Rand Paul Blames GOP Hawks for Rise of ISIS

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Sometimes Rand so gets it. This is The guy who won't stand for the Patriot act being renewed. I wish he was more consistent with these thoughts and not change them for whatever audience he's in front of. Go on Fox News and say this to the crazies. Don't back off. Say it in the Republican debates. THIS Rand Paul is the one I'd support for POTUS, and his last sentence is so right on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-rise-isis-31339650

WASHINGTON — May 27, 2015, 4:08 PM ET
By STEVE PEOPLES Associated Press





WireAP_08fd143664274ad785b6970ea1953b45_16x9_992.jpg
Spanish soldiers prepare to participate in a training mission with an Iraqi army soldier, left, outside Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, May 27, 2015. Islamic State extremists unleashed a wave of suicide attacks targeting the Iraqi army in western Anbar... View Full Caption The Associated Press




AP_logo_update_20130709.gif


Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.
The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP's foreign policy hawks "created these people." That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.
The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.
"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved — they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."
Foreign policy has emerged as a central debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Many of Paul's Republican colleagues have offered aggressive rhetoric, but few specifics when asked about IS.
Paul favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the U.S. policy behind drone strikes. It all makes him something of an outlier on foreign policy and national security in the GOP field.
He stood apart from many in his party in opposing U.S. military action in Syria before the ascension of the Islamic State.
Sensitive to being branded an isolationist in the race, he has scaled back some of his positions, no longer calling for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, for example, and no longer proposing the elimination of foreign aid, including to Israel.
On the Islamic State, he wants coalitions of Arab troops — instead of U.S. troops — to take the lead on the ground.
Paul's comments also underscore the challenge for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother launched the invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago.
Jeb Bush faced pointed questions recently from a college student in Nevada who said former President George W. Bush "created ISIS."
The younger Bush does not blame his brother, but instead accuses the Obama administration of creating a void by withdrawing American forces, creating a vacuum in Iraq that was ultimately filled by the Islamic State group.
Jindal described Paul's comments as "a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be commander in chief."
"We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position," Jindal said. "We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it."
In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.
"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.
 

Rx Alchemist.
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,342
Tokens
LOL. if it wasn't for you pussy Progressives there would be no ISIS. The GOP Hawks would have wiped them out.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Yeah, republicans werent happy just ruining the country economically.

bush and republicans made ISIS possible.....

the damage caused by the Republican Party since 2000 can't even be calculated at this point. Off the chart kind of stuff.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
9,660
Tokens
Yeah, republicans werent happy just ruining the country economically.

bush and republicans made ISIS possible.....

the damage caused by the Republican Party since 2000 can't even be calculated at this point. Off the chart kind of stuff.

Goes back to the Clinton era
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
does this mean libtard nation thinks Rand Paul is smart now?

just wondering
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
Chip off the old Douchebag.

LOL

and I love Paul's fiscal message (and fiscal responsibility / smaller government is my number one issue) , and I like his position on drugs, but it pretty much ends there
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
does this mean libtard nation thinks Rand Paul is smart now?

just wondering

I think Rand Paul has demonstrated himself to be a legit candidate. i can see many on the left supporting, I just can't see him winning the Repub primary. He's a different kind of outside conservative than someone like Romney. Amazingly Repubs in the General select competitive candidates and laugh at all the candidates we laugh at. That's good news for the party.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
I'll vote Rand. He doesn't flip on his ideas, he's just taken out of context a lot in the left and right media. The only two possible solutions to Iraq, is dividing it up into three states, or occupy it for the foreseeable future. Any one that understands this region knows this, and both parties are to blame here. Bush tried to keep it as one state, while having an exit strategy which helped create ISIS, and the left got us out without dividing it into three states. Now we have to wipe out ISIS before we can have that three state solution. Paul's all for getting rid of ISIS, he just wants to see boots from arab world on the ground.

Of course had we never gone in Iraq would still be keeping the balance against Iran.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
Rands the only one that can win in the General, because he's independents rapped up. The other guys will get smoked. I see Rand winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, maybe Louisana and Colorado, but those are probably the only states he will get.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Rands the only one that can win in the General, because he's independents rapped up. The other guys will get smoked. I see Rand winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, maybe Louisana and Colorado, but those are probably the only states he will get.

Can he get through the repub primary?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
Can he get through the repub primary?

Probably not, he's popular in the States that have small populations. The big State like California, Florida, New York, like Bush and Rubio. The only good thing for him is that there's a big field that will dilute the neo and social conservative vote, while Paul will have the 10-20% Libertarian vote all to himself. The longer everyone stays in the better his chances. He'll take Iowa and New Hampshire which may give him a boost but probably not big enough to take a big State.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
I'll vote Rand. He doesn't flip on his ideas, he's just taken out of context a lot in the left and right media. The only two possible solutions to Iraq, is dividing it up into three states, or occupy it for the foreseeable future. Any one that understands this region knows this, and both parties are to blame here. Bush tried to keep it as one state, while having an exit strategy which helped create ISIS, and the left got us out without dividing it into three states. Now we have to wipe out ISIS before we can have that three state solution. Paul's all for getting rid of ISIS, he just wants to see boots from arab world on the ground.

Of course had we never gone in Iraq would still be keeping the balance against Iran.

Absolutely. I LOVE Rand's foreign Policy, when he sticks to it. I disagree that he doesn't flip, because I've seen him flip, in his own words, through no filter. But if he finally gets it and sticks to it for good, and stands out from every other one of the 20 Repubs he's gonna run against, with a sane Foreign Policy, sane NSA policy, sane Drug Policy, even though I'll disagree with him on lots of other issues, I'll #standwithrand. He picked up lots of votes with his stance against The Patriot act. If he can get to the general, he's the one candidate who can use Iraq against Hillary. Of course, he needs to stay far away from the goofy stuff like Benghazi, which he has a hard time doing.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,615
Tokens
ISIS will always exist in one form or another (whether it's called ISIS, Al-Qaeda or anything else) and no President will do anything about it.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
He tried to get a bill to declare war on ISIS out of principle, that that's the way we should go about going to war, which got taken a s a flip, but they left out that he wanted Arab boots on the ground fighting the ground war. It's their region , and they should be doing the bulk of the fighting with our help. Really he's against what got us in the mess, and thinks the Hawks are to blame, but also thinks that ISIS needs to be eliminated. The hawk's way has been failure after failure in the middle east, because they don't understand the culture there.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
ISIS will always exist in one form or another (whether it's called ISIS, Al-Qaeda or anything else) and no President will do anything about it.

True but they shouldn't be allowed to have their own State. The Sunnis got screwed in the one state solution, which is why ISIS has so much support when they came into the picture. Sunnis and Shiites hate each other with a passion. Sunnis should have their own piece of the country, but that piece should not include ISIS leadership.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
Mr. Paul is intelligent enough, and his misreading of recent Middle Eastern history is so flagrant, that he might be trying to deflect attention from his own misjudgments. In Mr. Obama’s second term, the U.S. has largely followed Mr. Paul’s foreign-affairs preferences to the letter, and the result has been more chaos and disorder.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
The origins of the Islamic State are al Qaeda in Iraq, or the post-Saddam Hussein insurgency that suffered a near-total defeat amid General David Petraeus’s surge and the Sunni Awakening. The weak guerilla remnants of that organization survived on the peripheries of Iraq and Syria between 2008 and 2011 and then filled the security vacuum that Mr. Obama left behind by withdrawing all U.S. forces.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,883
Messages
13,574,674
Members
100,882
Latest member
topbettor24
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com