More gibberish from Jennifer Rubin about Rand Paul
As part of neoconservative blogger, Jennifer Rubin’s daily Washington Post column, The Right Turn, Rubin has made a living from the traffic that comes in everytime she puts Rand Paul in the title, prompting her do this what seems like daily.
In a column yesterday, not surprisingly, Rubin critics the Senator’s foreign policy writing that “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) posturing as a Reaganite on foreign policy goes beyond hypocrisy to downright fabrication.”
Rubin, who like all neoconservatives who call themselves “conservatives” love to try to claim the Reagan mantle due to his immense popularity.
However, it wasn’t the neoconservatives that supported Reagan in 1976 because his foreign policy was more restrained. It was Paul’s father, Ron Paul who supported Reagan in 76.
In fact, neocons like Rubin constantly get Reagan backwards claiming he was some great fiscal conservative, which he certainly was not, and he was some great neocon hawk, which again, he certainly was not.
Reagan, they seem to forget, was the most cautious President in decades as far as bombing other countries, putting boots on the ground, etc. He was more cautious than GW Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and of course Bush Jr. and Obama. Look at the history, Reagan had a much more restrained foreign policy than any of these men.
It was the neocons and their forerunners that constantly faulted Reagan for being too accommodating with the Soviets and too ready to negotiate and agree to arms reduction.
I would like to ask Ms. Rubin, what should the US do about Putin right now? Please answer this. What would she do about Syria? Iran?
Or what do you want your “favorite” Republican to do? Spell it out Ms. Rubin.
Rubin also says Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is ” in effect anti-Israel” (He wants to contain the existential threat to Israel, not remove it. He believes we have no interest in Syria, where Hezbollah acquires weapons to threaten Israel.)
Dr. Paul’s position would allow Israel to defend itself without asking permission from Washington, isn’t that better? It’s hardly anti-Israel.
It is clear that Ms. Rubin disagrees with Sen Paul’s foreign policy, and that’s ok.
But to claim that a restrained foreign policy is not Reagan-like, is not telling the truth.
Could it be that Rubin writes critically about Sen Paul because she fears his popularity and the growing popularity of his foreign policy position even in a time where the world seems more dangerous?
Could it be that the aggressive, neoconservative foreign policy that Rubin subscribes to presents itself to Main Street as an unwanted, dying philosophy (with the exception some in the of the halls of Congress and in the “Think Tanks” like the American Enterprise Institute and the now extinct Project for the New American Century.
Perhaps Ms Rubin should explain that the foreign policy she and Bill Kristol, John Bolton and that ilk espouse are Wilsonian or like that of Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt.
I mean if we’re going to be honest.