Ted Cruz: The Most Hawkish of Them All?

[twomp]

The nation’s foreign policy is “a manifest disaster.”

Its approach to cutting a deal with Iran on nuclear development is “catastrophically reckless.”

Its policy on assisting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia is “incoherent.”

This White House is home to the “most hostile administration to Israel in modern times.”

That’s Sen. Ted Cruz’s scathing assessment of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, a blistering critique that is positioning him as the most blazingly hawkish Republican to potentially run for president in 2016. He also tellingly dubbed it “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy,” a subtle hint that he’d lob much of the same argument against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she seeks the White House.

The Texas Republican spoke at a pair of foreign policy events in Washington this week, appearing before the Concerned Veterans for America on Tuesday and at the Foreign Policy Initiative conference Wednesday.

In a 45-minute conversation with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz called for a larger defense budget, accused the Democratic administration of using politics to drive Pentagon decisions and cited what he viewed as “repeated mistakes.”

“It seems the whole world is on fire right now,” he said.

Regarding Iran, Cruz said the administration is repeating the mistakes of former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, when he decided to relax sanctions on North Korea. North Korea subsequently made progress on its nuclear program.

“And yet the administration seems hellbent on pursuing a fool-hearted deal just for the sake of the deal,” he said of its approach to Iran.

He also said he thought the Obama administration’s response to the crisis in Ukraine has been feckless.

“I don’t think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a complicated man. He’s a KGB thug,” Cruz said.

Cruz took a more open-minded approach to Obama’s likely pick of Ashton Carter as the next secretary of defense. He said he did not know Carter, a former top Pentagon official, but noted he “has a good reputation.” Cruz voted against the confirmation of outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, but declined to pile on his resignation, instead making a broader point about the cohesiveness of American foreign policy.

“It is not encouraging that in six years now, we’re now on to our fourth secretary of defense, particularly at a time when the world has gotten more and more dangerous,” he said.

Other potential GOP candidates for president also have been making a point of outlining their foreign policy visions.

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said in a speech on Tuesday that U.S. policy is “creating greater instability and greater unraveling” of the world.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has acknowledged he’s attempting to forge a third way on foreign policy, advocating a less hawkish approach that also recognizes emerging threats.

"I will admit to being different from other Republicans and Democrats," Paul told a gathering of business executives in Washington on Tuesday. “To those Republicans who love a Republican intervention, Iraq's worse off now. Do you think we're better or worse off with [Saddam] Hussein gone?"

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/12/03/ted-cruz-the-most-hawkish-of-them-all

 

[Krugminator2]

Hanging out with Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Sheldon Adelson will fry your brain. Cruz is quickly becoming totally unacceptable.

 

[invisible]

Damn, is he trying to outdo peter king?

 

[thoughtomator]

Sometimes I think Cruz is just trolling the neocons. His FP stances are much much more entertaining if you look at them that way.

 

[mosquitobite]

Hanging out with Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Sheldon Adelson will fry your brain. Cruz is quickly becoming totally unacceptable.

amen

 

[Brett85]

Oh well. Cruz has no chance to win the GOP nomination anyway.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh well. Cruz has no chance to win the GOP nomination anyway.

Why so sure?

 

[William Tell]

Why so sure?

I think he's right, Ted Cruz has no major wing in his corner, except for Tea Party Twitter warriors. His record is not liberal enough for the pro Israel donors he needs to fund his campaign.

 

[TaftFan]

No, I don't think so. Rhetoric wise he is up there, but not policy wise.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Texas Republican spoke at a pair of foreign policy events in Washington this week, appearing before the Concerned Veterans for America on Tuesday and at the Foreign Policy Initiative conference Wednesday.

In a 45-minute conversation with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz called for a larger defense budget, accused the Democratic administration of using politics to drive Pentagon decisions and cited what he viewed as “repeated mistakes.”

You can't go much more neoconservative than Bill Kristol and the Foreign Policy Initiative. That is neocon central:

The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East and other global hotspots. The group is similar in its aims and operations to an earlier neoconservative advocacy initiative, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a now defunct letterhead organization associated with the American Enterprise Institute that played an important role pushing for the U.S. invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[1]
...
FPI's board of directors includes four individuals who were closely associated with the Bush administration's "war on terror" policies: Robert Kagan and William Kristol, who cofounded PNAC and were high-profile proponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq; investment banker Dan Senor, a former Bush administration spokesman in Iraq and lead foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney; and career diplomat Eric Edelman.[3]

FPI's executive director is Chris Griffin, a former staffer for Sen. Joe Lieberman. Among its staff members are: Ellen Bork, daughter of former Supreme Court Justice nominee Robert Bork and former acting director of the Project for the New American Century; the neoconservative writer Jamie Kirchick; and policy director Robert Zarate, a frequent Weekly Standard contributor and a proponent of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.[4] FPI was previously directed by Jamie Fly, who left the group in January 2013 to become an adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).[5]
...
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

 

[twomp]

No, I don't think so. Rhetoric wise he is up there, but not policy wise.

And you know this how? Has the Senate voted on any policies that you are basing this on? Or are you making shit up as usual?

 

[cindy25]

except for Rand, they are pretty much the same. maybe Kasish in between Rand and the others. but I don't see any difference between Cruz, or Huck or Jeb, or Perry.

 

[TaftFan]

And you know this how? Has the Senate voted on any policies that you are basing this on? Or are you making shit up as usual?

Neg rep for hostility and ignorance.

To answer though:
Cruz's position on Syrian intervention was in support of a narrow mission to secure chemical weapons, not a full blown invasion. He thinks we got too involved and stayed too long in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also doesn't believe in sacrificing civil liberties due to war (for the most part and as far as I know) and believes Congress must declare war.

So while Cruz is vocally bombastic on foreign policy, as with everything else, policywise he is nothing like the neoconservatives.

 

[Brett85]

Why so sure?

The GOP has never nominated the most unelectable candidate, at least not in the last 50 years. Cruz does at least 5% worse against Clinton than any of the other Republicans running.

I don't think Rand has the same problem, because he's established himself as someone who's solidly conservative but is also electable. He has a lot of crossover appeal with independents and Democrats.

 

[twomp]

Neg rep for hostility and ignorance.

To answer though:
Cruz's position on Syrian intervention was in support of a narrow mission to secure chemical weapons, not a full blown invasion. He thinks we got too involved and stayed too long in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also doesn't believe in sacrificing civil liberties due to war (for the most part and as far as I know) and believes Congress must declare war.

So while Cruz is vocally bombastic on foreign policy, as with everything else, policywise he is nothing like the neoconservatives.

Oh please, you are saying all this talk is just rhetoric then the examples you give out about his policies are rhetoric as well? Was there a vote on Syria? No. So all that is rhetoric. How do you even send in troops into another country without considering that an invasion anyways? So I ask again, what has he voted on that shows his policy because the only evidence that you have of him not being a neo-con himself is rhetoric...

 

[twomp]

more rhetoric??

Ted Cruz: Joe Lieberman for Defense secretary

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a person in mind to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel: Joe Lieberman.

Cruz floated the former Connecticut independent senator as a “strong” option to succeed Hagel, who announced his resignation earlier Monday. President Barack Obama has not yet named a proposed replacement.

“One strong option would be former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a member of the president’s own party with deep experience and unshakable commitment to the security of the United States,” Cruz said. “I urge the president to give him full and fair consideration for this critical position.”
Lieberman, who retired from Congress in 2012, was known for his hawkish views on foreign policy that he shared with Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three men were dubbed the Three Amigos.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...n-defense-secretary-113146.html#ixzz3LHFzd2ZG

 

[Brett85]

I'm listening to it now. On defense spending, his answer wasn't quite as bad as the article made it sound. He basically made it sound like more money should be spent on legitimate defense spending, but money should be saved by getting rid of pork and waste in the defense budget. He's certainly not as good as Rand on that issue to be sure, but someone like Dick Cheney likely wouldn't admit that there's any waste in the defense budget at all.

 

[Brett85]

On everything else he sounds really bad though, especially Iran. "Iran is going to nuke LA or New York City." Lol.

 

[TaftFan]

Oh please, you are saying all this talk is just rhetoric then the examples you give out about his policies are rhetoric as well? Was there a vote on Syria? No. So all that is rhetoric. How do you even send in troops into another country without considering that an invasion anyways? So I ask again, what has he voted on that shows his policy because the only evidence that you have of him not being a neo-con himself is rhetoric...

Ok, I'll grant you it is rhetoric. But it is policy rhetoric, as opposed to "I stand with Israel" or "Iran is a grave danger" rhetoric. That isn't policy, more like abstract statements, which Cruz likes to do.

The policies he supports-and I am not saying they are non-interventionist-are also not neoconservative.

 

[TaftFan]

Look, whereas Dick Cheney would like to overthrow Assad and attempt nation building in Syria, Ted Cruz would send the Air Force in and destroy their weapons stockpile.

Both are interventionist, but one is neoconservative (or "Wilsonian") and the other is more "Jacksonian". Walter Russell Meade's paradigm is worth looking into: http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/2013/10/walter-russell-meads-interesting.html