wouldn't break open the champagne just yet my fellow strong defense - libertarians.
Mr. Schiff didn't say he would have liberated the Iraqi people even without weapons being discovered.
The weapons were always a secondary issue in my mind. The liberation of the Iraqi people from tyranny was always my first principle.
Secondly, he is attempting to win a GOP primary, and this could be some faux hawkish rhetoric to pick up some votes from national security conservatives in the primary.
Dr. Rand Paul I could endorse. He has always presented more of an open mind toward those libertarians who supported the war in Afghanistan and the Iraqi Liberation. Certainly he is far more moderate in inclination than his father.
Dan, good find.
Must have made for interesting dinner table conversation over the Holidays between Pops Paul, and the "Wandering" Son.
Ryan, oh, no, no, no. I don't want Schiff and the other two to come fully over to our Pro-Defense side. Where they're at right now is just perfect. They're middle of the road on foreign policy/defense between us Strong Defensers and the Non-intervenionists.
They cannot afford, literally, to alienate the latter. Cause they've got a lot of cold hard cash $$$ and they've shown a great willingness to throw it at campaigns.
We, on the other hand, have limited resources.
I have to admit, I automatically develop a twinge of contempt for anyone who reduces the global war against satan-worshiping mass murderers to an effort devoted to "getting bin Laden".
Thank God the people who fought WW2 didn't live in such a retarded fantasy world. Invade Germany to capture Hitler and then bug out? It's a manifestly stupid idea on every conceivable level.
"The weapons were always a secondary issue in my mind. The liberation of the Iraqi people from tyranny was always my first principle."
Then Ryan, why haven't we libertated the Cuban people? You can't tell me we couldn't now that the USSR is gone. Cuba is just 90 miles south. The assumption that Iraq had to be a national security threat must have been the primary motivation because libertating the Iraqi people shouldn't matter to us any more than liberating the Cubans.
Great post.
While being a non-interventionist myself, I have been coming around to the view that something has to be done to destroying the jihadists. The current course of action doesn't seem to be working.
Mr. Sheill,
Without speaking for you, I would venture that you opposed the Iraqi liberation based upon the non-aggression axiom. You believed it was an initiation of force, and therefore the action rendered unjust or illegitimate.
Some libertarians believe it was in our best national interest to remove the Hussein regime. A regime which had continuously violated the UN cease fire accord ratified upon the regime's surrender, when firing upon U.S. and British jets in the No-Fly zones, and refusing to grant full and unfettered access to United Nations weapons inspectors after dozens of UN resolutions demanding such compliance. A regime financially supporting Palestinian suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians. A regime that was harboring an individual who participated in the Achille Lauro terrorist attack. A regime that had engaged in genocide against its own people.
National interest is a rather vague geopolitical framework depending greatly upon individual interpretation. Two individuals of good faith could in all likelihood arrive at different conclusions.
Regards,
Ryan
"They cannot afford, literally, to alienate the latter. Cause they've got a lot of cold hard cash $$$ and they've shown a great willingness to throw it at campaigns.
We, on the other hand, have limited resources."
Eric, I'm not in this halfway. I have been a strong defense -libertarian since the morning of September the 11th 2001. I lost a lot of fellow friends of liberty over my support for the Afghanistan war and the Iraqi Liberation.
You lost much more than I, Eric, my good friend.
Therefore, I will compromise certain political means in order to achieve certain political ends, but I will not compromise my principles regarding the war against Islamic extremism. It simply matters to much to our nation.
Noninterventionist libertarians see us as divided into two opposing factions within libertarianism, and I concur with them on this point alone.
I articulated these precise sentiments when you endorsed Bob Barr for the presidency. He was not a libertarian that shared our foreign policy vision. I didn't support him for that reason alone, although more importantly, I also believed he lacked moral character.
I concur with Mr. Schiff and Dr. (Rand)Paul on the vast majority of domestic issues, both economic and social. However, I will not support someone who is "middle of the road" on defense for the sake of political expediency.
Post a Comment