Rand Paul: ISIL exists because of GOP hawks.............

It seems that Rand Paul isn't blaming Obama or Jr. on the creation of ISIL, but rather the GOP hawks who voted for war and sent over weapons indiscriminately to arm the rebels.

Rand Paul ISIS exists...because of hawks in the GOP - CBS News

And now...............instead of sniping at Obama or Hillary, the other GOP candidates are turning on Paul.

Let's put it another way:

ISIS still exists because this democratic administration is unwilling to destroy them. Cowardice never wins a war.
 
Global-Warn-600-LA.jpg
 
Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. Everyday Rand moves further away from his father. Wanting to take military action against ISIS, for example.
I have seen no indication of that he is no mre serious about taking military action against ISIS than Obama is. He might talk that way in a Republican primary but that's as far as it would go.
Of course it's just a talking point that Obama is do-nothing President in terms of foreign policy, and I'm not even sure what you're saying with that double-negative.
 
Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.

It's one of the few good qualities either of them has.
If you consider burying your head in the sand a good quality then I guess so.

Name the isolationist nations of the world that have met their downfall because of it.
Most of Europe would have been under the control of Nazi Germany and Russia if the United States had not dropped the silly isolationist mindset after Pearl Harbor. Pretty every nation they conqured had the same mindset if it's not us being attacked it's not our problem in other words isolationist.
More likely that Stalin and Hitler would've kept each other in check.
 
Because they supported the policy and voted to fund it. Obviously.

So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.

You contention is that all the Republicans are Hawks, except Paul? Really?

More then one Republican did support the President and more then one Democrat did also. The vote was bipartisan no need for a super majority.
No, and I wouldn't discount Rand being a hawk. He wants to take military action against ISIS after all. What I said was that I could count the members of Congress who aren't hawks on one hand.

The President is in charge of the military, period. Congress declares war but have not for 70 years. All they really control are the purse strings and they seldom, if ever, not give the president what he wants, in that regard.
So in other words they're just as responsible. Thanks for making my point.
 
Maybe he thinks he can jump aboard the democrat anti-Bush train but I think Senator Paul cut his own libertarian throat with that comment.
Yes, so moderate wanting to arm a group one day and declaring them the world's greatest evil the next.


Umm, about 36% of democrats (including Hillary) voted for the resolution. Is it alleged that the Hussein administration abandoning the Iraqi people was Bush's fault? Bill Clinton gave North Korea nuclear technology because he thought it would civilize the regime and give Bubba Bill a legacy. It didn't work. Bill Clinton sold China ICBM technology against the advice of U.S. intelligence but he made a buck. The ignorant progs are worried that ISIS might use U.S. vehicles when the U.S. has the greatest air power on the planet? Only a freaking idiot prog would worry about ISIS armor.
Look, another person thinking deflecting about how Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans is a relevant point. You'll find no argument from me, but it hardly excuses the Republicans.
 
So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.

You contention is that all the Republicans are Hawks, except Paul? Really?

More then one Republican did support the President and more then one Democrat did also. The vote was bipartisan no need for a super majority.
No, and I wouldn't discount Rand being a hawk. He wants to take military action against ISIS after all. What I said was that I could count the members of Congress who aren't hawks on one hand.

The President is in charge of the military, period. Congress declares war but have not for 70 years. All they really control are the purse strings and they seldom, if ever, not give the president what he wants, in that regard.
So in other words they're just as responsible. Thanks for making my point.

Just like democrats were responsible for Iraq, especially Mrs. Clinton.
 
Rand Paul: ISIL exists because of GOP hawks.............

It floors me when a con tells the truth. Kudos. 9/11 happened because of the GOP. They created Al Qaeda, and now Blackwater is training ISIS and supplying them with weapons.
It doesn't floor me when a partisan hack only blames one group of politicians when they've all been following the same policies for decades.
Me neither, that's why I'm an INDEPENDENT.
Uh huh, which is why you place all the blame on Republicans.
 
As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.

You contention is that all the Republicans are Hawks, except Paul? Really?

More then one Republican did support the President and more then one Democrat did also. The vote was bipartisan no need for a super majority.
No, and I wouldn't discount Rand being a hawk. He wants to take military action against ISIS after all. What I said was that I could count the members of Congress who aren't hawks on one hand.

The President is in charge of the military, period. Congress declares war but have not for 70 years. All they really control are the purse strings and they seldom, if ever, not give the president what he wants, in that regard.
So in other words they're just as responsible. Thanks for making my point.

Just like democrats were responsible for Iraq, especially Mrs. Clinton.
You keep deflecting and trying to make this point as if I'm disagreeing with you. Of course Hillary is responsible for Iraq. Again, quit dumbing yourself down with partisanship and make a relevant point.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top