Sen. Rand Paul often shies away from deep foreign policy discussions. It’s a smart move, since his father’s toxic positions stunted his own rise in the GOP. But in an interview with Politico, Rand praised the elder Paul’s radical speech on Sunday, which promoted the “blowback” theory, blasted “neocons,” and suggested that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks:
The younger Paul shares his father’s foreign policy broadly, and he praised him especially Sunday for talking about the convent “blowback” – the concept that U.S. meddling overseas can lead to terrorist attacks.
“Had he not talked about blowback I don’t know anyone ever would have,” he said. The younger Paul boasted in the interview that he received standing ovations from the packed crowd, some of whom were chanting “Paul 2016.”
Rand’s cautiousness when it comes to discussing his foreign policy positions has helped his political ascent, but nobody should doubt that he shares many of his father’s views. His praise of Ron Paul’s “blowback” comments above is enough to raise alarms with Republicans.
Who does he think he is, Joseph Kennedy or Prescott Bush? n
He's right. How could it not blow back after 60 years of endless conflict?
And Mahmoud, exactly what CIA/neocon conspiracy did Assad Jr. join in to warrant Al Qaeda swarming over his borders? And the Coptic churches in Egypt or the Sufi temples in Afghanistan being attacked by Islamic zealots, so they were part of the American imperialist machine? And why the random mystical number 60 years? Did something crucial happen in 1962 rather than 1918 or 1948 or whenever? You know these posts would make more sense by simply reading randomly from Chinese fortune cookies.
The solution is to abandon one of our best allies. What the Paul's don't seem to realize is that sometimes there is no ideal final solution.
Are there counter theories to the blowback theory? Do people think the mujahadeen drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan in an effort to teach them islam? or take over Russia? It's common sense.