Two nights back, Andrea Mitchell of NBC caricatured Sen. Rand Paul’s antiwar views as “isolationist” and suggested he would have appeased Hitler.
It’s a replay of Republican debates of the last century, the isolationist senators who opposed getting into World War 2 before Pearl Harbor.
What this reminds me of, someone like Senator Paul and others in that isolationist wing, you know, the Republicans had this debate back in the 1930s when you had the isolationists and Charles Lindberghs said we should appease Hitler… I’m afraid that’s what Sen. Paul is going to do for us.
Paul certainly has a libertarian’s opposition to oversea adventures, but I don’t know that isolationist is fair. His website includes language that an antiwar leftist can also endorse:
If the military action is justified and there is no other recourse, I will cast my vote with a heavy heart.
I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none. I believe that when we must go to war, we must have a Congressional declaration of war as the Constitution mandates….
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And to involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong.
Andrea Mitchell also said that Paul was being isolationist in trying to cut off aid to Egypt in wake of the coup there. Here’s some of Paul’s argument about American policy in the event of a “coup”:
“All military aid must end, that’s the law. There is no presidential waiver, the law states unequivocally the aid must end,” Paul said. “If we choose to ignore our own laws, can we with a straight face preach to the rest of the world about the rule of law?”