Posted on 08/28/2014 3:25:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The target was Hillary Clinton. Calling the famously liberal former Secretary of State “a war hawk,” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) added in a recent Meet the Press appearance: “You know what? We are tired of war.… We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.” ADVERTISEMENT
One has to wonder. Was Rand Paul’s real target Hillary Clinton? Whom he correctly blames for the Benghazi fiasco? Or was it, as it strikes… Ronald Reagan? Not to mention conservatism and the timeless idea of what Reagan termed “peace through strength.” Reagan’s formulation long ago captured by Edward Gibbon when he wrote of the Roman Empire: “They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war…. they announced to the nations on their confines that they were as little disposed to endure as to offer injury.” There was nothing said about being “war hawks” or, for that matter, “neo-cons.”
In this corner Rand Paul is a favorite. He is right to show up at Howard University and Berkeley. He is right to stand on the floor of the Senate and make a fuss about drones. He was decidedly right to do the same over the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan. Not to mention taking on the privacy issue was correct.
Yet what was intended as a shot at Hillary Clinton appears to be a worrisome endorsement of Barack Obama-style leftist appeasement. The very same far-left view of the world that, in conveying an image of American weakness, has provoked war and/or chaos everywhere from Ukraine to Syria, Iraq and the American southern border, with various actors believing America has made up its mind to withdraw from the world. Unable or unwilling to even defend its own border.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Thanks, CW.
I appreciate every article that further exposes Rand Paul as a Liberaltarian. ....I wrote this guy off as a potential 2016 GOP candidate long ago, when he began showing his liberal roots and supporting amnesty and isolationism like his dad. ...He’s been pandering to just about every liberal minority group for many months.
What is it that prevents or inhibits conservatives from tying him (and his dad) to Lew Rockwell? He is a mouthpiece for Lew Rockwell, as was his father , who had Rockwell on his staff.
I guess Rand feels he has to pander to liberal groups, as the conservatives are asleep at the switch; witness KS, TX, SC, MS, TN, and KY. But I’m like you, no Rand for me; I like Ron slightly better.
Probably because the American people have never heard of the odd Lew Rockwell, and the bizarre minister did not hurt Obama at all as it developed.
Sept 6, 2011: Blast from the past: Ron Paul quits the Republican party "Congressman Ron Paul of Texas certainly has been a busy guy of late, hasn’t he? When he’s not running ads calling fellow Lone Star State denizen Rick Perry a liberal, he’s busily preparing for a debate to be held at the presidential library of conservative icon Ronald Reagan tomorrow night. And Congressman Paul is a big fan of Reagan’s, so it’s a natural fit. Some of you may recall another advertisement that Ron ran less than two months ago where he praised Reagan’s fiscal ideals. In it, he was lamenting the fact that the evil Democrats had tricked Reagan into a debt ceiling compromise which Ronnie only “reluctantly agreed to.”
With that in mind, it may be of interest to look through the slightly longer lens of history and see what Ron Paul had to say about Reagan (and the GOP in general) back in 1987 when he quit the party and lambasted the sitting president. The letter, sent to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is far too long to reproduce in its entirely here, so be sure to click through for full context, but here are a few of the key passages............"
I know that speech, it’s well worth remembering for the business about Brezhnev being justified because of our introducing Pershings into Europe.
History!
No one teaches history any more! : ) : (
Jeffery Lord uses history very effectively in his excellent essays.
DO NOT TRUST RAND PAUL!!!!
Here is the Ron/Rand Paul problem in one sound bite. He (and Obama, for that matter) does not understand that American troops in Iraq are not there to "fight for the Iraqis" -- they are there to fight for US. The concept of forward defense is alien to this strategic nitwit.
Rand Paul should be kept far from the levers of power (as should Obama, for that matter).
That will ensure that history will have its first womyn preezy. The only mystery that remains is whether it will be the Witch of Benghazi or Fauxcahontess Warren.
Too late! Already is a leftist. See my tag line.
EXACTLY!
AND the Clinton MO for presidential election to the WH.
I'm sure the Left is funneling money into Rand's efforts.
Spot on!
Agreed.
Rand Paul has an opinion on everything, most of which I disagree with. He's hyperactive....like a junior John McCain.....all over the tube, all over the campuses, all over the senate floor....all over every issue imaginable. He wore out his welcome with me a long time ago.
He's like a Nova.....a star that suddenly increases its light output tremendously and then fades away to its former obscurity in a few months or years.
I think Nova Rand will fade away into obscurity after a while. The public is already tiring of him and his novelty. It's his own boundless drive that has kept him in the public eye and discourse....certainly not any massive public support carrying him along on its shoulders to the presidency.
I doubt if any voters, other than high-information ones, could tell you what Rand Paul stands for if they were interviewed by Jesse Watters....because he's all over the place on everything in sight. Reagan stuck to a few simple themes that struck chords, articulated them well....and never confused voters by inundating them with non-stop verbiage.
Leni
Hillary is all too willing to start wars then then blame her political enemies for starting the war.
The claim is made Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq to get us into war, but the information about the WMD’s in Iraq came from the Clinton CIA.
The Clinton’s also put out false information in 1994-95 to try and make it appear as if Iraq was involved with the OKC bombing.
Obama himself has told people ISIS’s invasion of Iraq is Hillary’s operation when he said he didn’t want Iraq to become another “Benghazi” which was Hillary’s operation.
Since at least 1994-95 the Clintons have been starting or trying to start war with Iraq for political gain.
The US fights in Iraq for the Saudis.
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.