Neocon Cesar Conda: "Is Ken Buck a Rand Paul on National Security? One is enough."

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.politico.com/arena/
Cesar Conda Former domestic policy advisor to Vice President Cheney :


Is Ken Buck a “Rand Paul” on national security?

Earlier in the year, when Dr. Rand Paul was running in the GOP primary for Kentucky’s U.S. Senate seat, many conservatives (including yours truly) raised questions about Dr. Paul’s strange and troubling positions on important national security matters, especially on the global war on terror. For instance, on terror suspects held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Paul once said, “They should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or, to tell you the truth, I’d drop them back off into battle.…You’re unclear, drop ’em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here” (speaking in Paducah, Ky., May 8, 2009).

On Iraq in an interview on “Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton” in May 2009, Paul said: “Yeah, I say not ‘out of Iraq now,’ I say ‘out of Iraq two or three years ago’ — or ‘never go in,’ even better. But I think that when you get out the only thing that you need to propose and that people will accept is that you do it in an orderly fashion.” Had America followed Rand Paul’s advice, Iraq would not be the country it is today – a free and stable country in the Middle East that is no longer threatening its neighbors.
Reduce...

In Colorado, GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck is doing his best to channel Ron Paul. Buck has said that terrorists have done a “cost-benefit analysis,” and are unlikely to attack America again. On Afghanistan, Buck suggests checklists and timetables for withdrawal instead of committing to victory, no matter how long it takes. Buck said in a June 29 interview: “I have pretty clearly laid out my position on Afghanistan. I don’t think we should be in the business of nation-building. I think we make a mistake when we think we can transform a tribal nation into a Western-style democracy. We will be there for decades, spend billions of dollars and lose thousands of lives, if that’s our goal. I think what we need to do is make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. We need to make sure we do our best to disrupt and dismantle the drug flow out of Afghanistan, primarily poppy and heroin flow. I think we need to promote regional stability in Central Asia. Once we’ve accomplished those goals, I think we need to maintain a minimal force and I think we need to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan.”

In a recent Colorado U.S. Senate debate with his primary opponent former Colorado Attorney General Jane Norton, Mr. Buck denied saying that he "had a timetable or that we should withdraw. I think it’s irresponsible to do that. I’ve set some goals that are clear and definable. We need to have an exit strategy in Afghanistan.”

Like President Barack Obama, Ken Buck just cannot bring himself to use the word “victory” when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. By contrast, Ms. Norton declares: “Terrorists aren't taught the tools of 'cost benefit analysis' at terror training camps; terrorists are taught to kill American citizens. This critical juncture is not the time to waffle back and forth on a timetable for retreat in Afghanistan. The brave men and women of our fighting forces are committed to dismantling the insurgency.”

We need Republicans in the United States Senate like Jane Norton who understand the serious threat to America posed by terrorists, and have an unwavering commitment to do whatever it takes to defeat them.

One Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate is more than enough.

[Anti Federalist]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/54f35755e98d8a7a11911350d579bd8ed033c6a.gif

[malkusm]

Buck said in a June 29 interview: "I have pretty clearly laid out my position on Afghanistan. I don’t think we should be in the business of nation-building. I think we make a mistake when we think we can transform a tribal nation into a Western-style democracy. We will be there for decades, spend billions of dollars and lose thousands of lives, if that’s our goal."

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have this on my car:

http://www.zazzle.com/war_the_ultimate_big_government_program_bumper_sti cker-128567379943193072

Truth is truth. I hope he's a non-interventionist, but we'll find out won't we.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have this on my car:

http://www.zazzle.com/war_the_ultimate_big_government_program_bumper_sti cker-128567379943193072

Truth is truth. I hope he's a non-interventionist, but we'll find out won't we.

That is awesome! :D:cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.politico.com/arena/
Cesar Conda Former domestic policy advisor to Vice President Cheney

A shocking article coming from a Cheney boot-licker...or not. :rolleyes:

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Had America followed Rand Paul’s advice, Iraq would not be the country it is today – a free and stable country

:rolleyes:

[teamrican1]

We need to make sure we do our best to disrupt and dismantle the drug flow out of Afghanistan, primarily poppy and heroin flow. I think we need to promote regional stability in Central Asia. Once we’ve accomplished those goals, I think we need to maintain a minimal force and I think we need to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan.

So Ken Buck wants to fight the drug war half way around the globe, promote regional stability in Central Asia, then, when we've accomplished these completely unaccomplishable goals, he wants to keep our forces over there for no apparent reason. And the neocons are complaining this isn't enough?

[Agorism]

Why does he believe that about Ken Buck?

[Southron]

We need to take back the definition of "national security".

I'm so sick of these neocons defining nation building as national security.

We spread our forces thin and spend ourselves bankrupt when we could be improving ourselves defensively.

[Agorism]

Has Buck made anti-war on terror statements?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

LOL, wasn't Ken Buck the guy some here were going ape-sh** over because the Campaign for Liberty was supporting him, i.e. "the neeeeeeeeeocon"? :rolleyes:


Had America followed Rand Paul’s advice, Iraq would not be the country it is today – a free and stable country in the Middle East that is no longer threatening its neighbors.

There would also be over 4,000 U.S. soldiers still alive too.

[Cowlesy]

Everytime a candidate wins that the neocons don't like, an angel gets its wings.

[Agorism]

I don't remember Buck ever saying anything about the subject.

[jmdrake]

Was this article custom made to get Ron Paul supporters to rally around Rand and Ken? :confused: Anyway I'm glad so many "conservatives" are coming out against one or both of these wars. (Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Tony Blakely, Newt Gingrich, David Stockman etc).

Hey Cowsley, how about a sticky thread on all of the conservatives who are now coming out against the war?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Was this article custom made to get Ron Paul supporters to rally around Rand and Ken? :confused: Anyway I'm glad so many "conservatives" are coming out against one or both of these wars. (Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Tony Blakely, Newt Gingrich, David Stockman etc).

Hey Cowsley, how about a sticky thread on all of the conservatives who are now coming out against the war?

It means nothing right now. Are you falling for their partisan shit? They are only against "Obama's" War. They aren't against war, or these wars, they are against Obama on purely partisan grounds. It would mean something if they come out against these during a GOP administration and Congress, otherwise it is totally phony and meaningless. All they are doing is duping the suckers. Don't be a sucker.

[jmdrake]

It means nothing right now. Are you falling for their partisan shit? They are only against "Obama's" War. They aren't against war, or these wars, they are against Obama on purely partisan grounds. It would mean something if they come out against these during a GOP administration and Congress, otherwise it is totally phony and meaningless. All they are doing is duping the suckers. Don't be a sucker.

I'm not being a "sucker". I'm being pragmatic. WE CAN USE THIS AGAINST THEM IF/WHEN THEY ATTACK RON PAUL FOR BEING AGAINST THESE SAME WARS! I have to repeat myself so much on this point that I need to put it in my sig. It's not about "trusting" people like Michael Steele or Michael Savage. It's about having soundbites to use in 2012.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not being a "sucker". I'm being pragmatic. WE CAN USE THIS AGAINST THEM IF/WHEN THEY ATTACK RON PAUL FOR BEING AGAINST THESE SAME WARS! I have to repeat myself so much on this point that I need to put it in my sig. It's not about "trusting" people like Michael Steele or Michael Savage. It's about having soundbites to use in 2012.

And conservatives were against war in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and how did that work for Ron Paul in 2008? I think you are naive that this will help Ron much at all. How many soundbites did we have of Hannity coming out against nation-building from the 90s (or Bush for that matter)? Quite a few. How much did it help? Nada. Zip. None.

You aren't going to reach the Hannity-Zombies, or the Statist-Centrists. If you want, go ahead and test the waters on Michelle Malkin and see how well it plays. They'll ignore it. Most GOP'ers aren't going to vote for Ron Paul on war/foreign policy grounds, but on fiscal. Sure the libertarian-wing will, but that won't win you a primary at least not yet. Ron is going to win the election on those grounds. That said, I'd love it if Ron gave'em hell in 2012 again :p

[jmdrake]

And conservatives were against war in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and how did that work for Ron Paul in 2008? I think you are naive that this will help Ron much at all. How many soundbites did we have of Hannity coming out against nation-building from the 90s (or Bush for that matter)? Quite a few. How much did it help? Nada. Zip. None.

You aren't going to reach the Hannity-Zombies, or the Statist-Centrists. If you want, go ahead and test the waters on Michelle Malkin and see how well it plays. They'll ignore it. Most GOP'ers aren't going to vote for Ron Paul on war/foreign policy grounds, but on fiscal. Sure the libertarian-wing will, but that won't win you a primary at least not yet. Ron is going to win the election on those grounds. That said, I'd love it if Ron gave'em hell in 2012 again :p

Fine. Let's be as negative as possible. That certainly wins elections. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if conservatives were against war in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were all Clinton's wars. They could always spin their was out of those soundbites by saying "Of course I was against Clinton siding up with the Kosova Muslims against the good Serbian Christians". Now if Laura Ingram wants to attack Ron Paul for criticizing the Afghanistan build up she'll have her own quotes on THAT war to deal with. Also Hannity could spin out of criticizing nation building in the 90s by saying "That was a pre 9/11 world". But Michael Savage will have a difficult time explaining what he's come out against nation building in post 9/11 Afghanistan if he all of a sudden decides he likes nation building again.

As for "waking up Hannity-Zombies", my neighbor is waking up. Just the other he told me "That Ron Paul is sounding smarter everyday. I wonder why people didn't support him?" I reminded him that people didn't like Ron Paul's positions on the war. (I didn't remind him that he was one of those people). I then pointed out how so many conservatives have now agreed with Ron Paul with respect to Afghanistan. His answer? Well we don't seem to be any safer from terrorism!

http://www.christiangiftshop.ca/Wooden/Hallelujah.jpg

So be down in the dumps all you want. I'm talking about what I've seen work. As for Michael Malkin? WHO CARES ABOUT HER? She's bought and paid for. If she hasn't seen the need to jump off the sinking GWOT ship later for her. "Naive" is you thinking that this has anything with trying to "win over" bought and paid for operatives like Malkin.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Fine. Let's be as negative as possible. That certainly wins elections. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if conservatives were against war in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were all Clinton's wars. They could always spin their was out of those soundbites by saying "Of course I was against Clinton siding up with the Kosova Muslims against the good Serbian Christians". Now if Laura Ingram wants to attack Ron Paul for criticizing the Afghanistan build up she'll have her own quotes on THAT war to deal with. Also Hannity could spin out of criticizing nation building in the 90s by saying "That was a pre 9/11 world". But Michael Savage will have a difficult time explaining what he's come out against nation building in post 9/11 Afghanistan if he all of a sudden decides he likes nation building again.

As for "waking up Hannity-Zombies", my neighbor is waking up. Just the other he told me "That Ron Paul is sounding smarter everyday. I wonder why people didn't support him?" I reminded him that people didn't like Ron Paul's positions on the war. (I didn't remind him that he was one of those people). I then pointed out how so many conservatives have now agreed with Ron Paul with respect to Afghanistan. His answer? Well we don't seem to be any safer from terrorism!

http://www.christiangiftshop.ca/Wooden/Hallelujah.jpg

So be down in the dumps all you want. I'm talking about what I've seen work. As for Michael Malkin? WHO CARES ABOUT HER? She's bought and paid for. If she hasn't seen the need to jump off the sinking GWOT ship later for her. "Naive" is you thinking that this has anything with trying to "win over" bought and paid for operatives like Malkin.

So I get flak for being an idealist, and a realist....meh, this moderate thing doesn't suit me.

[Imperial]

LOL, wasn't Ken Buck the guy some here were going ape-sh** over because the Campaign for Liberty was supporting him, i.e. "the neeeeeeeeeocon"? :rolleyes:


There would also be over 4,000 U.S. soldiers still alive too.

Not to mention there is still not a democraticallly elected govt, as the man who won has been prevented from taking office by the incumbent. And minority religions would be a bit more respected. And Fallujah wouldn't have a massive rate of genetic defects and cancer from uranium tipped bullets.

[jmdrake]

So I get flak for being an idealist, and a realist....meh, this moderate thing doesn't suit me.

So I get flak for trying to reach out to people who may be willing to listen and vote for Ron Paul next time? What would you rather me do? Tell my neighbor "Hey you idiot! You don't deserve Ron Paul!" :confused:

Goodness, we've gone through an entire election cycle where the two best known liberty candidates have run like hell from Ron Paul's foreign policy message. Folks like Savage and Coulter echoing that message is a good thing from where I sit. I don't see any negative. You haven't mentioned any real negative except to use it as a reason to dump on me with your "naive" comment. It's my sincere hope that come 2012 we can get more candidates willing to stand up for your "ideals". I happen to share some of them. Hoping for the best and looking to use our opponents' adoption of our rhetoric against them is not being a "moderate" from where I sit. I'm not saying don't attack Coulter or Savage or whoever else. Attack them to your heart's content. But have the common sense to use their words against them when that appears to be helpful.