Posted on 06/20/2014 11:55:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) criticized former Vice President Dick Cheney and blamed "those who supported the Iraq War" for the current crisis in the country in an interview with NBC's David Gregory Friday. Gregory asked Paul about the op-ed co-authored by Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz that blasted President Barack Obama's handling of the Iraqi crisis and his foreign policy as a whole.
Paul said the same questions raised by Cheney in his op-ed could be asked of those who supported the original decision to invade Iraq. He also said he didn't blame Obama for the current crisis, pointing the finger at Cheney and other supporters of the Iraq War for the current Middle East chaos — and for "emboldening Iran."
"I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War," Paul said of Cheney's op-ed. "You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won?
Paul went on to note many current Iraq War supporters also are concerned about the situation in Iran.
"They didn’t really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out. And what’s going on now — I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East," said Paul. "I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Within weeks of Obama trading the Taliban Joint Chiefs of Staff (five of them), ISIS invades and takes over Iraq. Something they hadn’t done in the prior six years, despite fighting in Lebanon and Syria for years.
Yes, it is Obama’s fault. He capitulated, so they surged back and took Iraq.
I have never felt comfortable about Rand nor trusted him. I see why that thinking was there. Next, we will see the media push him in the front of the line for the republican nomination; knowing that he cannot solidify the base. I would never support him. So, please don’t try to convince me he is the less of the evils.
BZZZT! Thanks for playing Rand, and the pretty lady will show you to the nice parting gift we have for you backstage.
Just what Republicans need a Presidential Candidate who will stand up FOR obama and the democrats. PORP
Rand can’t be this stupid. It’s impossible. (He’s just kissed off any chance of the presidency, it’s definitely past time to start backing other candidates).
What would you expect from the Paul family. He supported Mitch McConnel after all.
Well at least we know who our RINO’s are.
CC
[ Libertarians are just like Neville Chamberlain.
They are extremely poor at national security. ]
The best mix is Big C Conservativism / Little L libertarianism that only applies the Little L ONLY to the country’s population and not to aliens.
This is the biggest issue I have with Big L libertarians is that they think they can apply an internal policy concerning freedom to the rest of the world that is built on tyranny...
He is done as a national GOP figure and is just becoming another McCain for the media, used by them to attack the GOP.
And where there are three mustard shells, one filled sarin shell and one empty sarin shell, there are more.
Unfortunately Libertarians and those so influenced cannot seem to think clearly about current crisis being really really angry over the course of American foreign policy since 1917. This is not a joke. I have talked at length to several of them and they constantly get worked into a lather over Wilson and US entry into WW1 or Franklin Roosevelt and his duplicity and mendacity involving the US and Japan before 1941 . These are areas that do merit critical thought but they are not germane to immediate events. As one friend who is a retired Army officer said to me “Iraq and what happens there may be unimportant to the US but it is consequential because others are watching to see how we handle the potential collapse of what is seen as a US proxy state.”
Libertarians can't seem to grasp this relational context in foreign affairs being more interested in angry rumination about events that are now of historical interest.
Finally, the Saddam regime did have substantial chemical agent stockpiles and a vigorous nuclear and biological research program. Tariq Aziz convinced the boss around 1997 that Iraq was stuck with a deteriorating stock of chemicals that could not be employed due to the UN control regime and the nuclear and biological programs were dead ends because no significant material purchases could be made because of the control regime. The answer to Iraq's problem was to destroy the aging and deteriorating material base of the special weapons program and plow funds into upgrading and expanding the basic technical training base in Iraqi universities in such areas as physics and chemistry while sending promising students abroad for advanced training in places like Germany and Austria and Russia. The weapons program staffs would be made a shadow establishment and publications and intel data on their areas of expertise would be acquired abroad and sent to Iraq by diplomatic pouch. Iraq would continue and deepen relations with those who could provide future help such as Pakistan and North Korea. When the material was destroyed the UN would be invited in to inspect to their heart's content since nothing would be left to find. Iraq would train its technicians and wait for the UN inspectors to go away and then take up the tasks again of creating a real nuclear, chemical, and bio-weaponized Iraq to pursue its destiny as the dominator of the Middle East.
Saddam agreed and the material was destroyed almost entirely. Saddam, however, for reasons of Arab face saving would never admit to ever having anything along the lines of a special weapons program and stupidly obstructed the UN inspection program to show he was ‘In Control’ for domestic consumption. In this way the logic of what Aziz set about was frustrated.
This narrative was figured out by the US special weapons search program after 2003. Why it was never publicly stated remains one of the mysteries of the George Bush/Cheyney regime.
The press also didn’t want to admit that weapons still existed.
Look at how they buried the mustard gas IEDs and the sarin IED.
The best part about the sarin shell, it was a binary mix in flight shell of a type that Iraq was not known to have prior to 1995 or so.
So Rand was okay with the Butcher of Baghdad Saddam Hussein torturing his people and using chemical weapons on them ?
If I read Rand Paul based on the speeches and Q&A he gives, I would say his answer to you question would be -— Compared to what’s happening now, I think the answer to that question would be ‘YES’ (comparatively).
I think his answer would also be, it would be better also because we would not have over 4,000 Americans dead.
So Rand needs to pull his head of his but and realize removing Saddam was a good and moral thing, but forcing together three very different regions while the progresso terrorist sympathizers undermined the effort, costs many life's. That would be correct.
Rand Paul is dead to me.
Rand Paul is proving to be an idiot.
Giving Obama harbor for the freaking mess he has literally, willed in Iraq...Open borders mensa...He is a joke.
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.