Hugh Hewitt interviews Rand Paul on father’s foreign policy

Rand Paul seems to have more in common with his father regarding some foreign policy elements than I had originally thought, especially when it comes to discerning the motives of Al-Qaeda. What caught my attention, though, was when Hugh asked Paul directly if he felt that our support for Israel triggered some of these attacks and would he argue that we should reduce our support for Israel based on that premise. Paul simply replied that Al-Qaeda says that it’s part of their justification and that we should read their writings and doesn’t go so far as to answer the second half of that question. That’s a little bothersome to say the least.

The key part in this interview starts at the 13 minute mark and goes for about 6 minutes.

(via BBTV)

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I’ve wondered about how far he falls from the tree. And is it a nut tree?

    • There are plenty of nut trees, so yup, your comment is right on in that regard.

  • Anonymous

    Rand Paul did say most of us do not understand the level or the depth of his fathers arguments, I am pretty happy to admit I don’t understand the depth or level of his fathers arguments.

    • Anonymous

      First I do like both RPs. I don’t understand how he can say people don’t understand when Ron P just uses the Constitution to justify his arguments. The constitution was written to be understood by all men not just scholars, lawyers and politicians. It was written so that the lawyers would understand as well as the farmers and merchants and all others.

      I don’t like Ron Pauls foreign policy but would like to see a lot of aid cut off to foreign countries when we can’t afford it anyways and get little to nothing in return.

  • Anonymous

    Since Rand is supporting his father, I think he will avoid answering a question that requires him to speak against his father’s position on any issue.

  • I agree with his answer about the al awhateverhisnameis situation, the guy was over there, working with the enemy. And about the issue of dear leader going into Libya for the UN is a different story so I agree also with what he said on that.
    I support his work on the right to work laws.
    However, his answer on the 9/11 and al quaida mess is as ignorant (not meaning anything except that he needs to learn more about it) as his fathers views. If Rand would read the koran and hadiths he would understand that anything that the US has done, has nothing to do with the hatred of muslims towards Israel and the West, who they believe are still a majority Christian nation. Israel, and any support we give them has nothing more to do with anything except that they hate Jews and Christians. Face it- dear leader and the progressives have done nothing much to show friendship and partnership with Israel, yet they still hate. Their chief goal is to dominate and conquer Israel and the West for Islam. Simple-

  • Anonymous

    Libertarian is not conservative. If you look at our founding fathers writings they were close to isolationist. The founders knew that the Republic would only servive with strong love for the country and the belief in live and let live. That is why they knew slavery would have to end for the country to survive as well. Problems is we are too far along in the global thing to recoil too far too fast. I for one think we should get our military out of other countries. Let those countries take care of themselves for once. We can no longer police the world. We have given too much of our wealth from manufacturing to other countries. We can sell them ships and planes weapons to defend themselves. This would not make the muslim extremist go away. We will still have to defend our way of life from them. And the best way to do that is to stop bringing them(Islamist) to this country by the millions. No more. Stop immigration for a number of years until we get settled from the return of all our military personnel. I like Ron and Rand Paul but I do want either one for our President. I lean a little more conservative than libertarian. Need a bumper sticker USA OUT OF THE UN and the UN OUT OF THE USA.

  • Frederick

    Rand Paul sounds like a thinking man who isn’t reactionary. I have little issue with this interview on Paul’s end. Hugh Hewitt takes a more modernizational view of the constitution in his rethoric, while Paul remains much more stead fast to the legitimacy of the founder’s original intent. They wrote it afterall. The constitution doesn’t have an asterek. Implied intention is an excuse for expediency, and is ruining us. This is a bi-partisan problem.

    Reminds me of the saying: Praise Jefferson, but live in Hamilton country.

  • Maxsteele

    Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous foreign policy. Isolationism allowed the expansion of WW1 and the expansion of the Nazi regime and it had to take pearl harbour to break that delusion. Can you imagine someone making these foreign affairs statements, and taken seriously, about the cold war? The Russians do not like us because they call us imperialist, capitalists and we should listen to what they say so we can then create our foreign policy based on what our enemies say they do not like about us. Am I the only one that realizes this is retarded logic? Unfortunately, the bullies of the world only react to differing levels of strength. If there is a void then they will be emboldened and attack, when there is someone to stand up to them, that they fear, then they will back down. Hence the current state of the world because the USA (under Obama) is percieved to be weak. I can only imagine the insanity that would prevail in the world if the USA did follow the foreign policy of these two nut jobbers. Thank god for the American strength in the world.

    • Ron Paul isn’t and ISOLATIONIST he is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST! Do you know the difference? Do you care to know?

      • Anonymous

        Sorry… heard that one before. For all practical purposes it’s a distinction without a difference.

        And I say that based on how the dangerous the world IS… not on the extremist libertarian claim that they can avoid that danger in the world by recoiling to American shores and not have the dangers in far away lands influencing America.

        Example: By not dealing with Iran NOW… and allowing them to weaponize with nukes and delivery systems which can be deployed off a freighter 200 miles off the New England coast. How would “non-interventionism” save America’s ass then?

        Sorry my friend… non-interventionism as a construct does not exist.

        • Answer to Example: Non-intervention would allow us to “protect ourselves” if they even thought about doing something so ludicrous. Hence the word, we don’t intervene unless it is a direct threat to us or our interests. Isolationism(which is what you are speaking of, not non-interventionism) would allow them to approach within 200 miles of the New England coast. Non-interventionism would allow us to “defend” ourselves, hence attack, or “persuade” them to leave such an area. Attack without provocation would be equal to threatening another country(which would be what Iran would be doing in just the opposite of us in your example). So, in Iran’s eyes, they would be “preemptively” striking us, just as if we were to do the same. At some point, someone will have to take the “chance” to stop the preemptive striking, and return to defending our country, basing our “attacks” on defending our country and our interests(this is non-interventionism).

          • Anonymous

            I’ll address the coherent part of your response. The later half was mush and needs reworking.

            Isolationism (what Paul calls non-interventionism) is this: not nipping in the bud a nuclear program that is designed to load up a freighter, at some future date, with nuclear weapons to deploy 200 miles off America’s shores. Paul may think it’s non-intervention to let Iran develop nukes. These are his words… not mine. According to him they have the right to develop nukes. That position is not non-interventionism… it’s stupidity. How stupid does he have to be and still breathe.

            Your quote: “Non-interventionism would allow us to “defend” ourselves, hence attack, or “persuade” them to leave such an area.”. Barton… by then it’s definitely TOO LATE to defend “ourselves”. It they’ve gotten to the 200 mile limit… it’s too late. How blind can such an assertion be? I’m not being rhetorical here… I’m being deadly serious. Paulite defense philosophy (if it can be called a philosophy) should not be anywhere near America’s defense policy.

            • With this idea of yours, that no “rogue” nation should have the right to develop nukes, even those who have ships that “could bring them within 200 miles of our shores”, then what nations should we be attacking right now(that DO have nukes, and ships that can deliver such items)? I ask, at what point do you stop attacking based on assumptions, and defend with the definition of defending our country? You want to stop “rogue” nations from doing harm to our shores, I am all for that, but not through preemptive strikes. If, and that is a big if, Iran where to start “shipping” such a payload off our shores, don’t you think, with all the technology, we would know when it is leaving, and shadow such a ship, then, persuade it to leave, especially if it were honestly headed to our shores? You say my last part need clarification, so, here is the clarification:

              If we attack based on assumption(that they want to attack us(and use any they you can come up with)), shouldn’t they, then, have the right to attack us based on assumption(them attacking us(and again, use any country you want for the placement of them))?

              The entire premise of attacking using preemption as a reason, means to attack based on assumption, and, as I have been taught, assumptions are the mother of all f-ups.

              This was my premise that you called mush, so hopefully it is more clear. I can’t spell it out any better than that.

              • Anonymous

                “what nations should we be attacking right now”

                I’ll make that real easy so even a Paulite won’t misunderstand. Those nations which have a proven record of threatening to wipe off the map it’s neighbors… namely Israel. Those nations whose leadership are so unstable and apocalyptic to believe that Islamic World Peace comes by creating as much chaos and mayhem as possible, whose ideology dictates that there can only be peace when Islam rules from every “mountain top on earth”. Ahmadinijad’s words… not mine. This outlines just their stated objectives and does not even cover their covert and overt actions in the region.

                “The entire premise of attacking using preemption as a reason, means to attack based on assumption”. ARE YOU DELIBERATELY NAIVE? Or worse? Seriously! An assumption? These are not assumptions … these are facts.

                What part of “It’s too late if they get 200 miles off shore”, do you not understand. This is where there is no reality based support for the Paulite position whatsoever. You may want to live under such fantasies and wishful thinking. But it will be the responsibility of saner heads and clearer thinking individuals to prevent the disasters which a Paulite policy will usher in if Paul gets anywhere near the White House.

                It’s a dangerous world out there, and despite the LIP SERVICE Paulites pay to that notion… they talk as if it were still 1776.

  • It is true that Al Qaeda says that, but that doesnt mean we take their word for it and change our policy because of it.

    My hunch is that we could cut off Israel tomorrow, and Al Qaeda would come up with some other reason to blow us up. They will always want to blow us up. That is not going to change no matter what.

    • Anonymous

      Al Qaeda also says a lot of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy and everything to do with 1400 year old texts and tenants of authoritative, supremacist, jihadist struggle against the ifidel West.

      It’s a dual narrative… one for the pious faithful follower of allah… and another for the easily duped political elites of the West. Pure and simple.

  • Father and son are kooky neo-nazis… Morons!

    • Get real. Neo-nazis? I’m no supporter of RP and I think the people that support him are kookier than Paul actually is, but neo-nazi? Do you even know what a nazi is? If anything Paul is the exactly the opposite of a Nazi… moron.

      • yeah… he is a neo-nazi. And you can go to hell too along with dr. demento

        • Instead of cursing people to hell, why don’t you make you argument. How is Rand and Ron Paul members of National Socialist Party? Or are you just being sarcastic – which I’m ok with.

          Again, Winston, I agree with you RP has stupid foreign policy ideas and the people who support him treat him like a prophet – which is kooky in itself, but neo-nazi? really?

          • I might have been sarcastic but he strikes me as a kkk neo-nazi al-qaeda promoting loon. His links to neo-nazi party are a google-click away.

            • Anonymous

              The NAZI’s were the German National Socialist Party, which were fascists. Facists are big-government leftists who believe in nationalizing industry and exercising significant, if not universal control over the actions of the people and businesses, much like the Obama Administration. Ron and Rand Paul are just the opposite. They are constitutionalists who believe in small government and maximum freedom for the people. Big difference.

    • And you are a blood thirsty, war-mongering, tool of big government

  • Anonymous

    People have to learn to distinguish between “propaganda” and “what the Islamic texts actually say”.

    The claim that jihad is all Israel’s fault, America’s fault, or the West’s fault, and that it’s because of the bombing of Muslims, the occupation of “Muslim lands”, the stationing of US/Western troops in “Muslim lands”, or the “occupation of Palestine”…. you are reading PROPAGANDA.

    On the other hand, when they claim that jihad is justified by what the Islamic texts actually say, such as how the Islamic texts sanction and mandate warfare against unbelievers, quoting chapter and verse, quoting famous Islamic scholars and commentators to back the claim up, and pointing out how it is obligatory on all Muslims to engage in said warfare… you are reading the TRUTH.

    The problem is, people who have bought into the liberal view of the US, Israel and the West in general as “inherently bad” and that Americans should feel “guilty” for the sin of being an American, or for supporting Israel, or for being a Westerner, or all of the above. Culturally, that is the kind of picture that the liberals have been successful at spreading.

    If you want the truth, go to the primary sources (The Islamic texts), DON’T go read Al’Qaeda propaganda – Especially when you’re ignorant and naive about Islam to begin with.

    Give me FIVE minutes with Ron Paul, and I will educate that ignorant bugger.

  • Rand Paul for President!

    • Anonymous

      Incisive argument that.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s an oldie but a goodie. I feel it appropriately applies with Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy:

    “The apple never falls far from the tree.”

  • Anonymous

    Obviously Ronny is an idiot and a kook. But my preliminary assessment on Rand is that he’s not bad. Obviously, he’s the heir apparent and the future to the Paultard movement. But Rand’s a more practical conservative. I don’t think there’s anything crypto-racist or nazi about this guy. But then again, these are my preliminary thoughts.

  • Anonymous

    Rand paul is like his father but much more moderate and articulate on the issues.

  • Anonymous

    And when it comes to the assassination of a US citizen, it is a big deal because with the direction of this country do we really want to give an Administration the ability to define who is a terrorist and kill that person even if they’re a US citizen? Dont get me wrong, im happy that al-Awlaki is dead, but every time we trade a little bit of liberty for a little bit of safety, we give our Government more power to control us.

    I mean, this Administration has already defined the Tea Party as extremists…