Chris Christie Is Right About Rand Paul, Steve Lonegan Wrong

promoted by Rosi

One of the most disgusting things about the Republican response to the attacks we experienced 12 years ago today in Manhattan, Pennsylvania and Washington DC was their willingness to politicize the attacks, and to attack people’s politics by accusing them of consorting with the enemy.

Twelve years later nothing has changed.  While President Obama is trying to find a positive response in the Syrian chemical weapon situation — a situation with few if any positive responses — GOP presidential candidate and “libertarian” leader Rand Paul is willing to say disgusting things like this:

Twelve years after we were attack by al-Qaeda, twelve years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaeda.

It’s astonishing that a US Senator is willing to accuse the President of the United of allying with the enemy — treason — for being concerned about the use of chemical weapons on 400 children, considering military force but being willing to engage in diplomacy when the opportunity comes up.  There was a time when politics ended at the ocean, but that has gone away in a fit of fear, fanaticism and foolishness.

Steve Lonegan is more of the same, happy to throw bombs into crowds without knowing what damage will happen solely for political self-interest. Rand Paul is scheduled to be here in Clark Friday to rally for Lonegan and raise money for him.

But Chris Christie, who gets little praise here, has generally been unwilling to engage in this kind of idiocy and has slapped Rand Paul around a few times. It would be good to see Christie, as he too runs for President while running for Governor, stand up and decry this kind of disgusting politics.

Comments (10)

  1. Liberals_4_Lonegan

    …not completely incorrect logic.

    Jed Bartlett said it best on The West Wing when he asked, What is the virtue of a proportional response?

    Nothing that I have heard or read about what the Obama administration has in mind for Syria appears to be anything more than a proportional response more intended to maintain whatever credibility this President and the international conventions governing the use of chemical weapons might still have, if any, than to actually stop their use in Syria or anywhere else for that matter.

    And even if Obama were to go the “total disaster” route that Bartlett proposes (and later backs down from), it would only serve to aid the insurgents, who are aligned with al Qaeda.  Had we considered intervening a couple of years ago, when the insurgency consisted of far more moderate elements than it does today, a function of the simple fact that most of the moderate insurgents are either dead or in hiding, an argument for “total disaster” could probably be made.  Unfortunately, President Obama was far more focused on his re-election back then and Secretary Clinton was far more focused on making preparations for her 2016 Presidential run to consider the longer-term ramifications of our inaction.

    That said, “total disaster” isn’t really the solution to this problem.  The only solution is Saudi Arabia and Turkey using whatever political capital that they might have with the rest of the Arab League to cobble together 100,000 soldiers that could along with air support from NATO serve as a sufficient peacekeeping force that would disarm both Assad’s forces and the insurgents, take control over whatever chemical weapons still remain in the region, end the fighting once and for all, and oversee a transition to whatever passes for a manageable governing authority in the Middle East.  In lieu of that, I would probably just give Turkey the green light to invade both Lebanon and Syria and reconstitute what was the northernmost part of the Ottoman Empire.

    As moronic as Paul’s rhetoric might have been, I do not see what good can come from giving Christie any credit for at least appearing more moderate.  If anything, we should embrace a Republican Party that is as extreme in its rhetoric as Lonegan and Paul, because such rhetoric will inevitably make its candidates unelectable.

    I would also imagine that the progressives in the House and Senate who have been opposed to the President’s Syria proposals have been willing to take any allies that they can get on this front, even if their rhetoric is as embarrassingly stupid as Paul’s.  In addition to making the Republican Party less electable, Lonegan, Paul et al appear to also be quite effective at cleansing it of its neoconservatives, which is a nice bonus.

    In addition to stopping Cory Booker from becoming our Senator until he gets around to running for President, my proposal would also help Lonegan, Paul, et al cleanse their party of one of its biggest neocons. Allowing Lonegan to go to Washington for a year-plus before he is defeated next November by Rush Holt, Frank Pallone, or whichever Democrat wins the primary in June 2014 is a small price to pay.

    Reply
  2. DSWright

    If Obama had been allowed to go forward he would have been assisting Al Qaeda by attacking their enemy in the civil war – the Assad regime.

    Fortunately Congress (both chambers) and external forces have prevented Obama from folly so far.

    “Allying” is a bit misleading but arguably correct. Which is why Congress was ready to kill the resolution – they did not want to be Al Qaeda’s air force.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *