Posted on 04/19/2015 6:22:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bernie Sanders couldn’t have said it better:
“There’s a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now — maybe more,” the Kentucky senator told hundreds of activists at a GOP cattle call that has drawn every major presidential aspirant. “This is something, if you watch closely, that will separate me from many other Republicans. The other Republicans will criticize Hillary Clinton and the president for their foreign policy, but they would have done the same thing – just 10 times over!”
“Six countries – maybe more”? Which countries, Senator? And how many of your rivals have proposed sending troops to Syria? To Yemen? To Libya? (Do we have to count Lindsey Graham?)
Rand Paul is trying to separate himself from other candidates on foreign policy while not appearing to be a head-in-the-sand isolationist. But in doing so, does he have to lie like a Democrat about his opponents?
“Everyone who will criticize me wanted troops on the ground, our troops on the ground, in Libya,” he said. “It was a mistake to be in Libya. We are less safe. Jihadists swim in our swimming pool now. It’s a disaster.”
Did Ted Cruz want troops on the ground in Libya? Did Scott Walker, Chris Christie, or any other GOP governor who might run for president want troops on the ground in Libya? Marco Rubio specifically advised against troops on the ground in Libya, believing that the president could have intervened “more decisively” but rejecting American military intervention.
Paul’s statement is either an ignorant rant or a baldfaced lie. Falsely accusing opponents of things they don’t believe and wouldn’t do obscures Paul’s real problems with rank-and-file Republicans who want a president to stand up strongly for American interests and want to make America the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world once again. Many simply don’t believe his foreign-policy ideas are proactive enough. They are suspicious of his libertarian leanings on national-defense strategy.
One aspect of a Paul campaign Republican regulars can get behind is his position on NSA snooping:
Contrasting himself with most others in the field, Paul also promised to end the federal government’s collection of American phone records if elected president. “I’m a Republican who believes in the right to privacy,” he said. “It doesn’t mean collecting 300 million people’s phone records. The 4th amendment is not consistent with a warrant that says Mr. Verizon on it. Last I heard Mr. Verizon isn’t a person.”
“Your phone records are yours,” he declared. “It’s none of the government’s damn business what you’re doing on your phone.”
“You can say damn in New Hampshire, can’t you?” he quipped.
“Damn straight,” a man yelled back from the crowd.
NSA spying is a peripheral national-security issue and there is disagreement among the candidates about how much of what the NSA has been doing is really necessary. This is a legitimate way for Paul to put distance between himself and his rivals — as long as he accurately enumerates their positions.
But otherwise, Paul’s rank dishonesty in describing what his opponents would do if elected is intolerable. Might we see a sound bite of Paul dishonestly ripping his opponents in a Hillary Clinton commercial? Perhaps the senator should think about that the next time he feels compelled to grossly exaggerate the positions of his opponents.
Your claim that the term neocon is antisemitic is FALSE.
Stop making it.
Sabe?
Rand Paul is full of him self and full of empty rhetoric..
When you see Rand Paul criticizing his GOP political rivals what do you see ?
And pandering to the left and to the right to build a political coalition for his campaign , what do you see ?
Someone who is desperate ?
I don’t see any percentage in calling anyone a “neocon”. Rand Paul doesn’t seem like a very disciplined thinker or campaigner, and his use of the word “neocon” underscores that.
Neocon doesn’t have a clear meaning.
Warmonger — that’s a self-defining word that everyone can understand. McCain was never a Democratic liberal, so to call him a “neocon” is incorrect, strictly speaking.. Same with Cheney. But they’re both warmongers. As are most of the others who are called “neocons.”
The Chinese are fast approaching our level of military spending and capabilities.. That is a concern.
Ronald Reagan had it right...Peace Through Strength...
I’ll also say it again, the Chinese are fast approaching the level of our military spending, fast approaching our level of capabilities, our level of technology in the military.
Haven’t we learned our lesson in WWII when we were caught off gaurd and unprepared ?
Ted Cruz is the only conservative of choice.. And I challenge all Rand Paul supporters to tell us why Ted Cruz is not the best choice for president..
Come on Rand Paul supporters tell us why Ted Cruz is not the best choice for President ...
They are virtually identical on many important issues. What puts Paul over Cruz is palatability. The general public favors the branding of Paul vs the branding of Cruz. Should Cruz end up the nominee I could see supporting him... However this feeling is half the time not mutual with Cruz supporters.
Yes, Rand Paul would not have intervened in WWII when the Jews were being slaughter and put in gas ovens to die.
To Rand Paul supporters ?
Do you deny the Jewish Holocaust , yes ? Or No ?
A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for anti-semitism.
LONG LIVE ZION THE MOUNTAIN OF THE LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL !!
GO POUND SAND PAULBOTS !
LONG LIVE ISRAEL !
GOD BLESS ISRAEL !
GOD BLESS JERUSALEM !
Yes, that feeling that is not mutual with Ted Cruz supporters is for good reason,
We don’t trust the man..
So you say that he is palitible with the general public, that’s pure propaganda from the Rand Paul campaign.
Your words betray your canadate saying that he is more palitible with the public, to whom ? Conservatives ?
He is more palitible most defiantly to the left if that is what your saying..
Reagan was palatable to the left as well. As much as you may wish, Cruz is not Reagan.
You say you don’t trust the man but compare both senators voting records, they are birds of a feather. Are you telling me if Cruz drops outyoud rather have a Rubio or Bush over Paul, a man who’s conservative voting record is nearly the same as Cruz?
So ?
Before to long with Rand Paul’s help as President the Chinese will be put on a level playing field with the US military spending ...
No thank you..
The Chinese have already surpassed the US as the world’s largest economy.. It won’t be far to long before that match us in military spending and technological capabilities..
Of course Paul would have gotten into WWII after Pearl Harbor. We were declared war on, duh.
As for Israel, I support Israel too. Let’s support Israel as private citizens and stop, as a country, doling out foreign aid to all.... I guess that’s not a conservative position, eh?
I already covered this, Rand proposed to increase military spending by over 100 billion, with offsetting cuts to other depts. Rubio and St. Cruz voted against.
Nice try, but the Marshall plan was foreign aid also..
Israel is a ally who is surrounded by hostile enemies that are well funded and hell bent on destroying Israel.
It would be crazy to withdraw aid and military help to Israel and leave Israel to fend for it’s self.
Once again, do the Rand Paul supporters deny the Jewish Holocaust yes or no ?
Nope, no denials here. As conservatives, support to Israel ought to be done as a person by person charity. Government shoulding be taking everyone’s money through coercion -taxes and giving it to other nations period.
But you see ? That’s the thing about the Rand Paul supporters here, they are pimping Rand Paul, but never make a compelling case why Ted Cruz is not the best choice for President...
Ted Cruz’s voting record, and his ideology is more conservative than Rand Paul’s record.
On top of all that ?
We go way back before Rand Paul decided to run as a fake conservative and look at his words and rhetoric.
We look at his ideology.
His ideology is just like his father’s Ron Paul.
This is why Paul is so formidable. His voting record is nearly identical to Cruz’s. Many metrics put him as the most conservative member of congress. But he sells conservatism in a way that appeals to independents and even some on the left. Cruz and Paul largely believe in the same things but Cruz’s rhetoric only appeals to the right, Paul on the other hand makes conservative common sense seem less extreme to non conservatives.
The fact is that Paul is moving farther and farther left, away from what it took for him to get elected.
Paul is trying to appeal to liberals by agreeing with them on social issues and defense.
Social issues ought to be left to the states, which is what Paul believes. Mandatory minimum sentencing ought to be done away with since it gives federal government more power than the states in prosecuting and sentencing. If he sells this in a way that appeals to minorities and independents, this is good.
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.