Rand Paul Explains His Controversial Comments About Dick Cheney

[jct74]

Rand Paul Explains His Controversial Comments About Dick Cheney

BRETT LOGIURATO
APR. 12, 2014, 9:11 AM

DOVER, N.H. — On Friday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul addressed comments he made in 2009 about former Vice President Dick Cheney that made headlines this week after Mother Jones posted video of the controversial remarks Monday.

In the clip, Paul seemed to suggest Cheney wanted to invade Iraq to benefit his former employer, Halliburton. The comments drew increased attention to Paul's unorthodox libertarian foreign policy views.

After making a speech at a New Hampshire Republican Party rally in Dover, N.H. Friday, Paul told Business Insider his comments have been mischaracterized. He backtracked a bit, saying he wasn't trying to question Cheney's motives. However, he said the general appearance of a "conflict of interest" lingers when people like Cheney go back and forth between the private sector and government.

...

"I do think it's a problem with people going from government to Wall Street back to government — from government to contracting back to government," Paul said. "Because I think there's at least the appearance and the chance of a conflict of interest. And in his case, there was a policy of thinking it was a bad idea to invade Baghdad — then going to work in private for a contractor, coming back and now saying it was good. I don't know what his thought process is, and I'm not trying to say. I'm just saying there's an appearance that there could be a conflict of interest."

...

read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-dick-cheney-iraq-war-haliburton-2014-4

 

[CPUd]

I would recommend people listen to the 2009 talk and what he actually said back then before commenting.

in b4 page 20.

 

[fr33]

I would recommend people listen to the 2009 talk and what he actually said back then before commenting.

in b4 page 20.

Yep.

 

[jtstellar]

the usual 3 resident morons i can pretty much name, probably taking 10 out of those 20

 

[anaconda]

I prefer Glenn Greenwald's opinion on Dick Cheney...

 

[Dianne]

I prefer Glenn Greenwald's opinion on Dick Cheney...

Cheney is one sick bastard. I always LOL at the term "enhanced interrogation" . To the average idiot, that makes "torture" sound so much better.

 

[Badger Paul]

Actually you were right the first time Rand. But I won't hold that against you.

My guess you'll have to work on your backtracking skills a lot in the couple of years. Get used to it.

 

[mit26chell]

Actually, if you watch the video from 2009, he didn't backtrack at all really. He said the same thing he said 2009.

 

[Vanguard101]

I never thought I'd say this, but I guess backtracking really is a part of being a politician. Everyone has to flip slightly if they want to attain their true goal

 

[rprprs]

I never thought I'd say this, but I guess backtracking really is a part of being a politician. Everyone has to flip slightly if they want to attain their true goal

The kicker, of course, lies in what that "true goal" is.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I never thought I'd say this, but I guess backtracking really is a part of being a politician. Everyone has to flip slightly if they want to attain their true goal

How did he backtrack? He just clarified that he has identified a conflict of interest and that he isn't presuming to know Cheney's motives.

You can never prove or know someones motivation. Yes, questioning someone's motivations is politically taboo, but more importantly it's irrational, bad logic, and easy to destroy in argument when one claims to know someone else's motivation.

The part where he said he believed Dick Cheney was a patriot did make me feel the urge to throw up. He seems to be standing by his remarks more than walking anything back.

 

[Unknownuser]

It's easy to see what's going on here. Why are his comments from 2009 now making news? You know why. This is an attack campaign against Rand. They are scared. That alone should be enough to get behind this man. He may not be the "perfect" candidate but he's got the establishments undies all in a bunch.

I don't understand the purists. Rand has the best voting record in the senate...so let's attack him. Good grief Charlie Brown.

 

[Cabal]

That alone should be enough to get behind this man.

I hope you exercise more thought in practice than you're suggesting here when arriving at conclusions about what or who you do or don't support.

 

[Unknownuser]

I hope you exercise more thought in practice than you're suggesting here when arriving at conclusions about what or who you do or don't support.

Of coarse I do. I look at the voting record. But I thoroughly enjoy watching the "show". The truth is...the POTUS means squat. It's the house and the senate we need to purge. But the POTUS sets the tone. That is why Rand would be a great candidate. I just love watching the establishment squirm. Like I said....that alone is good enough for a Rand vote. A lot of rich and corrupt people would lose money with a Rand presidency.

 

[Cabal]

Of coarse I do.

Of course you do, then perhaps you shouldn't advocate the contrary.

 

[FreedomsReigning]

It would be a positive for Rand Paul to point out all of Dick Cheney's past connections and the conflicts of interest that steer his politics. Dick Cheney has never served our interests as a sovereign country. As Ron Paul said, he serves those who don't have much interest in sovereignty.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I would recommend people listen to the 2009 talk and what he actually said back then before commenting.

Nobody did, apparently. They just read the Mother Jones headline.

Why Mother Jones has any credibility, I would love to know.

 

[Unknownuser]

Of course you do, then perhaps you shouldn't advocate the contrary.

You are just trying to pick fights for the sake of picking a fight. I know your kind.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand didn't contradict himself.

His stated position was and is that Cheney may have been influenced by his connection to Haliburton.



Whereas, Mother Jones represented Rand as saying that Cheney was influenced by his connection to Haliburton.

Sounds like a trifling difference, but it's not.

Defending Rand's stated view would be easy.

Defending the view which Mother Jones tried to put in his mouth would be much harder.

(which is precisely why they put that view in his mouth, hoping he'd choke on it)

 

[Vanguard101]

The kicker, of course, lies in what that "true goal" is.

Agreed. It just sucks it does more harm than good.

How did he backtrack? He just clarified that he has identified a conflict of interest and that he isn't presuming to know Cheney's motives.

You can never prove or know someones motivation. Yes, questioning someone's motivations is politically taboo, but more importantly it's irrational, bad logic, and easy to destroy in argument when one claims to know someone else's motivation.

The part where he said he believed Dick Cheney was a patriot did make me feel the urge to throw up. He seems to be standing by his remarks more than walking anything back.

What he did was kinda backtrack. He implied he thought Cheney went to war for profit.