Far from believing that war should be a last resort, Romney is on record supporting "preventive" wars in Iraq and Libya, and he has emphasized his readiness to wage "preventive" war against Iran. --- an interventionist like the rest of the GOP warmongers (excluding RP)
On Jun 19, 3:44 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Daniel LarisonRand Paul's baffling support for Mitt Romney's cowboy foreign > policyThe Kentucky senator is supposed to inherit his father's libertarian > mantle. Instead, he seems to be endorsing a return to Bush-era > recklessnessposted on June 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM > Did Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) betray his father's political movement by > endorsing Mitt Romney last week? No... but the content of Rand's endorsement > ought to be alarming for the supporters of Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) > presidential campaigns, and for anyone interested in a more restrained and > prudent foreign policy. While Rand is not as strictly non-interventionist as > his father, no one could confuse him for a hawk in the mold of Florida's > Marco Rubio. When the Kentucky senator praised Romney for his "mature" > foreign policy and asserted that the Republican nominee believed war should > be a last resort, he hurt his reputation with his strongest supporters and > undermined the critique of Republican foreign policy that has been central to > his father's message. No less important, Rand provided Romney with valuable > political cover for a foreign policy that appears to be every bit as reckless > as that of George W. Bush. > During an interview with Sean Hannity, Sen. Paul described his meeting with > Romney bysaying, "I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible > commander-in-chief. I don't think he'll be reckless. I don't think he'll be > rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last > resort and something we don't rush willy-nilly into. And I came away feeling > that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy." > Normally, a late endorsement of the presumptive Republican nominee by a > junior senator from a reliably Republican state would be unimportant. > However, Rand Paul is widely and correctly regarded as the most likely heir > to the leadership of the movement his father began. It seems likely that he > will pursue the Republican nomination in 2016 or 2020 as the candidate of > both Tea Party activists and Ron Paul supporters, and the 2012 Ron Paul > campaign has been laying the organizational foundations for that future run. > This is why the endorsement matters. Rand's approval of Romney's foreign > policy threatens to alienate many of his core supporters, and it lends > additional support to the Republican foreign policystatus quothat he is > supposed to be challenging. > The problem is not just that Paul gave Romney a free pass on foreign policy. > He lent credibility to the idea that Romney's aggressive rhetoric on the > subject doesn't mean anything, and can therefore be safely dismissed by > voters worried about a return to the Bush era. Unfortunately, there is every > reason to believe that Romney is channeling the views of his most hawkish > advisers and promoting the foreign policy favored by veterans of the Bush > administration. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that > Romney's foreign policy would be one that Rand Paul could support. > Far from believing that war should be a last resort, Romney is on record > supporting "preventive" wars in Iraq and Libya, and he has emphasized his > readiness to wage "preventive" war against Iran. By definition, an advocate > of "preventive" war rejects the idea that war should be a last resort. Romney > may not seem reckless, but the Iran policy he and many of his advisers > promote undoubtedly is. > As for having "mature" views on foreign policy, Romney has not provided much > evidence of maturity in his policy statements. On Russia,China,NATO, and > Afghanistan, Romney has made statements that were demonstrably false, > provocative,illogical, or sharplyat odds with his own advisers' views. From > describingRussiaas "our number one geopolitical foe" torejecting negotiations > with the Talibanthat his advisers support, Romney has been developing a > reputation for being neither mature nor responsible. > That isn't surprising, since Romney has essentially no foreign policy > experience. His policy statements serve as a reminder that he is one of the > least prepared major party nominees on foreign policy in the post-WWII era. > Because of that, he has surrounded himself with advisers from the previous > Republican administration. That is the common practice for similarly > inexperienced politicians. Unfortunately for Romney, the previous > administration's foreign policy record was largely one of failure, unforced > errors, and one very costly and unnecessary war. It is hardly reassuring to > know that Romney's policies will be shaped by many of the same advisers > responsible for such poor results. > If Romney wins in November, we should all hope that Rand Paul's assessment of > his foreign policy is correct. That requires us to believe that everything > Romney has said up to this point is irrelevant and his conduct of foreign > policy will be dramatically different from what he has said he will do. > That's not very likely. Contrary to popular belief, candidates do tend to > follow through on their foreign policy campaign rhetoric because they want to > or because they feel constrained to do so, and what they say during the > campaign is often a reliable guide to how they will > govern.http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/229207/rand-pauls-baffling-support-for-mitt-romneys-cowboy-foreign-policy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
