Rand Paul abandons Ron Paul on war and peace

[cajuncocoa]

Months ago, the isolationism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was so extreme that I said he might as well be President Bashar Assad's man in Washington, referring to the Syrian dictator and murderer at a time when Rand Paul was following the policy of Ron Paul of extreme non-intervention. Times have changed, or shall I say Rand Paul's calculations have changed, so his positions have changed.

Now Sen. Paul mocks President Obama over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and vows to be a super-hawk going after ISIS. I guess when it's time to raise campaign money for a presidential campaign, and time to court neoconservatives, and time to appeal to a GOP that does not favor extreme isolationism, the new Rand Paul now debates the old Rand Paul, while he throws under the bus the principled stand of the only true Ron Paul.

When Rand Paul suggests that Obama has created a "jihadist wonderland," can he deny every jihadi in the world would have spent recent years cheering Rand Paul's extremism isolationism? He not only reveals a lack of depth and commitment on national security, and reveals the kind of shallow opportunism that voters reject in politicians today, but he abandons the long legacy of the principled foreign policy of Ron Paul.

Read more: h ttp://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/216820-rand-paul-abandons-ron-paul-on-war-and-peace

 

[Christian Liberty]

Assad was a SECULAR dictator. He was better than the alternatives, the very people that are now ISIS. When will people ever learn?

Much as Rand Paul's stances aren't as radical as I would like, there's nothing irrational about them. Rand didn't feel that Syria was a threat to national security. He does (or at least is pretending to) think that ISIS is. Its not THAT crazy to suggest that a secular dictator might be less of a threat than radical islamists. And I say that as someone who doesn't even want to get involved with ISIS.

 

[TaftFan]

I feel like smacking people whenever I read people saying Rand is an isolationist or a neocon.

 

[presence]

I feel like smacking people whenever I read people saying Rand is an isolationist or a neocon.

Does remind me a bit of the btce trollbox.


To Da Moon!

Crash!

Moon!

To Da Flo!

Arise Chikun!

Run Away!

 

[Brett85]

Months ago, the isolationism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was so extreme that I said he might as well be President Bashar Assad's man in Washington, referring to the Syrian dictator and murderer at a time when Rand Paul was following the policy of Ron Paul of extreme non-intervention. Times have changed, or shall I say Rand Paul's calculations have changed, so his positions have changed.

Lol, taking out Assad likely would've meant that ISIS would've taken over Syria. Are these people really that stupid?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Months ago, the isolationism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was so extreme that I said he might as well be President Bashar Assad's man in Washington

1. Opposing bombing Syria is not "isolationism". That word really is being abused by interventionists to just having no meaning.

2. Not bombing Syria was, oh I don't know, the right call. This author apparently wanted to attack Assad, which would have empowered the ISIS in Syria.

(By the way, this is the same Hill dumbass that compared Kerry to Winston Churchill. Opinion immediately discarded.)

 

[jmdrake]

Read more: hxxp://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/216820-rand-paul-abandons-ron-paul-on-war-and-peace#ixzz3CYUzk7Sc
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Please break the link to that ridiculous article so that it doesn't get Google traffic. So Rand Paul's big "change" in position is that he's gone from saying we shouldn't attack Assad to saying that we should attack Assad's enemies who are also our enemies? How can be people be so freaking stupid? Ron Paul voted to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but he thought the war itself turned out to be a fiasco. If Rand votes to attack ISIS then that's less hawkish than Ron's vote because an attack on ISIS, if it's isolated to ISIS and especially if it's coordinated with Assad, is not "regime change" the way the attack on the Taliban clearly was.

 

[jmdrake]

My comment:

What a nonsense article! Ron Paul voted to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. How is that different from Rand advocating attacking ISIS? Hint: IT'S NOT! Actually Rand Paul's position is less hawkish. Ron's vote included "regime change" of the Taliban. Rand has not advocated regime change of Assad. In fact he came out recently and pointed to the fact the policy of attempting to overthrow Assad is what led to the rise of ISIS. So if you hated Rand for being smart enough to know we shouldn't be trying to take out Assad, well you can keep hating him and you can keep being stupid.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I feel like smacking people whenever I read people saying Rand is an isolationist or a neocon.

That word's never going to go away no matter how much we remind them and shout and scream about the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. It makes me so angry.