A Dream Dies, but the Beat Goes On
I am still trying to recover from the Republican Party’s overwhelming failure to understand that only Ron Paul was speaking good sense about the dismal state of U.S. foreign policy. Depending on whom you listen to, however, one might almost think in spite of all evidence to the contrary that the revolution is still going on and just one more tweak will deliver a Brave New World. That is because hardly a day passes without yet another email from the various organizations that are seeking to cash in on the Ron Paul legacy, demonstrating that they have the moxie to continue the fight. The most recent email from John Tate and Campaign for Liberty pledged to do something about drones, the latest empty promise that comes on top of not-quite-achieved victories in auditing the Fed and Pentagon and defending the Internet. Just send $50 or whatever one can spare. We’ll spend it wisely. Really.
In spite of it all, I strongly believe that Dr. Paul’s immense contribution to the political debate forced something of a rethinking of the unfortunate direction that our nation has taken in the past 10 years. His message continues to resonate, if muted, and is worth more than an eventual footnote in a history book. In the area of foreign policy, he alone had the courage to speak out on issues that the other candidates chose to ignore while puffing out their chests, wrapping themselves in the flag, and boasting of “American Exceptionalism.”
The only problem is that many of those who are now crying “legacy,” including Tate and Company, couldn’t have cared less about foreign policy when they might have actually done something to intensify the debate. They obsess about drones in the United States while ignoring their use overseas. They were precisely the folks who failed the campaign or who sold out in the first place. Onward and upward, leaving no man behind has turned into “let us reason together” and let’s “go along to get along.”
Somehow the Emperor Caligula’s naming of his favorite horse, Incitatus, consul of Rome came to mind when I recently read about how Jesse Benton, the controversial campaign manager for Ron Paul, had moved smoothly over to manage Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s re-election. Many Paul supporters long believed that Benton was intent on grooming himself for bigger and better things, hence the frequent disconnects in the latter days of the Paul campaign, including an announcement that the campaign had been suspended that was reversed on the following day. It is hard to think much of Benton or to wish him well, though he may have discovered his own purgatory now that he has to package the lugubrious McConnell in an attempt to make him appear human, a task that might well be beyond anyone’s capability. Does anyone seriously think that Benton was brought over to the GOP establishment to help in a race that is a foregone conclusion to attract support from the Paulistas and tea partyers? It is to reward Benton and bring him into the fold as what passes for a loyal Republican.
But perhaps the unkindest cut of all is the betrayal by Sen. Rand Paul, who has clearly set himself up as the heir apparent to his father’s legacy. He now has a fundraising mechanism called Randpac, which is sending out hard-hitting emails asking for money. I do not doubt for a second that Rand understands at least some of what his father stood for and is willing to take some unpopular positions to support what he thinks to be right. But his father never endorsed Mitt Romney, and, while it is understandable that loyal Republican Rand would stand behind the GOP candidate for president, his full approval of Romney’s foreign policy and his willingness to serve as Romney’s vice president were unforgivable. Romney stands for everything that Ron Paul abhors, including unrestricted overseas intervention and chest-thumping militarism.
And Rand’s latest emails contain material that is more reminiscent of Peter King, the rabble-rousing congressman from Long Island who has been going around arranging hearings to investigate American Muslims, than of his father. Rand’s latest schtick is to take away money given to governments that don’t fully support us. If an email that went out on Sept. 29 is anything to go by, Rand Paul has apparently completed his conversion to Orthodox GOPism, including integration into its dominant neoconservative foreign policy wing. The email boasts about Rand’s sponsorship of a bill that would have stopped “handouts” to Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya.
The bill, which Rand describes as the “will of the American people,” died in the Senate by a vote of 81 to 10. The email includes a one-minute video that shows angry, presumably Muslim crowds interposed with burning vehicles and buildings together with a narrative tract describing how a number of countries are not good allies and don’t make any effort to support U.S. interests while at the same time attacking our diplomats overseas. The video is the basis of a TV ad that will apparently be used in television markets where six vulnerable Democrats who supported continuing aid to the countries in question are running for reelection.
The ad will be run thanks to a “Massive Bring Our Tax Dollars Home Money Bomb,” which is the real purpose of the email. Rand makes some specific claims: that the three countries “Look the other way while violent mobs burn our flag and chant ‘Death to America’”; “Hardly lift a finger to bring to justice those who murdered four American citizens — including our ambassador”; and “Refuse to protect our embassies and torture and imprison citizens for acting like the U.S. allies these countries claim to be.”
It should escape no one’s notice that the countries being targeted are all Muslim, which means they are fair game. Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, is not mentioned. One can reasonably challenge ALL foreign aid, as Ron Paul himself did, but selecting countries based on a false narrative about what is going on in the Middle East is nothing but the cheapest form of pandering imaginable. It is a dose of straight neoconservatism. People demonstrate against Washington in countries like Egypt for a number of reasons, but one of the big reasons is that we supported a dictatorial regime in that country because it suited our interests, not those of the Egyptian people. Rand should know that because his father certainly understood and spoke out about it.
And the rest of the narrative also does not pass the smell test. When last I checked, Libyans had warned the U.S. Information Office in Benghazi that there were serious threats against it, and it was the decision of the State Department not to beef up security. Libyan security guards outside the building fought against the attackers, and Libyan civilians did their best to save the ambassador, freeing him from the building he was trapped in and bringing him to the hospital. In the aftermath, hundreds of Libyans demonstrated to show their outrage over what had occurred and drove the al-Qaeda-linked militia believed to be responsible for the killings out of Benghazi. The Libyan government, such as it is and insofar as it is capable of doing so, has fully cooperated in the investigation while the U.S. authorities have dragged their feet.
And Rand’s last charge is completely absurd. What government has “refused to protect our embassies”? And the video makes clear that the “imprison[ed] citizens” claim relates to the CIA doctor in Pakistan, Shakil Afridi, who was spying for the U.S. government. If Rand Paul were Pakistani, how would he see it?
So it is a bad day at Black Rock. The folks who are claiming to continue the fight for a sane foreign policy are either doing nothing or are falling into the same old pattern of pointless stereotyping and deliberate failure to understand why things are the way they are. So do you want to see Sen. Rand Paul running for president in 2016? Sure, why not. It would not be a change that we can believe in because it would be no change at all.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- Why I Dislike Israel – October 3rd, 2012
- The Ubiquitous New Yorker – September 26th, 2012
- Rumors of Wars – September 19th, 2012
- Once More Into the Breach – September 12th, 2012
- What Bibi Wants – September 5th, 2012
A Dream Dies, but the Beat Goes On – Antiwar.com | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
October 10th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
[...] A Dream Dies, but the Beat Goes On – Antiwar.com Posted in Ron Paul | Tags: almost-think, beat, dismal, dismal-state, dream-dies, good-sense, one-might, ron paul, still-trying /* [...]
Iowa Scribe
October 10th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Dr. Paul has long been the sole sane voice in the Republican Party on foreign policy. To see his views, which rallied millions to his candidacy and inspired so many young voters, thrown under the bus in favor of neoconservative business as usual, is very disappointing. More troubling still is the realization that, by the time history validates Dr. Paul's perspective on foreign policy and vindicates his efforts, as it most assuredly will, run amok neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East may well have damaged the USA irreparably.
Curious
October 10th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
I think Rand is trying to stake a position in the middle while trying to get Congress to reclaim its responsibility for war: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-r…
I don't know what Rand will ultimately become even though he has done some very disturbing things. It would be better if he was more nuanced in his understanding, and did not demonize entire populations for the actions of a few like in the case of what recently happened in Libya. He shouldn't be inciting violence. There has been an overabundance of it in this century and he knows none of it has solved anything. Horrible things occur when entire populations are dehumanized and their abusers completely lose their humanity (like what is occurring in the US). He shouldn't be egging it on. He should know not to put stuff out that he would later regret. He has seen how that kind of stuff unfortunately branded his father.
What is his position on the Palestinian question?
Stuart
October 11th, 2012 at 12:37 am
Mr Giraldi contradicts himself. On one hand, he praises Ron Paul's foreign policy. Ron Paul would eliminate foreign aid to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. On the other hand, he condemns Rand Paul for trying to eliminate foreign aid to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt.
Mr Giraldi: do you support foreign aid to these countries?
mickperry
October 11th, 2012 at 2:41 am
What form do these 'handouts' actually take?
Is it for example a case of giving money that must be spent to purchase US military hardware where the weapons type and even the manufacturer is specified as a part of the deal?
We know that Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya all took part in the US rendition and torture programme, and that Empire always begins with tyranny abroad, but ends with tyranny bought home.
Ron
October 11th, 2012 at 3:56 am
Ron Paul did not cherry pick which countries to send money to and which to cut off. He knew that ANY foreign aid is meddling in the internal affairs of any country, and it is picking winners and losers in the world of international relations. By sending no money to anyone, the U.S. would be neutral in all conflicts.
Articles for Thursday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
October 11th, 2012 at 4:32 am
[...] Philip Giraldi: A Dream Dies, but the Beat Goes On [...]
Stuart
October 11th, 2012 at 5:23 am
It's obvious that Rand doesn't like any foreign aid. But he's a much more savvy politician than his father (not necessarily a compliment). So he's picking his battles.
Rand obviously believes (and I agree) that less foreign aid is always better than more foreign aid.
People arguing against Rand's approach are effectively stating the following: if foreign aid to all countries can't be eliminated in one fell swoop, then no foreign aid should be eliminated.
This seems to be the opinion of Mr Giraldi. He even called Rand a neo-conservative for attempting the elimination of only some foreign aid.
It's a stupid position, IMO. The world can't be made perfect all at once. It has to be done by small increments.
Phil Giraldi
October 11th, 2012 at 5:33 am
No Stuart, I called Rand a neocon for selectively eliminating foreign aid to Muslim countries. I share the Ron Paul view that all foreign aid should be eliminated, including to Israel, which Rand, curiously, does not seem to want to talki about. We've seen far too much of "savvy" politicians working in "small increments."
michaelhamrin
October 11th, 2012 at 5:41 am
Damn! You've done it again, Philip! Your take on the bamboozler Rand Paul is right on. Dr. Ron Paul told it straight for decades despite wicked abuse and marginalization. He did not, would not and could not sell out for legitimate issues of integrity and conscience. Decades ago there were a few others in Congress who also were men of courage. Senator Fullbright, for example. Now there are just cookie-cutter games-players. Rand Paul deliberately distorted the truth about circumstances in those countries mentioned to throw some red meat to the sordid Repuplican hate-mongering base. His credibility with the Ron Paul base should shrink to exactly zero.
richard vajs
October 11th, 2012 at 5:53 am
Mr. Giraldi,
I respect you as an honest person – perhaps that is why you see so little "hope and change" in the offing for our country's foreign policy. The sad truth is that our country is terminally corrupt, and that this oafish, NASCAR-like jingoism is our national narrative. Like any other addict, we will not wake up from this pipe dream until real pain intrudes.
Luke W
October 11th, 2012 at 8:11 am
NeoCon 1: "We need some ammo against the democrats in some of these tight races. We have some friction with a few countries, how can we use that as ammo?"
NeoCon 2: "Stop sending money to our enemies… No dem is going to vote against foreign aid right now. Who is our stop foreign aid guy?"
NeoCon 1: "Rand. With his crazy father talking about ending foreign aid, people will believe he is legitimately proposing a bill like that."
NeoCon 2: "Right, and when the dems vote against it, we can say they voted to keep sending money to our enemies."
later…
NeoCon 1: "Rand! We need you to propose a bill, here's what we want you to do…"
My guess is they had the ads story-boarded up before the vote even took place.
So Rand is either a puppet, or he is on board. Either way he's a vulnerability to any movement in favor of liberty.
A Dream Dies but the Beat Goes On. Ron Paul and those trying to cash in on his legacy :: Ron Paul Web
October 11th, 2012 at 8:25 am
[...] by Philip Giraldi | Antiwar.com [...]
Aireck
October 11th, 2012 at 9:03 am
Rand, running on his dad's platform, would never have been elected to the Kentucky senate. Is the country better off having Rand as senator than than the shill he ran against? I think so. What if we had the senate full of Rand Pauls? Would we be better off?
Or should he just have stayed home and managed his practice after attacking Israel for all its crimes?
I feel the pain of these choices he has made. I'm not sure his father doesn't support his strategy.
It's got to be hard to get elected by an electorate of fiscal and foreign policy retards. Even if it for their own good.
Jane
October 11th, 2012 at 10:09 am
I must say, I was not surprised at Rand's recent position on cutting aid to these countries – since his shocking announcement to throw his hat in the Romney/Neocon ring on Fox News (of all media outlets), I expected to see this influence in his future actions. The fact that he didn't dare to include Israel on the short list is no big surprise either. I wish Ron Paul had shown some strength and distanced himself and his campaign from his son as well cleaning house of some of his ambitious aides-de-camp that hi-jacked and sabotaged the Ron Paul Movement. A movement which seemed to implode from inside. Perhaps the dream could have become a reality……
Jane
October 11th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Phil, this is reminiscent of neocon Paul Wolfowitz, as head of the World Bank attempting to cherry-pick which African countries were to receive much needed loans based on whether they were in line with U.S. Foreign Policy or not and all under the guise of "fighting corruption" in these countries. It was nothing less than collective punishment for the countries that had too great a Muslim influence or were against Western influence.
Gera Rosy
October 11th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Ron who?
Outsider
October 11th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Agreed, Iowa Scribe, but I have been depressed over how things have turned out. First, since this is Dr Paul's last political go-round (due to his age and he is not running for reelection), I don't understand why he did not bow out in time to receive the Libertarian nomination. Perhaps he would have polled high enough to get into the debates. Then, millions more would have heard his anti-war, anti-empire message. Paul in the debates sure would have scared the hell out of our monopoly parties and given the voters a true alternative.
Second, failing that, why hasn't Dr Paul formally endorsed Gary Johnson? Paul's endorsement would have given GJ a lot more stature. I'm not sure I buy the idea that the good doctor did neither of these things to protect Rand's political future. Rand has four more years on his term, plus, as Mr Girladi says, Rand has already thrown in his lot with the Repub establishment. I find the whole scenario very puzzling.
zebram
October 11th, 2012 at 10:45 am
This is exactly analogous to the 9/11 mosque controversy, when Ron Paul and Rand Paul took significantly different positions. I'm more convinced then ever when Lew Rockwell says that 'there's only one Ron Paul.'
George
October 11th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Regarding the false (neoconservative) narratives Rand is pushing to sell his foreign aid cut-off bill, I am personally familiar with the Libya situation, and Giraldi is absolutely right. There are many good arguments for eliminating foreign aid generally, and especially to an oil rich country like Libya, but Rand is misleading people about the situation. The Libyan gov't or public sentiment isn't anti-American. It is definitely pro-American– probably the most pro-American you'll find in the Middle East.
Regarding Rand, the only disagreement I have is that I don't think it is yet too late for Rand to take up his father's mantle., but Rand is trying too hard to appear and perhaps be a conventional Republican. He is alienating many of the most passionate supporters of his father, and he is frankly making himself boring. If I were Rand, I would stop worrying about party establishment figures like Romney, and I would worry about my base and the principals that got me involved in politics.
jrs
October 11th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I think he still believes somehow in the Republican party overall. I think he's entirelywrong on this, of course, but he has served all those years as a Republican which might make you loyal in a way an outside observer never could be.
jrs
October 11th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I think the problem is most people think most foreign aid is humanitarian aid, and most of it isn't. Humanitarian aid, medicines and food to refugees, natural disaster victims etc., I don't really have a problem with. But it's nothing the U.S. government prioritizes. When the U.S. government thinks foreign aid it mostly thinks meddling in other countries, trying to overthrow them, arming them etc.. Food and medicine to the desperate is very low down on the list of things they care about, though that small part is harmless.
Mike
October 11th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Still delusional eh? Dime a dozen these days.
Mike
October 11th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
No, it isn't better. I'd rather have an obvious criminal than one who pretends he isn't. Why? Well, he's fooled you and many others. Get it?
Jane
October 11th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Once you begin to play slap and tickle with the neocons, you soon find that it's like playing with a pack of jackals – better that Rand should have stayed clear of them altogether. He's been exposed to politics most of his life and should have known better. He was fortunate enough to have Ron Paul for a father for crying out loud!
Aireck
October 11th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Not really. It reminds me of the joke of the religious fellow (I forget which sect he belonged to) who was open, polite and accepting of all the people of different religions as he met them until he came across someone of his own faith, but a somewhat divergent group, and was completely horrified, "Burn in hell, blasphemer!!" was the punch line.
A Dream Dies but the Beat Goes On. Ron Paul and those trying to cash in on his legacy : Ron Paul Abilene
October 11th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
[...] by Philip Giraldi | Antiwar.com [...]
Outsider
October 11th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Jane, what upset me the most about Rand's decision to back Romney was that he did it even BEFORE the Repub convention. Could not even wait until after it was official to throw his father 'under the bus.' I still think Rand has a lot of potential and is better than most of the disgusting neocon chicken hawks that now make up what used to be a good (not great) party, but he should have at least waited until Romney was the nominee before endorsing him.
Johnny in Wi.
October 11th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Wrong Phil: You have to start somewhere. A huge amount of aid goes to countries like Pakistan, Afganistan, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Somalia, Yeman, etc. None of these people like us and most want us out. The vast majority of foreign aid goes to Muslim states and the Zionist entity. The Zionist entity is untouchable at this time. Getting rid of all foreign aid is the goal of both Paul's. When most of it is gone, How can aid to Israel be justified?
Stuart
October 12th, 2012 at 3:24 am
Mr Giraldi: if Rand had called for ending foreign aid to Israel, without mentioning any Arab countries, would you still have called him a neo-conservative? Would you have argued against his position?
Stuart
October 12th, 2012 at 3:26 am
If the Libyan government and people are pro-American, why was the American embassy attacked by some of the Libyan people? Why was it not defended by the Libyan government?
George
October 12th, 2012 at 3:59 am
Read the column.
Generalissimo X
October 12th, 2012 at 8:44 am
paul should have ran independent and self financed. his slavish loyalty to the republican party cost him and us. they never wanted anything to do with him and when someone doesn't want you at or in their party you leave.
Kolya_Krassotkin
October 12th, 2012 at 8:45 am
The most sane thing Paulistas could now do is to vote 3rd party or abstain from voting for a presidential candidate. Not until the GOP realizes that they can't buy Ron Paul's supporters with just more empty promises will they stop taking them for granted.
Jane
October 12th, 2012 at 9:28 am
I don't agree. We need to cut aid to all of the countries you've mentioned INCLUDING Israel and get the hell out of these bloody conflicts in that hemisphere. These are Israel's conflicts not ours. We are engaged in conflicts across the ME and spreading into North Africa on their behalf. Let them fight their own battles with the enemies they've made in the sixty-odd years they've been in the neighborhood. It's past time for America to put America first.
We could get along without ME oil as well as we have enough in our OWN hemisphere to meet our needs. But the powerful Zionists lobbyists in Washington made sure that we continued to rely heavily on ME oil to keep us engaged out there. They made sure that we made an enemy of Hugo Chavez who's country sits on at least 3 times the proven reserves that Saudi Arabia has. Only 10% of US oil comes from Venezuela and that's by design. Venezuela also makes the list of the top 10 countries with natural gas reserves. Crude from Venezuela can be in the US inside a week instead of the month it takes to ship ME oil here through hostile territory. They also had Obama nix the the pipeline deal with Canada. This pipeline would have put Americans to work in six states as well as going a long way to reducing ME oil dependency. Neither of these oil options would suit the neocon plan to keep the US engaged in mid-east wars without end.
Israel has no oil or natural gas – hell, they don't even have enough water. Not surprisingly, none of their oil-rich neighbors will sell them oil – Egypt recently nixed the sweetheart Mubarek deal for gas from the Sanai at under market price. Israel is forced to import 90% of its oil from the Caspian – that's a combo of Russia, Kazakhstan and some of the other 'stans where, again, not surprisingly, the US and its ideological bedfellows in NATO are heavily engaged.
Stuart
October 12th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
I don't think anyone here disagrees that aid to Israel should be cut. Not even Rand.
That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether calling for cuts in aid to some countries (while not mentioning others) makes the caller a neo-conservative and worthy of criticism. Mr Giraldi says "yes", and I disagree.
I would note that by his own standards, Mr Giraldi is himself a neo-conservative and should be subject to the same criticism. See this article:
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/10/03/wh…
where he calls for ending aid to Israel (citing their mis-behaviour), without mentioning any Arab countries.
Such double-standards should not go un-challenged.
Richard
October 12th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Well said Mr. Giraldi!
I was an early supporter of Ron Paul and, after about 20 years of disappointing libertarian candidates, was so enthused by his 2008 campaign that I immediately jumped in hard.
One of the first disappointments was a face to face meeting with Rand Paul, which lasted about 45 minutes. But after about 3 minutes, I was puzzled as to how this man could even be related to Ron Paul.
It was just the beginning of my trouble with the campaign. I stayed in until the primary in NH, but by that time I had know for a long time that the spark had fallen on wet tinder.
It must hurt him deeply to have been betrayed by his son.
I would prefer that the rest of the crowd had a sense of shame for their betrayal of teh people.
But that's just crying over spilt milk, isn't it?
Thanks again.
Rich
David Smith
October 13th, 2012 at 8:56 am
Every time a serious protest movement arises in this country, one of the two major political parties envelopes it like a giant amoeba and sucks the life out of it. We can see it happening in both parties now.
James Madison
October 13th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
If Phil Giraldi were not a MOSSAD disinfo agent, he would have to be invented.