Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
He is correct.
Yup, and it’s a mistake to keep illegals in “the shadows” and not let them come out thereof to become “new taxpayers”.
Next: Did we really have to fight Hitler?
Next: Did we really have to fight Hitler?
That’s not the topic.
No, it was a huge mistake for Obama to take the troops out too soon. Even Leon Panetta (lifelong Dem Congressman & Obama’s DOD Sec) was against him doing it.
The real mistake in Iraq was in pretending they could be a democracy.
Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing but I think we should have tamed someone from within his regime to take over.
It was a bigger mistake not to leave a sizable security force in Iraq.
Where do we go from here, Rand? Are you running to be president in 2003 or 2016? Your constant harping on the decision to go into Iraq is academic, petty and irrelevant. Saying you wouldn’t have gone into Iraq is not a policy for the future. What will you do now is the question. Period.
Was Chamberlain right all along?
/s
Ok. We got back from desert storm and everyone except me said oh duh you guys shoulda killed Hussein
And I said no it was not the mission. We’re not in the business of overtly assassinating people plus it would’ve caused a major vaccuum of power and imbalance we’d have to pay for. Geo bush as questionable as he was had been head of CIA and had a good team. Of course he was right. Never stuck up for himself in public came across as a wimp
And no one cared what I had to say because I’m just a stupid girl blonde
Now the Zelig rand Paul says it and ohh we re so brilliant
Kak!!!!!
i agree with him on this point. Gulf War 1 OTOH was a proper response to an invasion.
But it is. Saddam was a national socialist too. Ba’ath Party ideology is both Arab nationalist and Arab/Islamic socialist.
At that point, I suspect an awful lot of Republicans began to wonder if the U.S. was on the wrong side in the first Persian Gulf War all the way back in 1990.
Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence that the major beneficiaries of U.S. military campaigns overseas always seem to be major donors to the Clinton Foundation and real estate investment partners with the Bush family in Texas.
But hindsight is 20/20.
I disagree, but it doesn’t matter because I don’t support Rand Paul and eventually he’s going to flame out.
It might have made sense if Bush had followed through. But he didn’t.
I thought his plan would be to take on Iraq, capture the oil fields, secure our oil supply, and then take on the Saudis, who were the real force behind 9/11. That way, if the Saudis blew up their fields, we could soon fix them, and rely on Iraqi oil in the meantime.
The war started well, in spite of the sabotage by Turkey, but it went downhill from there, and soon became pointless. And after Bush defeated Saddam Hussein, he gave the oil away to the Chinese and the French. Great job! Bush broke the basic rule: Never start a war unless you intend to win it.
Let’s face it ... it would definitely be a mistake to choose Rand Paul ... :-) ...
THAT is the mistake toppling Hussein gas been hashed out. And why anyone looks a rand Paul as anything other than a repeat turncoat I do not know
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.