Posted on 04/19/2015 6:22:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bernie Sanders couldn’t have said it better:
“There’s a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now — maybe more,” the Kentucky senator told hundreds of activists at a GOP cattle call that has drawn every major presidential aspirant. “This is something, if you watch closely, that will separate me from many other Republicans. The other Republicans will criticize Hillary Clinton and the president for their foreign policy, but they would have done the same thing – just 10 times over!”
“Six countries – maybe more”? Which countries, Senator? And how many of your rivals have proposed sending troops to Syria? To Yemen? To Libya? (Do we have to count Lindsey Graham?)
Rand Paul is trying to separate himself from other candidates on foreign policy while not appearing to be a head-in-the-sand isolationist. But in doing so, does he have to lie like a Democrat about his opponents?
“Everyone who will criticize me wanted troops on the ground, our troops on the ground, in Libya,” he said. “It was a mistake to be in Libya. We are less safe. Jihadists swim in our swimming pool now. It’s a disaster.”
Did Ted Cruz want troops on the ground in Libya? Did Scott Walker, Chris Christie, or any other GOP governor who might run for president want troops on the ground in Libya? Marco Rubio specifically advised against troops on the ground in Libya, believing that the president could have intervened “more decisively” but rejecting American military intervention.
Paul’s statement is either an ignorant rant or a baldfaced lie. Falsely accusing opponents of things they don’t believe and wouldn’t do obscures Paul’s real problems with rank-and-file Republicans who want a president to stand up strongly for American interests and want to make America the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world once again. Many simply don’t believe his foreign-policy ideas are proactive enough. They are suspicious of his libertarian leanings on national-defense strategy.
One aspect of a Paul campaign Republican regulars can get behind is his position on NSA snooping:
Contrasting himself with most others in the field, Paul also promised to end the federal government’s collection of American phone records if elected president. “I’m a Republican who believes in the right to privacy,” he said. “It doesn’t mean collecting 300 million people’s phone records. The 4th amendment is not consistent with a warrant that says Mr. Verizon on it. Last I heard Mr. Verizon isn’t a person.”
“Your phone records are yours,” he declared. “It’s none of the government’s damn business what you’re doing on your phone.”
“You can say damn in New Hampshire, can’t you?” he quipped.
“Damn straight,” a man yelled back from the crowd.
NSA spying is a peripheral national-security issue and there is disagreement among the candidates about how much of what the NSA has been doing is really necessary. This is a legitimate way for Paul to put distance between himself and his rivals — as long as he accurately enumerates their positions.
But otherwise, Paul’s rank dishonesty in describing what his opponents would do if elected is intolerable. Might we see a sound bite of Paul dishonestly ripping his opponents in a Hillary Clinton commercial? Perhaps the senator should think about that the next time he feels compelled to grossly exaggerate the positions of his opponents.
There’s a reason for that.
“Paul’s statement is either an ignorant rant or a baldfaced lie”
Untrue!
Paul is quite capable of meeting BOTH of those criteria in any given sentence.
Rand Paul is just like his daddy ... not a “loon”, but rather a cold, calculating, sleazy politician who takes positions based on poll numbers ...
I’m with Rand on stopping the spying on our own citizens. The founders would never have tolerated and we shouldn’t either. I also agree there should be no more “nation building” and long term troop occupations.
But going in and doing some serious butt kicking and then getting out, absolutely.
Paul said “folks in our party,” not “my opponents.” Kind of strange that this writer would repeatedly mischaracterize (lie). Anyway, folks in the party would certainly include John Mccain and, yes, Lindsey Graham.
The Lindsey Grahams and Rubios on our side deserve criticism. I read it here daily... So what’s the big deal? Or is it that you simply bash Paul at every turn, even when his targets are the same targets here on FR.
ya ... so ?
Rand has unfortunately inherited his Dad’s defense and foreign relations ideas. These are very dangerous for USA, especially at this time.
The very things that defeated his father are now going to defeat Rand, especially since we’ve suffered through 6 going-on 8 years of increasing weakening of our defense and foreign relations posture. It will take someone who understands and is committed to rebuilding or re-strengthening our defenses and our alliances with our most genuine friends.....all of which will take great effort and time given how badly, severely we’ve have been undermined.
In short, this is exactly the wrong time for Rand’s views or attitudes on the most important duties of the President/CinC.
Fortunately, there are more genuinely conservative candidates available to us for 2016.
Hahahahaha!
It also doesn’t help Rand when he essentially calls Republicans RACIST for supporting Voter ID.
Rand recently proposed raising our defense budget billions, this proposed spending would also be offset by cuts to other departments. Rubio and Cruz voted against it.
There is a core isolationism in the rank and file Republican voter. They are frustrated with the foreign entanglements over the last thirty years that were hugely costly in human and material sacrifices. The average American does not see how the security and well being of the United States has been enhanced. Don’t dismiss Rand Paul’s inherent appeal to many weary Republican primary voters.
Only after he had been all in for slashing the military budget even more.
He’s a flop flopper and like his father, a nutcase.
When I heard him call others Neo Cons was the first example of a left wing kook. Then his supporters started using the same term like the cult they are.
Not a flip flop, it was pragmatic. The bill that was on the table, Rubios bill, increased spending with no cuts. Rand put up a better alternative.
That said government needs to cut spending across the board. When our defense spending equals more than every other nation combined, I’m not exactly losing sleep over the prospect of cutting off a little of the fat.
Best to laugh . Paul is more to the left than most liberals on many issues and is nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing
Are you for real.
Paul is panderer who will say anything but I suggest you look up the facts over his views on the military budget on paper because he wants the military slashed.
Good step but Rsnd still comes across like another Obama — well that’s too harsh — Rsnd sounds like he won’t actually fight ismonazism to defeat, eliminate it. He can store up some gear okay on that — good— but if he continues to sound unready or unwilling to use it effectively then we need someone else who irecognizesxghe growing danger Obama and his islamonazi pals are putting us in. Credibility on these issues is critical I’d we are to avoid unnecessary hostilities and win those fights we must. IMHO. I will await further statements from Paul and we’lol see what he has to say. Thanks
Neo cons exist and have infested the GOP since George H W. Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Karl Rove and Sick Cheney all neocons. They need to be purged from this party andvsent back to whence they came, the DNC.
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.