|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 02/01/2014 5:57:04 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Via Think Progress, this one’s a few days old but worth noting belatedly. Skip to 4:25 for the key bit. Three weeks ago, this would have been a big deal legislatively. Rumors were swirling at the time that the Senate had 67 votes — a veto-proof majority — to slam Iran with a new round of sanctions that would, in theory, pressure them to faithfully carry out their obligations under the Geneva nuclear deal. The Iranians countered that new sanctions would be a dealbreaker; Obama threatened to veto them if they passed, but 67 votes would mean taking the pen out of his hand. The mystery, then: How would Rand Paul, potentially the 67th vote, come down on the question when his dovish libertarian fans and more hawkish conservative ones were at odds? The answer, as it turned out, was that it doesn’t matter. After the news broke about a veto-proof majority congealing in the Senate, the White House and various interest groups went into overdrive in pressuring pro-sanctions Democrats to back down. It worked. Chris Coons, one of the original sponsors of a new round of sanctions, had a change of heart, as did Richard Blumenthal. The pen is back in Obama’s hand so Paul’s vote is academic.
Academic, but still interesting and relevant to the future of Republican foreign policy. Support for new sanctions is nearly unanimous among Senate GOPers, with Paul and Jeff Flake, as far as I know, constituting a caucus of two in showing reluctance. Marco Rubio backs sanctions and thinks the Senate still has a shot at a veto-proof majority on them. Ted Cruz called Obama’s SOTU threat to veto a sanctions bill “one of the most dangerous things in the entire speech” and compared his handling of Iran to Clinton’s handling of eventual nuclear power North Korea in the 90s. This is, in other words, a glaring point of contention between Paul and his presidential rivals on a hot-button foreign policy issue. It’s bound to figure in the debates next year, maybe prominently. If negotiations break down, it’s a cinch that the field’s more hawkish candidates will use his wait-and-see approach to bludgeon him for his dovish naivete. Paul will have defenses to that — he voted for Iran sanctions in the past, and he says here that he’d prefer to keep existing sanctions in effect until there’s proof that Iran’s complying with the Geneva terms (although Iran never would have agreed to that) — but no one knows if they’ll work. The whole thrust of his opponents’ criticism on foreign policy will be that he’s too much like his father to be trusted to defend the country robustly. They’re looking around for data points to support that thesis; if negotiations collapse, this’ll be seized eagerly. And of course Paul knows it, which is why it’s safe to say he’s giving his honest opinion here. He’s already got the libertarian vote. All this can do is get hawkish voters to say “hmmmm.”
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Another loser. Alas. He seemed to look good there at first.
Obama decided a long time ago that he would never go to war to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This agreement allows Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact and unmolested. It is a political fig leaf that does not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Rand Paul finds himself in agreement with this policy. He will not endorse American involvement in a foreign war unless the security of the US is clearly at risk. Also the American people are war weary. They are reeling from the enormous futile human and material sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just like Daddy, Anto-Semite
Sanctions are pointless considering we’ve been giving waivers for years. (no not just Obama)
Doubt it all you want. Not everybody has what it takes to face reality.
Just remember this, boys and girls, one nuclear bomb, in the hands of the Iranians, is all it will take to plunge the world into a World War to end all wars.
“Via Think Progress”
Enough said.
Rand Paul 2016!
“But I was wrong”
No surprise there.
“But I was wrong”
No surprise there.
There was once a consensus in this country that Iran was a bizarre theocratic dictatorship who’s leaders were fond of making apocalyptic threats. What’s more an examination of their theology reveals that they indeed “embrace death” as others look to live. Clearly a dangerous bunch to have nuclear weapons. However elections matter. An ill informed, war weary American people reelected an incompetent man with a flawed world view as President. He has allowed the US and Israel to be relegated to an untenable strategic position. If Israel were to attack Iran, Chinese supplied mobile ballistic missiles positioned in Syria would result in a devastating Iranian counterattack. If America were to be involved in the shooting , shore to ship missiles lining the Persian Gulf would create a debacle for the US capital ships operating in those narrow, shallow waters. The time to act was three years ago.
The Paul’s love Islamic radicals and hate the Jews. Just reading comments from their drones proves the point.
Lew Rockwell again.
“Rand Paul 2006”
Who will be his running mate, Farrakan, Reverend Wright?
Inside every LiberTopian is a radical leftist.
Negotiations for what? These people want to KILL us and DESTROY our country ... that’s negotiable?
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.