Posted on 02/21/2015 11:36:53 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Rand Paul chided Rudy Giuliani for comments the former New York City mayor made about Barack Obama's love for his country. In a television interview with local Louisville station WAVE, Paul said, “it's one thing to disagree on policy” but “it’s a mistake to question people’s motives.”
It's an admirable principle. But it’s one that Paul routinely abandons when he talks about hawks in his own party.
On at least two separate occasions, Paul accused Dick Cheney of taking the country to war to enhance Halliburton’s profits. At a campaign appearance in Montana on behalf of his father in 2008, Paul noted that Cheney had opposed going to Baghdad to oust Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. Cheney, Paul argued, used arguments “exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in” to Baghdad. He continued: “And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar, no-bid contract in Iraq.”
In an appearance the following year, shortly before he started his own campaign for Senate in Kentucky, Paul made the claim again. Cheney’s opposition to pressing the war further was “why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars–their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.”
Paul’s charge resurrected a long-discredited claim once made by mainstream Democrats, including John Kerry’s presidential campaign, but later largely abandoned to the far-left antiwar fringe.....................
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Paul must have verified obola is a muzzie..............
What an utterly ridiculous strawman argument.
“.... But when it comes to Obama, Paul goes soft. U.S. involvement in Libya made the U.S. “less safe,” Paul told WAVE Friday. Paul added: “I don’t question whether or not he was well intentioned.”
But according to Paul, Republican hawks are “eager to begin a nuclear war” and guilty of “preferring war” and “talking tough for the sake of their political careers” and wanting “15 wars more” and, in the case of Dick Cheney, taking the country to war to line his own pockets.
Republican primary voters might wonder why Senator Paul believes it’s acceptable to question the motives of hawks in his own party but out of bounds to question Obama’s.”
Read the whole piece - there are many quotes and links.
Apples never fall far from the tree....even if you throw them....
BTW RP Jr was done for me when he started advocating for felon voting rights.
This is a good example of Rand Paul’s Isolationist ideas.
Hell yes we can question OBAMA’s Hatred for America!
I do.
Paul is against the GOPe maintaining of world order with US military resources.
The history of Democrat-GOPe foreign and defense policy since WW II from Communism to Islamic Terrorism involves these three things.
1. Wage limited wars against enemies and make tough talking speeches about them
2. Talk with enemy forces and nations behind the wars being waged against us
3. Cut deals with enemy forces and nations in the end and do business with them
WAR IS LIMITED FOR THE SAKE OF PROSPERITY AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS, ALL OUT WAR AGAINST ENEMIES IS ‘BAD FOR BUSINESS’.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PAUL BEING CRITICAL OF THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT FOREIGN POLICY WHICH IS AS MUCH A SHAM AND CHARADE OF CONSERVATISM AS THEIR DOMESTIC POLICY WITH HUSTLE WORDS LIKE ‘SECURE THE BORDER’ BEING USED TO PUSH AMNESTY THROUGH.
Then you'd probably like Rand to be critical of Obama's foreign policy too.
The Weekly Standard, led by Bill Kristol and other Globalist, masquerades as a conservative publication but it’s hardly that at all.
The Weekly Standard is for big government, blue blood (meaning their blood is much like that of their counter parts the Democrats) Republicans like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Senator McCain and so forth.
The Weekly Standard has been wanting to send U.S. Troops to Syria selling the “Trojan Horse” Lie to fight ISIS. When it’s really about seizing the Gas pipeline that Assad from Syria refused to sell to Saudi Arabia.
So in other words the Weekly Standard wants U.S. Troop to fight and die if necessary so that Saudi Arabia can have a natural gas pipeline to Europe to compete with Russia. Now Libya use to do that but ISIS removed Gaddafi. See Saudi Arabia could not compete against Libya, Russia and Syria. So they are having them removed.
Rand Paul is against having American Troops dies for Saudi Arabia. So this is why they Weekly Standard is targeting him using the Straw Man argument.
ISIS (aka Al-Qaeda) is Saudi Arabia’s French Foreign Legion. Although with a tradition of savagery, butchery and mayhem. They only serve as destabilization force and nothing more. They have been losing latley, and this is why they have stepped up their videos online. It’s a standard problem, reaction solution scenario. Then U.S. troops are sent into the area to stabilize, insert our political puppet that will play with us.
That’s the way game works folks. So don’t fall for the war mongers like Bill Kristol that had everything handed to him and never served a day in the U.S. military.
Then You’d probably like Rand Paul to be critical of Obama’s foreign policy too.
btw - This is a Steve Hayes piece. He calls ‘em like he sees ‘em.
I don’t want to see American Troops die so that Saudi Arabia can sell Oil to Europe.
I see. You’re “enlightened.”
I don’t want to see America lost because we refused to fight, because leftys used their tired old timeless protests.
Yes and I see you are still in the dark.
America lost? What are you talking about? Syria never attacked us.
You guys never change.
1930s, 1960s, 1980s, 2015, the same old tired games.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.