Looking at that poll I am appalled (forgive me). Counting my vote it is only 4% that think he should have expressed outrage at caring about why we may be hated.?
he was asked about his father’s statement that the 9/11/01 attacks were “blowback for decades of U.S. intervention in the Middle East.” Rand’s response:[…]people around the world and our enemies around the world need to know that if we’re ever attacked on something like 9/11, if anyone were ever to use chemical weapons on our soldiers anywhere in the world, the response would be an overwhelming one from America and I think that’s the credibility we always need to maintain.”
I think this is rather awkward, cumbersome wiggling. He somehow slips into evaluation of historical event from the past a dubious tie with current issue of intervention in Syria – otherwise why would he even connect in the same breath an attack to civilians on our own soil on 9/11 and hypothetical chemical weapons used on our soldiers deployed somewhere else in the world? Besides, what is he talking about? where did he get an idea that our military is under a threat of being attacked with chemical weapons?
Althouse’ commenters, too, are praising qualities that I abhor; what they call a compromise I despise as opportunism, demagogy and absence of strong opinion. I’d tell Rand: if you are disagreeing with a politician, have some balls to say so – even if the politician is your father. Otherwise, if you do disagree with him but try to smooth his outrageousness with sugarcoating of “on one hand/on the other hand”, all we are left to conclude is that you’re a good son but another LINO.