If I had to choose him over McCain and Grahamnesty it would be easy.
Just six months ago they were calling for US arming ISIS to fight al-Assad.
Later
Rand please. If you feel compelled to protest you’re not, you are.
Rand sounds like he wants to have it both ways. He would like his father’s loyal (sometimes rabid) fan base to associate him with his father and his positions, but he’d rather everyone else didn’t.
No?
Well, you are demonstrably a klown and Homey don’t play dat game!
He just reversed himself, he is so much like Romney, that we are building up a similar Rand versus Rand, collection of positions.
'We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.
Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.'
Excuse me Rand, please link us to your public calls to send troops to oppose ISIS/ISIL. I’d love to read up on all your public statements on the subject.
Has there been even one? Has he advocated for a military response.
I could be wrong, but my current take is that there hasn’t been a single instance of it until now. And it seems to me the only reason he supports it now, is because he know it isn’t going to happen.
If he thought it were going to happen, he’d be back on the vital interest band wagon, claiming this didn’t qualify.
He’s flip flopping and seeing which way the wind blows before he runs in 2016.
This is a major shift by Paul in a positive direction. He should be applauded.
Of course he isn’t.
Prepare for the flying monkeys to continue claiming he is though. It’s all they’ve got to live for...
Only Mitt Romney has more positions on any topic than “Bravely Rand-away” Paul.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda....
The fact is, Rand Paul is not President, and the Current Occupant of the Oval Orifice is totally without any appetite or gumption for taking the stern measures that are now called for.
Only when something big, that dwarfs even the carnage and disruption that ensued with the attacks of September 11, 2001, should happen within the boundaries of the territory once known as “the United States of America”, shall there be sufficient outcry and pressure to take the right kind of action. It may, in fact, be a vast overreaction, but that is only fitting at this point.
When Patton crossed the Rhine River in Germany the first time, in March 1945, his objective was first Berlin, then Moscow. This initiative by Patton so alarmed the SHAEF High Command they had to call him back, so the British and Free French could keep up, and to give the Russians a “fair chance” to participate in the defeat of Germany.
Patton’s plan was to rearm the surrendered armies of the German Wehrmacht, give them supplies, and have them march right back into the Soviet Union.
We are on the cusp of having to decide whether to take such action as Patton proposed. Had he gone to Moscow, half a century of history would have been irrevocably changed.
He’s been saying we must smash ISIS.
What Rand is and always has been is a “national interest” supporter. We engage when our vital national interest is threatened, but not otherwise. We don’t just do around putting out fires.
“I don’t always agree with Paul, but I find nothing to disagree with in this article.”
Truly???? How about the fact that he is LYING. Randy Paul IS an isolationist.....regardless of what he says. Now he is compounding this by lying about it.
I WILL NOT vote for this fool...even in a general election. I made the mistake of voting for Romney - against my better judgement - and I still got Obama. I won’t be fooled again.
Give me a GOP nominee that is a hawk and a real social conservative....or don’t expect my vote. Libertarians will NEVER qualify as being socially conservative.