Rand Paul rips Jeb, Hillary over foreign policy

[jct74]

Rand Paul rips Jeb, Hillary over foreign policy

Josh Hafner
May 16, 2015

Fairfield, Ia. – Rand Paul sought to shape the foreign policy debate among 2016 contenders on Saturday, criticizing fellow White House hopefuls Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton for their views on the Middle East.

The Republican senator also railed on a Patriot Act that allows the government to collect Americans' phone data, vowing to fight against its renewal in Congress in coming days.

The speech came after a week of questions around Bush's views on the Iraq War and ahead of a week of debate on the Patriot Act in Washington.

"We had a question this week that was asked to a certain candidate who used to be the governor of Florida who's running in the Republican primary," Paul said, referring to Bush and his appearance Monday on Fox News. "And the question was: Knowing what you know now do you think it was a good idea to topple Hussein, to begin the war in Iraq?

"He fumbled around, and I think he had four or five different questions on four or five different days. But one of his responses was a very defensive response: 'Well, that's hypothetical. What would that have to do with this election?' I think the question has everything to do with this election."

...

read more:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...aul-rips-jeb-hillary-foreign-policy/27448265/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Good article. He's hitting them hard.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It's very important for Rand to jump on any opportunity to address the Iraq invasion of 2003 (especially when it gets raised by the other candidates). It's the sword of Damocles hanging over all the war party candidates and their establishment media supporters. This crowd wants to convey the impression that all military interventions are necessary, all the while burying the very, very unpopular war in Iraq of the last decade.

The war hawks want the war candidates thought of as the surest bets to win in '16, but the Iraq decision has been causing Republicans to lose the White House since 2008. Every chance Rand gets to hit them on Iraq, it makes the point with the rank and file to nominate somebody saner on foreign policy this time.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

It's very important for Rand to jump on any opportunity to address the Iraq invasion of 2003 (especially when it gets raised by the other candidates). It's the sword of Damocles hanging over all the war party candidates and their establishment media supporters. This crowd wants to convey the impression that all military interventions are necessary, all the while burying the very, very unpopular war in Iraq of the last decade.

The war hawks want the war candidates thought of as the surest bets to win in '16, but the Iraq decision has been causing Republicans to lose the White House since 2008. Every chance Rand gets hit them on Iraq, it makes the point with the rank and file to nominate somebody saner on foreign policy this time.

I really think warhawks believe that their foreign policy is more popular. It's the only way I can explain this shit:

After days of halting answers from Jeb Bush, it now looks like a rough consensus is emerging in the Republican presidential field. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie all agree: If they were president and they knew that our sworn enemy, the terrorist-supporting Saddam Hussein, only possessed thousands of deteriorating chemical warheads — rather than thousands of fully functional chemical weapons — they would not have invaded Iraq. Their answers to this question — which was designed mainly to remind the American people how much they hated the Iraq War and to force Republicans to distance themselves from George W. Bush — are troubling on two counts.

First, they allow the Left to define the terms of the debate by limiting our hindsight to the lessons we’d learned by 2005 — when we were fighting a losing war in a deteriorating nation perceived to be devoid of WMDs. But this is 2015, and we know much more — including that a chemical-weapons arsenal existed, that the insurgency could be defeated, and that the example of Syria shows that the alternative to deposing Saddam wasn’t necessarily greater stability but potentially even worse genocidal chaos.

Most importantly, hindsight also teaches us that American withdrawal from Iraq led to military disaster that cannot be easily reversed — much less stabilized — by a limited air campaign. So, knowing now what we didn’t know then, the answer is a smarter intervention, not the same intervention — an intervention that combines the tactics and lessons of the Surge with the staying power we’ve demonstrated in other volatile hot spots, like Korea. The alternative — as we know — is a growing jihadist menace, genocide against Christians and other religious minorities, and increased instability in a geopolitically vital region.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cowardly-after-fact-opposition-iraq-war-david

I mean what the fuck is this? One would think it was satire but warhawks are extremely delusional.

 

[Jan2017]

As Jeb Bush Stumbles on Iraq, Rivals Pile On
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jeb-bush-stumbles-iraq-rivals-pile-heres-why-n358781

Rand will be on Meet the Press tomorrow of course - great opportunity.


GOP lawmakers flabbergasted by Bush Stumbles on Iraq
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/242256-gop-lawmakers-flabbergasted-by-bush-stumbles-on-iraq

“[I’m] flabbergasted at the degree of back and forth that’s ensued this week on the
Middle East answer, correction, non-answer, correction, etc.,”
said one GOP lawmaker from a early primary state.

imho, I think it is just wishful thinking in this article that this "won't have any lasting effect"

 

[jct74]

more from Politico:

Taking the stage 10 minutes after Paul, Lindsey Graham went out of his way to defend Bush, blaming the unraveling of stability in Iraq on President Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.

Graham, who has made a habit of trolling the Kentucky senator, also mocked Paul’s focus on civil liberties, picking up on his statement that the federal government should still “call a lawyer” to get a warrant before arresting terrorists instead of illegally spying.

“I’m not going to call a judge,” said Graham. “I’m going to call a drone and kill you.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-lindsey-graham-returns-the-favor-118024.html

 

[r3volution 3.0]

 

[r3volution 3.0]

While we're at it...

.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[RabbitMan]

more from Politico:



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-lindsey-graham-returns-the-favor-118024.html

Oh my god is that what he said!? Lindsey is getting more extreme by the day, he is going to make Rand look soooo good!

 

[ghengisconrad]

lol'd for a solid minute straight.

hahaha. that face.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I really think warhawks believe that their foreign policy is more popular. It's the only way I can explain this shit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cowardly-after-fact-opposition-iraq-war-david

I mean what the fuck is this? One would think it was satire but warhawks are extremely delusional.

It's 12 years later, and we're still in Iraq. The public, including 76% of Republicans by one poll, notices this, and agrees the Iraq is a failure or will be viewed as such by history. Not that mistakes were made in engaging the war, but that the war itself was a mistake. The original decision to start the war, and all other interventions, are viewed as correct actions by the war party--hence the GOP dilemma, or delusion, come 2016.

The unending length of the conflicts have made people notice the flimsy pretexts behind the aggression, excuses which were only supposed to be temporary devices to get folks onboard, then promptly forgotten. They were never meant to stand up to the test of time. Basically, the GOP will not win back the Presidency until it runs a candidate who at least partially repudiates the original decision to invade Iraq. "Mistakes were made" or "we had bad intelligence" won't cut it anymore, especially since the facts are more like we got lied into the war, and the data was deceptively cherry-picked.

The US shouldn't be launching undeclared, no-win wars based on lies, period. Coupled with the no-win, undeclared incursions into Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and (with ISIS as a pretext) Syria, the public has grown more non-interventionist from sheer exhaustion with the duration and deceptions of these wars. If the GOP establishment puts up another unreconstructed "Iraq was right, when we did it" robohawk who is a milquetoast moderate on everything else, they will go down in flames, just as in 2008 and 2012.