Rand Paul: Republicans Are "Too Eager For War"...

[paulitician]

One of the very few Politicians worth listening to.


On the Sunday morning television shows this past weekend—against the backdrop of an Iraq in flames—former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continued their ongoing feud and the battle for the (national security) soul of the Republican Party. In recent months, as Mother Jones has reported that Paul in 2009 accused Cheney of using 9/11 as an excuse to launch the Iraq invasion to benefit Halliburton (the corporation Cheney once led) and called on the GOP to disassociate itself with the former vice president, Cheney's allies have slammed the senator for expressing reckless positions.

During a private speech in March, without mentioning Paul by name, Cheney contended that Paul's skepticism about US intervention abroad would endanger the United States. On ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Cheney explicitly assailed Paul as "basically an isolationist"—a term of profound derision in the neocon wing of the GOP.

Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Paul was asked if Cheney could be considered a credible critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, and Paul, without saying Cheney's name, replied, "The same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq war. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That's what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable?...They didn't really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out." This was obviously a jab at the former vice president.

It was only a year ago that Paul described the Republican Party as overly enthusiastic for war. During a little-noticed interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, Paul remarked, "Part of Republicans' problems—and frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement—I think [they] have appeared too eager for war." This was a stark assessment of his own party...

More:
Rand Paul: Republicans Are "Too Eager for War" | Mother Jones
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

 

[shart_attack]

In other news today:

• The Pope is Catholic.
• Standing in the rain will not get your clothes dry.
• What goes up into the sky will not stay up in the sky.

 

[occupied]

They are tired of jerking off to the same old gun camera footage, they want some fresh explosion porn.

 

[Kosh]

Sorry using a far left blog site like mother jones is not a way to get your point across.

Although the far left will believe it without question or hesitation.

 

[paulitician]

They are tired of jerking off to the same old gun camera footage, they want some fresh explosion porn.

War Porn is incredibly popular on the Internets. Some can spend several hours viewing it. Not sure why, but some really do love it.

 

[paulitician]

Sorry using a far left blog site like mother jones is not a way to get your point across.

Although the far left will believe it without question or hesitation.

I'm ok with some on the Left supporting Rand Paul. Some of his positions do cross ideological-lines. A true Liberal would actually respect him. Now, hardcore Communists/Progressives are probably a different story. I have no problem with his message reaching across lines. I think that's what makes him very appealing.

 

[U2Edge]

One of the very few Politicians worth listening to.


On the Sunday morning television shows this past weekend—against the backdrop of an Iraq in flames—former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continued their ongoing feud and the battle for the (national security) soul of the Republican Party. In recent months, as Mother Jones has reported that Paul in 2009 accused Cheney of using 9/11 as an excuse to launch the Iraq invasion to benefit Halliburton (the corporation Cheney once led) and called on the GOP to disassociate itself with the former vice president, Cheney's allies have slammed the senator for expressing reckless positions.

During a private speech in March, without mentioning Paul by name, Cheney contended that Paul's skepticism about US intervention abroad would endanger the United States. On ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Cheney explicitly assailed Paul as "basically an isolationist"—a term of profound derision in the neocon wing of the GOP.

Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Paul was asked if Cheney could be considered a credible critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, and Paul, without saying Cheney's name, replied, "The same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq war. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That's what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable?...They didn't really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out." This was obviously a jab at the former vice president.

It was only a year ago that Paul described the Republican Party as overly enthusiastic for war. During a little-noticed interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, Paul remarked, "Part of Republicans' problems—and frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement—I think [they] have appeared too eager for war." This was a stark assessment of his own party...

More:
Rand Paul: Republicans Are "Too Eager for War" | Mother Jones
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

If Rand Paul were ever to become the Republicans nominee for President, I would for the first time in my life, vote for the Democrat. Rand Paul does not understand the national security interest of the United States and what threatens it. Thank God Saddam was removed before he rebuilt his chemical weapons capability. Who in their right mind would think that it would be better, easier and less costly to remove Saddam once he had chemical weapons. After the first Gulf War, the United States objectives in the Persian Gulf involved PREVENTING Saddam from every getting a chemical weapons capability again, and given that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Saddam had collapsed, the only means of doing that was removing his regime from power.

 

[paulitician]

One of the very few Politicians worth listening to.


On the Sunday morning television shows this past weekend—against the backdrop of an Iraq in flames—former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continued their ongoing feud and the battle for the (national security) soul of the Republican Party. In recent months, as Mother Jones has reported that Paul in 2009 accused Cheney of using 9/11 as an excuse to launch the Iraq invasion to benefit Halliburton (the corporation Cheney once led) and called on the GOP to disassociate itself with the former vice president, Cheney's allies have slammed the senator for expressing reckless positions.

During a private speech in March, without mentioning Paul by name, Cheney contended that Paul's skepticism about US intervention abroad would endanger the United States. On ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Cheney explicitly assailed Paul as "basically an isolationist"—a term of profound derision in the neocon wing of the GOP.

Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Paul was asked if Cheney could be considered a credible critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, and Paul, without saying Cheney's name, replied, "The same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq war. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That's what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable?...They didn't really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out." This was obviously a jab at the former vice president.

It was only a year ago that Paul described the Republican Party as overly enthusiastic for war. During a little-noticed interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, Paul remarked, "Part of Republicans' problems—and frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement—I think [they] have appeared too eager for war." This was a stark assessment of his own party...

More:
Rand Paul: Republicans Are "Too Eager for War" | Mother Jones
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

If Rand Paul were ever to become the Republicans nominee for President, I would for the first time in my life, vote for the Democrat. Rand Paul does not understand the national security interest of the United States and what threatens it. Thank God Saddam was removed before he rebuilt his chemical weapons capability. Who in their right mind would think that it would be better, easier and less costly to remove Saddam once he had chemical weapons. After the first Gulf War, the United States objectives in the Persian Gulf involved PREVENTING Saddam from every getting a chemical weapons capability again, and given that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Saddam had collapsed, the only means of doing that was removing his regime from power.

Really, you'd rather vote for a Democrat than Rand Paul? Not very sound reasoning in my opinion.