Posted on 08/28/2014 7:53:52 PM PDT by Plummz
Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. … :
While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What the was the purpose of a Department of Homeland Security if it couldn't even keep an Islamic terrorist like Nidal Malik Hasan (the Fort Hood shooter) out of the 'effing U.S. Army?!?!
I would take that to mean that Rand Paul hasn't been bought by the foreign interests in the Middle East who dictate U.S. foreign policy and basically own our military.
Rand Paul is running on a Realist foreign policy doctrine. This is difficult for him to do because everyone sees him as a isolationist.
Hillary is a Liberal Interventionist aka national security democrat aka leftwing hawk. And the most hawkish of the Liberal Interventionists such as Joe Lieberman were/are sometimes called leftwing neocons.
So when Rand Paul blames Hillary for Benghazi you have to look at it based on doctrines. Lets review that.
When events In Libya began to unfold in Libya in early 2011, the NeoCon republicans immediately began agitating for Obama to intervene. The Realists(republican and democrat) said no, the US should not intervene. They were led by Bob Gates who at the time was the top Realist working for Obama.
But it didn't take long for the Liberal Interventionists working for Obama(Hillary, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power) to establish a multilateral alliance involving the UN, NATO, and the Arab League to intervene in Libya. Based on that, Obama went in.
Of course the NeoCons praised Obama. Bill Kristol proclaimed Obama to be a "Born Again NeoCon". But the NeoCons also criticized Obama saying that he should have gone in immediately. They complained that he was "leading from behind" because he went in multilaterally. Some such as Bolton complained because Obama didn't put boots on the ground.
After decision was made, two very prominent Realists(Henry Kissinger and James Baker) warned that intervening in Libya was a mistake and it would likely blow up in our face. And it did.
So who do you blame? The GOP wants to point the Benghazi finger at Obama and Hillary but Rand Paul wants to point the finger at Liberal Interventionists(Hillary) and the NeoCons.
The war between Rand Paul and the NeoCons is ongoing and the NeoCons are threatening that if Paul gets the nomination, they will vote for Hillary.
Any and all foreign policy issues are best understood if they are framed along doctrine lines: Liberal Interventionists, NeoCons, and Realists.
The Realists are Machiavellian, they will make a deal with the devil. Gaddafi, Saddam, and Assad are evil but they had stable govts. If you remove them, that nation will destabilize and will take a long time for them to stabilize
The Idealists(Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons) prefer removing these evil men(regime change) and a policy of humanitarianism, nation building, and spreading democracy.
Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Assad are gone. It will be a while before these nations and the region stabilize. Bush's democratization of the Palestinians brought Hamas to power and made it worse.
Where is Allende when you need him?
No, Rand Paul is simply displaying his usual shallowness, over and over he has done this.
Paul cult followers have always wanted to find the deeper meaning in their shallow utterings, it isn’t a game the rest of us have to play.
Just as on abortion, Reagan, gay marriage, etc, Rand is just being his usual goofy self and hoping his followers will find magic in it.
Another bizarre Paulite post.
Saddam never was the enemy until Bush-41 dislodged hin from Kuwait. We should have let Iraq & Kuwait fight it out. It matters little who owns the oil wells. They all must sell oil to whoever can buy it. That war was the beginning of all the mess we have now.
Listen carefully again with your thinking in focus,
every dictator, fascist Arab leader, will never stop
selling oil in the Arab bazaar. Their lifestyle absolutely requires it. They will literally starve without selling oil. OPEC is no longer the force it was in 1970’s. Plenty
of oil is present in S.America, Canada, Mexico, Norway,
Africa and many other countries, not least of all right
here in USA.
The central theme for creating more Jihadists is presence
of American and other Western soldiers in Arab lands. Bush-41 made a huge blunder getting us involved in Desert storm, which helped grow Al Qaeda leading upto 911. And Bush-43 exacerbated the problem by invading Iraq.
I know how the Arabs think. I grew up in a country right next door to them.
> If the 4 of you would frame your dispute along foreign policy doctrine lines, it would be easier.
If you weren’t just another Paultard, you wouldn’t post apologia for that demagogue and Democrat-in-all-but-name.
> Rand Paul is running on a Realist foreign policy doctrine. This is difficult for him to do because everyone sees him as a isolationist.
Rand Paul is not a realist, because he wouldn’t recognize reality if it introduced itself. Everyone doesn’t see him as an isolationist, so that’s just a straw man — he’s actually a surrender monkey, as are all his supporters.
> Hillary is a Liberal Interventionist aka national security democrat aka leftwing hawk. And the most hawkish of the Liberal Interventionists such as Joe Lieberman were/are sometimes called leftwing neocons. So when Rand Paul blames Hillary for Benghazi you have to look at it based on doctrines. Lets review that.
There’s no need to review another straw man — your screed is just the usual Paultard talking points and buzzwords.
> So who do you blame? The GOP wants to point the Benghazi finger at Obama and Hillary but Rand Paul wants to point the finger at Liberal Interventionists(Hillary) and the NeoCons.
No, Rand Paul is a Democrat, just as his old man is, sticking up for every foreign enemy of the US as well as the allies of those enemies, the Democratic Party. The fact that both of them self-describe as Republicans is no different than the tripe that child molesters are self-described heterosexuals.
> The war between Rand Paul and the NeoCons is ongoing and the NeoCons are threatening that if Paul gets the nomination, they will vote for Hillary.
No, that’s the Paultard game — ‘nominate anyone but Rand Paul/Ron Paul/imaginaryconservativecandidate and we will vote third party’.
> The Realists are Machiavellian, they will make a deal with the devil. Gaddafi, Saddam, and Assad are evil but they had stable govts. If you remove them, that nation will destabilize and will take a long time for them to stabilize.
IOW, surprise surprise, the Realists include Obama, Hillary, and John Kerry — they’ve done nothing but make deals with the devil.
Stability is and was, surprise surprise, the argument of A.N.S.W.E.R. and every other self-described lefty and progressive group and person against snuffing Saddam’s regime. That includes all the skinhead sites as well, which is not a coincidence. The Pauls get all their policy points from those very same sources, and that’s not a coincidence either.
Well of course — they’re on the same page. :’)
Which country is that?
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.