Rick Perry is Dead Wrong | by Sen. Rand Paul

The Lobbyist-War Party, (Dick and Liz Cheney) attack Rand Paul this morning:

bqs_bor.jpg
Cheney Family Says Rand Paul Is 'Out To Lunch' On Foreign Policy

I'll add this little excerpt from propagandist rag paper "The Atlantic"

mv7_bor.jpg


Got News Wire
 
If you allow Rick Perry and his neo-con buddies run the air waves talking about going back to Iraq with no one to speak against it, how is it different from them not allowing Ron Paul to speak. Rand Paul as far as I can tell at the moment is the only talking AGAINST intervention and some of you want him to stay above the fray? WTF FOR??

Stay silent and let the warmongers drag our country back into war and let our hands get bloody again? FUCK NO! Somebody needs to speak up or else before you know it, we will be back in Iraq. The time where these warmongers get free reign over foreign policy decisions is over. People are gonna die. Now is the worst time to "stay above the fray."
 
twomp said:
If you allow Rick Perry and his neo-con buddies run the air waves talking about going back to Iraq with no one to speak against it, how is it different from them not allowing Ron Paul to speak. Rand Paul as far as I can tell at the moment is the only talking AGAINST intervention and some of you want him to stay above the fray? WTF FOR??

Stay silent and let the warmongers drag our country back into war and let our hands get bloody again? FUCK NO! Somebody needs to speak up or else before you know it, we will be back in Iraq. The time where these warmongers get free reign over foreign policy decisions is over. People are gonna die. Now is the worst time to "stay above the fray."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are addressing. His article should have focused more directly on that issue. That is my point.
 
newbitech said:
This sounds like Rand let one of the junior staffers handle his light work.

1.) The title of the piece is betrayed by the actual content.

2.) The first paragraph set an awfully childish tone.

3.) The second paragraph was just stupid to remark on, as if the two issues are incapable of being addressed side by side. It sounds as like Rand is scoffing at Ricks ability to juggle priorities for reasons I can't really figure out.

4.) The fourth paragraph can really be taken in a way to make it sound like Rand agrees with Obama foreign policy.

5.) More agreeing with Obama foreign policy in the fifth paragraph.

6.) Next couple paragraphs, more sounding like defending Obama

7.) Finally, Rand starts to make a case for the title when he begins to mention ISIS and American aid to the Syrian rebels. Ok, but then

8.) in the next paragraph we come right back to the child like theme of treating Rick Perry in a childish manner by making it "personal". I think Rand would have been better off to just ignore Rick Perry's opinions from the get go. No need to stoop to his level. none.

9.) Finally after already being somewhat bemused the first half of this piece, we get to the real crux of the matter. Rick Perry supports ground troops in Iraq, Rand Paul does not. That is really all that needed to be said.

10.) Later on in the piece I still get the sense of childish undertones and confusing rhetoric. Especially the last line. Rand made it a point early on to show where Rick Perry, Barrack Obama, and Rand Paul foreign policy is not so different.

Rand Paul's underlings would do well to make a little research on the topic of serial position effect. This is the biggest reason the comments section is so horribly negative. Just not a very well written piece IMO.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. I've been a pretty vocal supporter of Rand's strategy, but I fail to see the benefit in this. There are ways to respond to attacks and there are ways to get sloppy. This looks like sloppiness.
 
Here are some simple changes that could be made to Rand's article. With the exception of one word change, everything else is simple subtraction.

This would have been more effective, especially in gaining voters who might like both Perry and Rand (or who are on the fence about them in a head to head contest).

A bit more commentary on the fiscal consequences may have helped with the average GOP voter.

EDITED version
There are many things I like about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to address and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn’t even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster.

But the governor and I do have at least one major foreign policy difference, something Perry also conveniently fails to mention.

Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.

Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS? As everyone agrees, governor, there are no easy options.

Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.

I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Iraq.

The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and trillions of dollars in debt. Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered. America deserves this. Our military certainly deserves this.

This is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.

But above all, he was strong. America must always be strong.

Any future military action by the United States must always be based on an assessment of what has worked and what hasn’t. This basic, common sense precondition is something leaders in both parties have habitually failed to meet.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/rick-perry-is-dead-wrong-108860.html
Click to expand...

EDITED version with edit details
There are many things I like about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. But apparently his new glasses haven’t altered his perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to mischaracterize address and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

In fact, some of Perry’s solutions for the current chaos in Iraq aren’t much different from what I’ve proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also aren’t much different from President Barack Obama’s, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there aren’t that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq.

Perry says there are no good options. I’ve said the same thing. President Obama has said the same thing. So what are Perry’s solutions and why does he think they are so bold and different from anyone else’s?

He writes in the Washington Post, “the president can and must do more with our military and intelligence communities to help cripple the Islamic State. Meaningful assistance can include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sharing and airstrikes.”

The United States is actually doing all of this now. President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same option if it makes sense.

I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn’t even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster.

If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean I’m somehow “ignoring ISIS,” I’ll make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perry’s opinions.

But the governor and I do have at least one major foreign policy difference, something Perry also conveniently fails to mention.

Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.

Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS? As everyone agrees, governor, there are no easy options.

Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.

I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?

I will not hold my breath for an answer. If refusing to send Americans to die for a country that refuses to defend itself makes one an “isolationist,” then perhaps its time we finally retire that pejorative.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Iraq. Is Perry calling the entire country “isolationist” too?

The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and over trillions of dollars in debt. Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered. America deserves this. Our military certainly deserves this.

Tough talk like Perry’s might inspire some for the moment, but when bombast becomes policy it can have long and disastrous consequences. It is vitally important that we remember past mistakes so that we learn from them. When Megyn Kelly of Fox News tells Dick Cheney that “history has proven that you got it wrong” on Iraq, it is a very important lesson—we must remember that history so we don’t repeat it.

Perry seems entirely comfortable repeating the history, the rhetoric and presumably, the mistakes.

This is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.

But above all, he was strong. America must always be strong.

On foreign policy, Perry couldn’t be more stuck in the past, doubling down on formulas that haven’t worked, parroting rhetoric that doesn’t make sense and reinforcing petulant attitudes that have cost our nation a great deal.

If repeating the same mistakes over and over again is what Perry advocates in U.S. foreign policy, or any other policy, he really should run for president. In Washington, he’d fit right in, because leading Republicans and Democrats not only supported the Iraq war in the first place, but leaders of both parties campaigned on it in 2008.

Any future military action by the United States must always be based on an assessment of what has worked and what hasn’t. This basic, common sense precondition is something leaders in both parties have habitually failed to meet.

The governor of Texas insists on proving he’s no different.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/rick-perry-is-dead-wrong-108860.html
Click to expand...

Original version is here:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/rick-perry-is-dead-wrong-108860.html
 
Last edited:
newbitech said:
This sounds like Rand let one of the junior staffers handle his light work.

1.) The title of the piece is betrayed by the actual content.

2.) The first paragraph set an awfully childish tone.

3.) The second paragraph was just stupid to remark on, as if the two issues are incapable of being addressed side by side. It sounds as like Rand is scoffing at Ricks ability to juggle priorities for reasons I can't really figure out.

4.) The fourth paragraph can really be taken in a way to make it sound like Rand agrees with Obama foreign policy.

5.) More agreeing with Obama foreign policy in the fifth paragraph.

6.) Next couple paragraphs, more sounding like defending Obama

7.) Finally, Rand starts to make a case for the title when he begins to mention ISIS and American aid to the Syrian rebels. Ok, but then

8.) in the next paragraph we come right back to the child like theme of treating Rick Perry in a childish manner by making it "personal". I think Rand would have been better off to just ignore Rick Perry's opinions from the get go. No need to stoop to his level. none.

9.) Finally after already being somewhat bemused the first half of this piece, we get to the real crux of the matter. Rick Perry supports ground troops in Iraq, Rand Paul does not. That is really all that needed to be said.

10.) Later on in the piece I still get the sense of childish undertones and confusing rhetoric. Especially the last line. Rand made it a point early on to show where Rick Perry, Barrack Obama, and Rand Paul foreign policy is not so different.

Rand Paul's underlings would do well to make a little research on the topic of serial position effect. This is the biggest reason the comments section is so horribly negative. Just not a very well written piece IMO.
Click to expand...

maybe it could be improved but really I think it was fine. Perry called him out by name 10 times in his op-ed and smeared Rand as an 'isolationist'. So what if Rand made a remark about his glasses, not really that big of a big deal in comparison. The Perry supporters that are butthurt aren't even going to remember this 2 years from now. I think the op-ed was very good on substance and that was a nice find digging up a quote from 2012 to use Perry's owns words against him. There is always room for improvement but I think the critique is overblown.
 
Now would be a good time for Rand to have a fundraiser to help "rally the base" in response to the Establishment/Neocon/Perry attacks...

Just sayin

And we should start doing everything we can to get people back on these boards so we can better respond to the kinds of attacks we are seeing from the Perry lackeys today
 
jct74 said:
maybe it could be improved but really I think it was fine. Perry called him out by name 10 times in his op-ed and smeared Rand as an 'isolationist'. So what if Rand made a remark about his glasses, not really that big of a big deal in comparison. The Perry supporters that are butthurt aren't even going to remember this 2 years from now. I think the op-ed was very good on substance and that was a nice find digging up a quote from 2012 to use Perry's owns words against him. There is always room for improvement but I think the critique is overblown.
Click to expand...

We've all done a good job of eroding the isolation pejorative, but not by making daft comments like this article has made. I read what Rick Perry wrote about Rand. I can tell that by the way Rick called Rand and "isolationist or whatever he wants to call it", that the pejorative has lost it's attack value.

There was a lot of junk in Rand's response that served no real purpose. I stand by Rand, I agree for the most part with his foreign policy approach, although I do think it is much more mild than what I have come to expect from someone named "Paul". I am perfectly fine with Rand's foreign policy rhetoric.

There is a good reason Rand got the backlash over his response. He went way out of his way to belittle Rick Perry personally. The attack on Rand's foreign policy is in full swing, and mixing that personal attack against Perry (which was way more personal than anything Perry said about Rand), and domestic issue of borders, just muddied up the waters.

To me it's more like Rand stepped in a pile of crap. He will be able to easily rinse himself off, but I don't think it's a good idea to keep stepping in it. I get that he wants to engage in the debate.

Why not make a gesture to the Texas governor in an official capacity and have a discussion about foreign policy along the Texas border in light of the recent administration policy failures? That would seem like a more mature, professional, dignified approach to answering his critiques rather than freaking out over some tired politician like Perry using tired meme's like "isolationist".

I mean no big deal, if Rand feels like taking on every primary figure that utters his name and the word isolationist in the same sentence, go for it. I just think that ignores the remarkable work that we've all done in making that word not really mean what people thinks it means when referring to a non-interventionist policy.

Sort of like he's afraid of the word for no good reason, gives the other crap that Perry and others of the new "Tyranny is Freedom Republican" wing more credit and air time than it deserves. Let them stew in their own vomit if the best you can do is call them four eyes and say you will ignore their opinion while not ignoring their opinion.

My opinion of course, it's not all bad, but the reaction from fence sitters and anti-Rands was obvious, as is the dog pile that followed on after Perry seemed to have touched a nerve and the response was somewhat lackluster.
 
LibertyEsq said:
Now would be a good time for Rand to have a fundraiser to help "rally the base" in response to the Establishment/Neocon/Perry attacks...

Just sayin

And we should start doing everything we can to get people back on these boards so we can better respond to the kinds of attacks we are seeing from the Perry lackeys today
Click to expand...

I think once Rand announces, people will come back. The 2016 version of the rEVOLution will dwarf the 2008 and 2012 version. Till then, we expected these attacks to come and we have never been shy to bite back. I expect no less this time around.
 
Actually, there is a good solution, Rand. Stop arming both sides of all of these middle east wars. I honestly wasn't that blown away by his article since he doesn't speak at all about the CIA arming ISIS, AQ and most of the other "extremists" we're supposedly fighting against. I'm hoping that's he just playing the game, not tipping his hand, and saving such truth bombs for the actual campaign when they will really make a splash.

Let Perry (and the rest of the hawks) just flail around wildly at Rand's latest poll numbers but always remember that the biggest thing that separated Ron from the pack was that he wasn't afraid to (mostly) tell it like it is.
 
devil21 said:
Actually, there is a good solution, Rand. Stop arming both sides of all of these middle east wars. I honestly wasn't that blown away by his article since he doesn't speak at all about the CIA arming ISIS, AQ and most of the other "extremists" we're supposedly fighting against. I'm hoping that's he just playing the game, not tipping his hand, and saving such truth bombs for the actual campaign when they will really make a splash.

Let Perry (and the rest of the hawks) just flail around wildly at Rand's latest poll numbers but always remember that the biggest thing that separated Ron from the pack was that he wasn't afraid to (mostly) tell it like it is.
Click to expand...

But he did mention that we armed ISIS in Syria, didn't he?

Anyway, I'm not going to be too picky with how Rand wants to convey his message. It's not every day libertarians have a front-runner for the nomination of a major party
 
I still crack up that Mr. Oops is wearing glasses now. Because that makes him look smarter.
 
devil21 said:
Actually, there is a good solution, Rand. Stop arming both sides of all of these middle east wars. I honestly wasn't that blown away by his article since he doesn't speak at all about the CIA arming ISIS, AQ and most of the other "extremists" we're supposedly fighting against. I'm hoping that's he just playing the game, not tipping his hand, and saving such truth bombs for the actual campaign when they will really make a splash.

Let Perry (and the rest of the hawks) just flail around wildly at Rand's latest poll numbers but always remember that the biggest thing that separated Ron from the pack was that he wasn't afraid to (mostly) tell it like it is.
Click to expand...

Did you read it?

I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn’t even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster. ~Rand Paul
Click to expand...
 
William Tell said:
Did you read it?
Click to expand...

I did and that statement is just beating around the bush. No mention of the CIA's role in controlling this entire thing, says they're "allied" with ISIS, which is bs because it actually is ISIS, which is actually Al friggin Qaeda (you know the people that were the excuse to start this entire mess in the first place) and it's been going on for a long, long time. No mention of the "bigger picture" at play (going after Syria....CIA inciting it all) and the real meat of the issue that most of this is initiated, controlled and executed by our own intelligence services. I should have been more clear in my post about what my real gripe is.
 
Last edited:
devil21 said:
I did and that statement is just beating around the bush. No mention of the CIA's role in controlling this entire thing, says they're "allied" with ISIS, which is bs because it actually is ISIS, which is actually Al friggin Qaeda (you know the people that were the excuse to start this entire mess in the first place) and it's been going on for a long, long time. No mention of the "bigger picture" at play (going after Syria....CIA inciting it all) and the real meat of the issue that most of this is initiated, controlled and executed by our own intelligence services. I should have been more clear in my post about what my real gripe is.
Click to expand...

He's not going to say that. Any one who wants to be POTUS is not going to say that in public.
 
CPUd said:
He's not going to say that. Any one who wants to be POTUS is not going to say that in public.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it sure as hell would shut Perry's dumb ass up :D I'm hoping Rand is saving the more dirty details for debates. Continuing to hide the REAL reason for all of this is a form of complicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Ron Paul Country is Now Occupied Territory
Replies
1
Views
206
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Swordsmyth
Dreams of the Dark Bill of Rights
Replies
0
Views
2K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Anti Federalist
Biden secretly flying underage migrants into NY in dead of night
Replies
0
Views
272
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
V
Rand Paul vs Lindsey Graham is "helping to shape conservative foreign policy."
Replies
7
Views
2K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Anti Federalist
When complex systems fall apart because there is no one qualified to operate them
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
20K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Back
Top