|
 |
Posted on 04/29/2014 2:45:28 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Rand Paul wrote a column yesterday called Where I stand on containing Iran, defending his foreign policy positions with regard to Iran and aligning himself with former President Ronald Reagan. But John Bolton said he found the column as incoherent as the remark that led to the article:
Being incoherent is a problem and that’s what his op-ed was and that’s what the remark that originally provoked it was. He was asked about what to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and he couldn’t quite get it out whether he really wants to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons or how he intends to do it or what he intends to say about it.
Bolton goes on to say that the strategic ambiguity that Paul used in defending himself is really about being ambiguous on what your methods are, but that as president you should be crystal clear in telling your adversaries exactly what is and isn’t acceptable and then letting them guess what you are going to do about it. It’s not an excuse for incoherence.
Rand Paul praised Reagan several times in the article and that’s where Bolton was fiercest in his criticism of Paul, especially having worked for Reagan himself:
[Reagan] would be rolling over in his grave to hear Rand Paul praise him.
Let’s talk about Ronald Reagan, the real president: One of the most massive increases in defense spending in our history which we needed and which led to the demise ultimately of the Soviet Union; invading Grenada; aiding the Contras against the Sandinistas; bombing Libya…
But if Rand Paul thinks that Ronald Reagan is his model, then it’s not incoherent, it’s fraud.
|
|
bkmk
As opposed to Bolton's old boss, George W. Bush, who made it crystal clear that North Korea and Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Two years later NK had them, and 7 years later nothing substantial had been done to stop Iran from getting them.
I don't agree with everything Paul said in his column, but on the whole I think it shows that Paul spends a lot more time thinking about these things that most knee jerk politicians. And he's right about one thing, making threats and not following through in the event is worse than saying nothing.
“But if Rand Paul thinks that Ronald Reagan is his model, then it’s not incoherent, it’s fraud.”
Amen! I will NOT vote for Paul in either a primary or general election. I won’t vote for libertarian trash - they are NO better than liberals.
IF the GOP wants to retain my vote beyong the primary...they had better nominate a SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE. I will no longer vote for a Romney, etc. in a general election. They do not win anyway.
Of course, I will not vote for a liberal (ANY Dem), but I may just start staying home.
John Bolton would make an excellent Secretary of State.
Now that the cold war has been rekindled, it is not likely that Russia will cooperate with the US to force Iran to forsake nuclear weapons in an unmistakably verifiable manner.The result will be that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain functional and intact. This is totally unacceptable to Israel and Saudi Arabia. If this were a Presidential year, the candidates would not be allowed Rand Paul’s vague, non committed position. The major question to the candidates and the American people would be if the Saudis and Israelis do attack Iran, what will be the position and role of the United States? Polls will probably show that those that advocate “caution’ or “non involvement” will be most popular and likely to be elected.
100% of pot heads agree with you, even though they don’t understand a word of what either of you said.
BUMP!
He might also object to Bolton's turning his foreign policy into a lampoon or caricature of what was in reality more intelligent and subtle than Bolton remembers.
Rand Paul is proving as weak on just about everything, not just foreign policy, even abortion and gay marriage, the man is just floundering.
I don’t believe Israel, even with help from the Saudis has the capability of stopping Iran’s nuke program. It’s too well hidden, dispersed and buried to stop it. Really the only solution is regime change. It’s also the one thing the mullahs fear. The only time they ever suspended the program in 30 years was a brief period following the invasion of Iraq. Once they realized that we were too bogged down in the aftermath of removing Saddam to attack them they started it back up.
I don’t believe anyone in either party is seriously considering regime change in Iran, but if they are, then Paul is right, it’s best not to talk about it. But he’s wrong in saying we would need a congressional debate to do so. In that he is contradicting himself, as such a debate would clearly spell out our intentions.
But I agree with Bolton. Rand's article rambles and is confusing. IMO, foreign policy is Rand's weakest area. Hope he straightens himself out there or I hope someone else comes up to the plate clearly calling for SEVERE cuts in government (at least 80% - not all at once but soon and hopefully for the rest of our lives).
I like that.
Secretary of State? I wouldn't want that guy to deliver my mail.
[Reagan] would be rolling over in his grave to hear Rand Paul praise him.
Let’s talk about Ronald Reagan, the real president: One of the most massive increases in defense spending in our history which we needed and which led to the demise ultimately of the Soviet Union; invading Grenada; aiding the Contras against the Sandinistas; bombing Libya…
But if Rand Paul thinks that Ronald Reagan is his model, then it’s not incoherent, it’s fraud.
These statements themselves seem a bit confusing, unless they were excepts and the editors rendered these statements a bit confusing. I've always like John Bolton, but not sure what he's saying here (maybe you need the full text).
The specific criticism cited here about referencing Reagan is puzzling. Rand clearly talked about defense being the #1 job of government and our policy should be peace through strength. Not sure where the "incoherency" and "fraud" is here.
“He might also object to Bolton’s turning his foreign policy into a lampoon or caricature of what was in reality more intelligent and subtle than Bolton remembers”
Plus the truth is that what to do about Iran is a complicated issue and nobody has been able to really get a handle on it. Slowing Iran down has been the best anybody has been able to do.
I think President Reagan would be rolling over in his grave knowing that John Bolton is exploiting his good name.
Oh, that's smart.
That same attitude has brought us two terms of Obama.
You smug stay-at-homers make me sick to my stomach.
You don't think -- you just react. In doing so, you demonstrate how stupid this country has become. You consider yourself conservative but you allow the left to win. Will you ever wake up?
What would you expect a neocon to say?
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.