Rand Paul Op-Ed: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

[tsai3904]

U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

Sen. Rand Paul, March 9, 2014

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum and Russia must learn that the United States will isolate them if they insist on acting like a rogue nation.

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the United States is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.

I recommend a number of specific and decisive measures to punish Putin for his ongoing aggression.

...

More:
http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/

[kcchiefs6465]

ha

[RM918]

Sanctions? Against Russia? Rand you've gone off the deep end. This is extremely disappointing, I thought he'd stand his ground on this at least. I know he has a strong incentive to go along with the crowd on this but it's simply not worth it. I guess it's so he can point back in the future and say hey, he was sabre rattling back then so you can trust him to in the future but where does it end?

[RickyJ]

Who is going to punish the USA for interfering in Ukraine? Backwater mercenaries on the streets in Ukraine and snipers shooting both sides to cause more violence. The USA is the one that is the aggressor here, not Putin. Putin is merely giving assistance to a nation that has formally asked for Russia's assistance. Rand Paul is definitely not his dad. I seriously don't know if I can vote for this guy.

[RickyJ]

Sanctions? Against Russia? Rand you've gone off the deep end. This is extremely disappointing, I thought he'd stand his ground on this at least. I know he has a strong incentive to go along with the crowd on this but it's simply not worth it. I guess it's so he can point back in the future and say hey, he was sabre rattling back then so you can trust him to in the future but where does it end?

He wants the White House real bad, his dad never wanted it this bad. I don't think the elite will let him have it though. I doubt they trust him, and if they do trust him, then they have something big over his head and Rand will be nothing more than a puppet like all the rest.

[boneyard bill]

He wants the White House real bad, his dad never wanted it this bad. I don't think the elite will let him have it though. I doubt they trust him, and if they do trust him, then they have something big over his head and Rand will be nothing more than a puppet like all the rest.

Yes. He risks alienating his base with this move, and he's not going to win over the establishment anyway. This is a huge blunder by Rand. He wants to jump on the "Obama is weak" Republican meme, but all it shows is that he is prepared to jettison his principles to get elected, or that he really doesn't know what's going on in the Ukraine. Either way, its hard to see why liberty people would want to go out of their way to get him elected. Too bad that CPAC straw poll has already been taken. It would be tempting to go there and vote against Rand.

This is very depressing. It looks like we're not going to have a liberty candidate in 2016 after all.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Sanctions? Against Russia? Rand you've gone off the deep end. This is extremely disappointing, I thought he'd stand his ground on this at least. I know he has a strong incentive to go along with the crowd on this but it's simply not worth it. I guess it's so he can point back in the future and say hey, he was sabre rattling back then so you can trust him to in the future but where does it end?

The worst "sanction" he has suggested so far is kicking them from WTO. To me, that seems a good first step to destroying the WTO altogether.


He wants the White House real bad, his dad never wanted it this bad.

Ron never wanted it and never thought he could win it.

[CPUd]

I don't think any of them are going to win if they keep saying Reagan.

[fr33]

I want russian ammo. STFU Rand.

[devil21]

Bizarre and confusing reading one headline that says Rand is pushing for sanctions (an admitted act of war) against Russia but then reading others that Peter King thinks Rand is dangerous isolationist and Cruz says he's disagrees with Rand on foreign policy. Twilight zone!?!?!

[Rudeman]

Waiting for libertarian101 or one of the other trolls to show up and tell us how Rand is a neocon and is no different than McCain...

[RDM]

Bizarre and confusing reading one headline that says Rand is pushing for sanctions (an admitted act of war) against Russia but then reading others that Peter King thinks Rand is dangerous isolationist and Cruz says he's disagrees with Rand on foreign policy. Twilight zone!?!?!
It's all to confuse the dumbed down masses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RklWbjAiE4

[nayjevin]

I for one am taking relatively strong action by remaining pretty well isolated from that weird Russian guy who runs around naked and tackles wildlife or whatever? I think most of America is with me on this.

[T.hill]

If you're being serious that entire video asserts it's proof by guilt through association.

[T.hill]

It's all to confuse the dumbed down masses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RklWbjAiE4
If you're being serious that entire video asserts proof through guilt by association.

[T.hill]

The worst "sanction" he has suggested so far is kicking them from WTO. To me, that seems a good first step to destroying the WTO altogether.

If that's what he means by enacting sanctions against Russia, I could care less. His "realist" foreign policy stances are simply practical arguments for non-interventionism.

Pragmatic non-interventionism is still non-interventionism.

[green73]

ha

bwa

[green73]

I want russian ammo. STFU Rand.

The Great Red Ammo Scare (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/jim-grant/the-great-red-ammo-scare/) It’s unsubstantiated. There are plenty of good Russian calibers to be had, says Jim Grant.

[asurfaholic]

Meh...

if America wants to be considered a leader, it should lead by example. Anything otherwise is simply being a big bully.

[thoughtomator]

Yes. He risks alienating his base with this move, and he's not going to win over the establishment anyway. This is a huge blunder by Rand. He wants to jump on the "Obama is weak" Republican meme, but all it shows is that he is prepared to jettison his principles to get elected, or that he really doesn't know what's going on in the Ukraine. Either way, its hard to see why liberty people would want to go out of their way to get him elected. Too bad that CPAC straw poll has already been taken. It would be tempting to go there and vote against Rand.

This is very depressing. It looks like we're not going to have a liberty candidate in 2016 after all.

Where else is the base going to go? Rand is playing for the votes he needs to win in 2016, not to shore up a highly shored up base. Anyone who understands Rand strategery knows not to take these proposals too seriously.

[KingNothing]

He wants to jump on the "Obama is weak" Republican meme

Just because it is a Republican meme doesn't mean that it is false nor that it shouldn't be noted.

Obama has handled this, and nearly every foreign policy event, terribly. He's the worst combination of weak, and cavalier. He's willing to order the bombing of a wedding party, but unable to maneuver nations and leaders of significance into untenable positions.

He's terrible. Rand pointing this out is not a bad thing.

[KingNothing]

If that's what he means by enacting sanctions against Russia, I could care less. His "realist" foreign policy stances are simply practical arguments for non-interventionism.

Pragmatic non-interventionism is still non-interventionism.

Rand's ability to position himself in such a way that he can't really be attacked by interventionist, establishment, shills even though he's really espousing pragmatic arguments that most of his base would find acceptable is amazing to me. He's very, very, good at politics.

[KingNothing]

"I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine."

"We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Ukraine."

"The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi. If Putin’s troops remain in Crimea at the time of the summit, Russia should be expelled from the group."

-Rand Paul


"BOO! RAND, BOOO!!! BOOO!!"
- Some morons here.

[jtstellar]

have people learned to read past the titles yet

why can't you ever do a search by the texts in alleged titles 'paraphrased' by msm to the actual content of the writing at any point in time nowadays? rand does say 'taking a strong stance' while in the same breath say 'This does not and should not require military action.' so where is the phrase 'strong action?' does go on to reiterate missile defense shield, but only uses that as opportunity to reiterate that poland needs to pay for its own missile defense shield, us should end foreign aids, etc, basically using this occasion to just repeat his own talking points. here's also the line some people are whining how he doesn't repeat enough: "Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own." whatever, i can imagine the same old 'rand plagiarized nsa lawsuit' crowd at it again

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Weird how fast Paul went from "shouldn't tweek Russia" to this. Thinking one of his political advisers told him not to look weak here.

[Cabal]

Sanctions are very serious. Sanctions are literally an act of war. When you prevent certain goods and services going into a country, it's like a blockade.

--Ron Paul


Some may argue that we are pursuing sanctions so as to avoid war with Iran, but recent history teaches us otherwise. For how many years were sanctions placed on Iraq while we were told they were necessary to avoid war? Thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died under US sanctions and still the US invaded, further destroying the country. Are we safer after spending a trillion dollars or more to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it?

--Ron Paul


Sanctions do not work. They are precursors to war and usually lead to war. They undermine our economy and our national security. They result in terrible, unnecessary suffering among the civilian population in the target countries and rarely even inconvenience their leaders.

--Ron Paul

Of course, this isn't really a shocker. Rand supported sanctions against Iran as well.

[SilentBull]

Rand's ability to position himself in such a way that he can't really be attacked by interventionist, establishment, shills even though he's really espousing pragmatic arguments that most of his base would find acceptable is amazing to me. He's very, very, good at politics.

Yes.

[kcchiefs6465]

Where else is the base going to go? Rand is playing for the votes he needs to win in 2016, not to shore up a highly shored up base. Anyone who understands Rand strategery knows not to take these proposals too seriously.
It's where they're not going to go that perhaps Rand Paul should concern himself with.

[Matt Collins]

Bizarre and confusing reading one headline that says Rand is pushing for sanctions (an admitted act of war)

Of course, this isn't really a shocker. Rand supported sanctions against Iran as well.

Actually sanctions are not actually an act of war unless the government they are being imposed upon considers them an act of war. Sanctions in and of themselves are not an act of war.

And Rand voting to 'sanction' Iran was actually a move to refuse Americans from doing business with their central bank, the Federal Reserve counterpart of Iran.

[Cabal]

Actually sanctions are not actually an act of war unless the government they are being imposed upon considers them an act of war. Sanctions in and of themselves are not an act of war.

And Rand voting to 'sanction' Iran was actually a move to refuse Americans from doing business with their central bank, the Federal Reserve counterpart of Iran.

Apologetics don't really interest me. You may as well be trying to convince me that taxation isn't theft while you're at it.

[LibertyEagle]

Apologetics don't really interest me. You may as well be trying to convince me that taxation isn't theft while you're at it.

Have you read the "sanctions" that Rand is recommending? I'm betting on no.

Seriously folks, strategy is more than throwing a snowball at Sean Hannity. :rolleyes:

[KingNothing]

Have you read the "sanctions" that Rand is recommending? I'm betting on no.

Seriously folks, strategy is more than throwing a snowball at Sean Hannity. :rolleyes:

Not to the blithering idiots around here. They'd rather do the figurative equivalent to the stupid snowball instance, constantly, than push real policy into action and win. They'd rather sit on the fringe and continually lose. Their delusional fantasies keep them in a state of arrested development.

[KingNothing]

Have you read the "sanctions" that Rand is recommending? I'm betting on no.

Seriously folks, strategy is more than throwing a snowball at Sean Hannity. :rolleyes:

Not to the blithering idiots around here. They'd rather do the figurative equivalent to the stupid snowball instance, constantly, than push real policy into action and win. They'd rather sit on the fringe and continually lose. Their delusional fantasies keep them in a state of arrested development.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

http://andrewnapolitano.com/

https://www.facebook.com/DraftJudgeNapolitanoForPresident

[KingNothing]

It's where they're not going to go that perhaps Rand Paul should concern himself with.

If you're against the political maneuvering Rand suggests, which is entirely non-violent and still likely to prevent Russia from making inroads, I guess he'll just have to find a way to soldier on without you.

[NOVALibertarian]

http://andrewnapolitano.com/

https://www.facebook.com/DraftJudgeNapolitanoForPresident

Not this again.

[SilentBull]

Not to the blithering idiots around here. They'd rather do the figurative equivalent to the stupid snowball instance, constantly, than push real policy into action and win. They'd rather sit on the fringe and continually lose. Their delusional fantasies keep them in a state of arrested development.

Wish I had more rep for you.

[Cabal]

Have you read the "sanctions" that Rand is recommending? I'm betting on no.

Seriously folks, strategy is more than throwing a snowball at Sean Hannity. :rolleyes:

You can throw euphemisms like 'strategy' around and patronize those who don't agree with you all you like, it doesn't magically change anything.

[LibertyEagle]

You can throw euphemisms like 'strategy' around and patronize those who don't agree with you all you like, it doesn't magically change anything.

Magically change what? The fact that you are critiquing Rand for doing something that you have not even lifted a finger to find out what that something is? Yes, I agree. That will take action on your part.

[asurfaholic]

I admit I read the OP's posted but and that was it.

My initial reaction is less bashing rand's approach and more expression frustration at the incredible amount of hypocrisy that others must not invade lands, while we are bombing a multitude of different countries around the world.

I see rand didnt push for "action against Russia" but I wish there was an acknowledgment that the US has no place to condemn Russia at all. None.

[Peace&Freedom]

Have you read the "sanctions" that Rand is recommending? I'm betting on no.

Seriously folks, strategy is more than throwing a snowball at Sean Hannity. :rolleyes:

Not disagreeing with you, but throwing snowballs at Hannity was a sweet moment for the movement. :)

Yes, Rand is pursuing a different strategy to communicate than Ron did---in the end I don't actually like it, but understand it. As in chess, so in Presidential politics, it's safer to castle first, then proceed to attack the opposing king. Rand consistently begins by shutting the interventionists up first, then advocates for non intervention as the preferred pragmatic outcome.

The point is not to win over the neo-con vote, but to neutralize them, by giving them the shell of what they want, without the inner substance---the "strong action" against Putin upon inspection will be measures that simply de-escalate the conflict, and promote non-intervention by all parties involved (just as his version of 'sanctions' are also nothing-burgers). Later, the neocons can't accuse him of being weak or reversing himself, because after all, he advocated for sanctions. Meanwhile, end result, we get a defacto non-interventionist policy, and a push back of the hawks. Just call it a delayed snowball.

[compromise]

Another excellent move by Rand, outflanking the allegations of isolationism.

He presented a very strong case for his approach to Russia and I trust his judgement on this issue.

[kahless]

Looks like Rand is politically trying to take away the ammunition they are using to take him down. It will not be the left that takes Rand down but rather the interventionists and Neocons within the media establishment.

For example the highest rated news show on all of cable that leads the Republican sheep (the sheep that that Rand needs to win the nomination), O'Reilly, misrepresented Rand's position and took pot shots at him two nights in a row for being weak on Russia. (lumping him in with the looney left)

I however suspect that even if Rand starting spouting McCain style foreign policy to win over his party the establishment pundits would still misrepresent his position as being an isolationist since they ultimately want someone within their camp like Jeb Bush or Cruz.

[LibertyEagle]

Not disagreeing with you, but throwing snowballs at Hannity was a sweet moment for the movement. :)

No it wasn't. It was childish. It didn't do one thing to change anyone's mind in a positive direction.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No it wasn't. It was childish. It didn't do one thing to change anyone's mind in a positive direction.

It was childish, but so was Hannity's whining about it at the time. You'd think somebody harmed his dog or slashed his car tires, the way in which he droned on about it.

Plus, it wasn't as if Ron Paul was going to win that year anyway.

[TaftFan]

Rand needs to call for allowing each Ukrainian region to hold elections to determine their future, irregardless of Russia's actions.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No it wasn't. It was childish. It didn't do one thing to change anyone's mind in a positive direction.

Remove the stick from your ass already.

[Brett85]

And yet this still doesn't go far enough for Cruz. It just shows you that Cruz is just off the map terrible on foreign policy issues. Rand is already moderate at best on foreign policy.

[Brett85]

Weird how fast Paul went from "shouldn't tweek Russia" to this. Thinking one of his political advisers told him not to look weak here.

Yeah, exactly. Rand has done a 180 on this issue, all for the sake of political convenience.

[Matt Collins]

Apologetics don't really interest me. You may as well be trying to convince me that taxation isn't theft while you're at it.
It's not "apologetics", it's fact. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

The point is not to win over the neo-con vote, but to neutralize them, by giving them the shell of what they want, without the inner substance

Looks like Rand is politically trying to take away the ammunition they are using to take him down.

Bingo...nail hit by hammer squarely on the head

[Brett85]

It's just so frustrating that Rand gets labeled a "radical isolationist" even after he presents views like this. This article isn't going to make the media stop falsely accusing him of being some radical isolationist. What would the media call one of us if we were in Congress? A terrorist?

[idiom]

If Rand suggested sanctioning Russia by pulling America out of the UN, you guys would still think he was advocating sanctioning Russia because that's what the headline said.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's just so frustrating that Rand gets labeled a "radical isolationist" even after he presents views like this. This article isn't going to make the media stop falsely accusing him of being some radical isolationist. What would the media call one of us if we were in Congress? A terrorist?

If not worse.

[Brett85]

If Rand suggested sanctioning Russia by pulling America out of the UN, you guys would still think he was advocating sanctioning Russia because that's what the headline said.

The sanctions against Russia have nothing to do with expelling them from the G8. Those are two completely different issues.

[tommyrp12]

So im a radical isolationist if im not burning my neighbors car or trying to starve him out of his house ? great im glad we all did a philosophical 180 to match the war hawks message, this should go as well as the "don't attack Romney" plan.

[Brett85]

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Russia CRIMINAL


Former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, believes Crimeans have a right to transfer sovereignty over their peninsula to Russia and says sanctions imposed Thursday by President Barack Obama against Ukrainian and Russian officials are “criminal.”

Crimea’s regional parliament voted Thursday to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Residents of the Black Sea region, where ethnic Russians form a majority of the population, will either ratify or reject the proposal March 16.

“I’d like to see the people make the decision rather than outside parties,” Paul tells U.S. News. “It’s pure hypocrisy on our part to think we have the moral high ground. The only question that remains is: Will there be an honest election? And I don’t see any reason there can’t be an honest election.”

Paul is often outspoken on U.S. foreign policy and his views clash with those of Obama administration officials and members of Congress who have condemned Russia for deploying troops in Crimea, purportedly to ensure the safety of local residents, after the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president.

[RELATED: Russia Today Anchor Quits on Air]

Obama announced Thursday he opposes the Crimea referendum and said he issued an executive order applying sanctions against unnamed Russian and Ukrainian officials for “violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The sanctions are believed to include the freezing of assets inside the U.S.

“The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law,” Obama said.

In addition to sanctions, Secretary of State John Kerry promised $1 billion in financial aid to Ukraine’s new government during a Tuesday trip to Kiev and accused Russia of invading the country.

The policies are a target-rich heap for Paul’s scorn.

[READ: Albright Compares Ukraine Crisis to WWII, Bosnia]

By opposing the Crimea referendum, Paul says, Obama administration officials are being hypocritical and show they are only selectively interested in self-determination. The libertarian leader, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012, points to the Obama administration’s embrace of anti-government revolts in Egypt and Syria as examples of paying lip service to self-determination when it suits U.S. interests.

“We say, ‘We want you to be good democrats and have elections,’ but if they don’t elect the right people then we complain about it and throw them out, like we did in Egypt,” Paul says. “They’re doing exactly what they should do [in Crimea]. They should have an election.”

Paul would not support the U.S. sending election monitors: “We would send CIA agents over there, that’s what we’d do,” he says. But he would be in favor of credible nongovernmental observers watching the vote.

Obama’s sanctions against Ukrainian and Russian officials, Paul alleges, are acts of theft.

[PHOTOS: Armed Forces Patrol Crimea]

“That’s just people looking to start a war,” Paul says. “This is criminal, it’s stealing and will just aggravate things and escalate things. Sanctions are acts of war … to freeze assets if you’re at war with Hitler and there’s a declared war, that’s a little different, but to do this so easily and casually as we do, that’s just looking for a fight.”

Paul also opposes the new financial aid to Ukraine.

“One irony I think could happen is we will send some money to the new government, then they have some cash to pay for their gas and send the money to Russia,“ he says.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., does not seem to share his father's position on Crimea.

In a Feb. 28 statement, Sen. Paul – who is considering a 2016 presidential bid – said: "The United States should make it abundantly clear to Russia that we expect them to honor the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the U.S., Russia, and the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment 'to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.'"

[boneyard bill]

Waiting for libertarian101 or one of the other trolls to show up and tell us how Rand is a neocon and is no different than McCain...

Rand is a neocon and no different than John McCain with the possible exception that McCain might actually believe that his cockamamie ideas would work. I think Rand knows perfectly well that what he's peddling here is unadulterated bullshit.

[boneyard bill]

Just because it is a Republican meme doesn't mean that it is false nor that it shouldn't be noted.

Obama has handled this, and nearly every foreign policy event, terribly. He's the worst combination of weak, and cavalier. He's willing to order the bombing of a wedding party, but unable to maneuver nations and leaders of significance into untenable positions.

He's terrible. Rand pointing this out is not a bad thing.

Obama is not weak. He's playing with a weak hand. Granted, it looks weak to make threats that you are not prepared to follow through on. But the dumb thing is making the threat, not failing to follow through.

However, Rand is doing much the same thing. The proposals he suggests would not change the situation significantly and his measures cannot be implemented anyway. Europe is not going to sanction Russia. We can't possibly come up with enough oil or gas to replace their Russian sources and shipping gas across the Atlantic is extremely expensive anyway.

Russia's threat to retaliate by bringing down the dollar is credible. They probably can't do it alone, but the BRICS countries do want to get out from under petro-dollar hegemony, and Putin could be the instigator for that.

[Brett85]

So Rand takes Cruz's exact position on this issue, and Cruz says that he disagrees with Rand on foreign policy. Can anyone explain that?

[boneyard bill]

Rand's ability to position himself in such a way that he can't really be attacked by interventionist, establishment, shills even though he's really espousing pragmatic arguments that most of his base would find acceptable is amazing to me. He's very, very, good at politics.

He's crossed the line here. I think his credibility comes into question on this one. I don't find his proposals acceptable, and one of the reasons is that they are stupid. They won't work and would cause even greater problems for us if they did. He's not talking tough here. He's proposing that we should BE tough. But the proposals aren't really that tough, and they wouldn't work. We're going to "isolate" Russia until Putin leaves Crimea? When hell freezes over! The Russians have a naval base there! Putin ain't leaving. Ever. The US would find ourselves to be the ones who would be isolated.

[boneyard bill]

If you're against the political maneuvering Rand suggests, which is entirely non-violent and still likely to prevent Russia from making inroads, I guess he'll just have to find a way to soldier on without you.

That's true, but how many will he have to do without? Let me repeat my previous point. It isn't simply the case that he is advocating a hard line against Russia. Rand's proposals are stupid, and because they are stupid they raise questions about his integrity and his credibility.

[boneyard bill]

Another excellent move by Rand, outflanking the allegations of isolationism.

He presented a very strong case for his approach to Russia and I trust his judgement on this issue.

He did not present any kind of workable option. His proposals are mostly nonsense. I expect that from McCain, but McCain never really gets that specific. Rand is trying to be too clever here, and I don't think it will diffuse opposition from the neo-cons in any case. He didn't have to say anything on this, and he certainly didn't have to go into this level of detail.

[cajuncocoa]

So Rand takes Cruz's exact position on this issue, and Cruz says that he disagrees with Rand on foreign policy. Can anyone explain that?
I'm looking for someone to explain how Rand and Ron are still only 1% apart.







I expect another neg rep from LE for asking this.

[boneyard bill]

Looks like Rand is politically trying to take away the ammunition they are using to take him down. It will not be the left that takes Rand down but rather the interventionists and Neocons within the media establishment.

For example the highest rated news show on all of cable that leads the Republican sheep (the sheep that that Rand needs to win the nomination), O'Reilly, misrepresented Rand's position and took pot shots at him two nights in a row for being weak on Russia. (lumping him in with the looney left)

I however suspect that even if Rand starting spouting McCain style foreign policy to win over his party the establishment pundits would still misrepresent his position as being an isolationist since they ultimately want someone within their camp like Jeb Bush or Cruz.

Yes. So why is Rand trying to sound like McCain? The only reason the people on this thread are defending Rand on this issue is that they don't believe him. They don't think he is expressing his true views on the subject. So doesn't that strike at the issue of Rand's credibility?

And if we don't believe him, why should we suppose that anyone else will?

[eleganz]

For those that say that Rand is an interventionist, why is it that the interventionists continue to attack him? Is Rand a fringe interventionist???

[Crashland]

I usually give Rand the benefit of the doubt on these issues where he has to walk the tightrope, but in this case I don't think he did a good job. His op-ed sounds the opposite of what he previously said about unnecessarily poking Russia in the eye, and it even seems to contradict itself (How is taking a lead role in stopping Putin *not* policing the world or being the world's ATM?). He will have some major explaining to do. It looks like he is coming down on intervening in every way possible short of using the military. That might be the most popular position among current GOP voters, but he still dug himself a bit of a hole here. He will get attacked in the primary because he has made it so unclear.

I really hope the 2016 primary is not dominated by foreign policy because if so the election could go to shit.

[cajuncocoa]

For those that say that Rand is an interventionist, why is it that the interventionists continue to attack him? Is Rand a fringe interventionist???
I'll bite: maybe it's because they're not sure how to read him. There are people on this site who believe he's only saying these things to get the GOP nomination, and once elected, he will become a clone of his Dad. Maybe the interventionists aren't buying what he's trying to sell.

[Brett85]

For those that say that Rand is an interventionist, why is it that the interventionists continue to attack him? Is Rand a fringe interventionist???

Because he's Ron's son. They'll attack him no matter what he says. He could come out in favor of a full invasion of Iran, and they would still call him a "radical pacifist isolationist."

[NOVALibertarian]

Rand is a neocon

Did you even read the article that was posted? Where did Rand plead for a straight-up military intervention in the Ukraine? Because military intervention is what Neo-Conservatives like John McCain are salivating at the mouth for in regards to this situation.

[Badger Paul]

"Anyone who understands Rand strategy knows not to take these proposals too seriously. "

Until Rand becomes President and then we find out "ahem" what these specific measures really are. And if turns out they're not much different than what Obama is doing right now, well then slap me silly, Rand's just another politician.

And Collins, spare us the freakin' apologetics will ya?" Ron said what he said without caveat and qualification. I don't need you to try to explain him to me. I think he comes in loud and clear. Go ahead and spin what Rand says because I'm quite sure in due time you'll be paid to do so. You might as well get the practice in.

[cajuncocoa]

"Anyone who understands Rand strategery knows not to take these proposals too seriously. "

Until Rand becomes President and then we find out "ahem" what these specific measures realy are. And if turns out they're really not much different than what Obama is doing right now, well then slap me silly, Rand's just another politician.

And Collins, spare us the freakin' apologetics will ya?" Ron said what he said without caveat and qualification. I don't need you to try to explain him to me. I think he comes in loud and clear. Go ahead and spin what Rand says because I'm quite in due time you'll be paid to do so. You might as well get the practice in.
THIS ^^ is exactly why interventionists don't trust him.

IMO, this strategy is a lose-lose for Rand.

[Brett85]

Did you even read the article that was posted? Where did Rand plead for a straight-up military intervention in the Ukraine?

There aren't any Republicans who have advocated straight-up military intervention in the Ukraine, so his position is just as bad as the most hawkish Republicans.

[Crashland]

There aren't any Republicans who have advocated straight-up military intervention in the Ukraine, so his position is just as bad as the most hawkish Republicans.

Rand is trying to get the best of both worlds. It is definitely a politically strategic move although I'm not sure if it is a wise one. I think Rand realizes that his association with Ron on foreign policy is a weakness in the primary and does not want to leave much room for anyone to attack him from the right without the attacker going into blatant warmonger territory. I think because of the political nature of this, it is nearly impossible to tell where Rand would actually stand on this issue if he were the president.

[Brett85]

I think because of the political nature of this, it is nearly impossible to tell where Rand would actually stand on this issue if he were the president.

That's the problem.

[cajuncocoa]

Economic Policy Journal has been very critical of Rand over this (and other things before)....to be expected. This afternoon, however, I saw a critical piece on LewRockwell.com about Rand's comments re: Ukraine. I don't recall ever seeing a critical column about Rand at LRC before.

[kahless]

Yes. So why is Rand trying to sound like McCain?

I never said he was trying to sound like McCain.



The only reason the people on this thread are defending Rand on this issue is that they don't believe him. They don't think he is expressing his true views on the subject. So doesn't that strike at the issue of Rand's credibility?

And if we don't believe him, why should we suppose that anyone else will?

Credibility? John McCain on the campaign trail contradicted his positions with each campaign stop or interview depending on the crowd he was speaking to but regardless they handed him the nomination anyway.

The sheep out number us and maybe he is wisely trying to play their game.

[cajuncocoa]

Credibility? John McCain on the campaign trail contradicted his positions with each campaign stop or interview depending on the crowd he was speaking to but regardless they handed him the nomination anyway.

The sheep out number us and maybe he is wisely trying to play their game.Handed McCain the nomination is exactly what they did, 'cause he sure didn't win it fairly if the Louisiana caucus was representative of the way it was going down in other states. Nothing stopping them from handing the nomination to an interventionist in 2016 too.

Oh, and BTW.....McCain isn't president. Just sayin'.

[tsai3904]

FYI, Rand has already voted to sanction Russia before by voting for HR 6156 in 2012. The bill was a mix of loosening trade restrictions and applying sanctions to individuals involved in a human rights abuse case.

[kcchiefs6465]

If you're against the political maneuvering Rand suggests, which is entirely non-violent and still likely to prevent Russia from making inroads, I guess he'll just have to find a way to soldier on without you.
I guess he will.

And come 2016, when he is entirely dismissed as "radical" and "isolationist", he can point to this and say, "See, I'm one of the guys!" And they'll all have a good laugh... except for Rand, who won't even be considered for the nomination, let alone go on to win the presidency.

And so you know, by 2016, even the most "he is simply strategically maneuvering" hopeful will be disillusioned by bad votes and awful rhetoric. You act as if people here have always been out to get Rand Paul. No, everyone just has a different line to be drawn on the amount of compromise they can accept. I recognize that a top down change is absurd. The best Rand Paul could do is use the presidential podium as a soapbox. Any true objection to unconstitutional legislation will leave him impeached. And the people will cheer. After all, illusory wealth is tempting. The government taking from some to benefit others is the easy path. And the people don't want it changed.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Economic Policy Journal has been very critical of Rand over this (and other things before)....to be expected. This afternoon, however, I saw a critical piece on LewRockwell.com about Rand's comments re: Ukraine. I don't recall ever seeing a critical column about Rand at LRC before.

There were numerous topics on LRC's blog that were critical of Rand until Lew put the word out to cool it. This was early 2013.

[Brett85]

Dick Cheney just proposed the exact same solution to what's going on in Russia and Ukraine that Rand did in this article. This is just getting ridiculous. I guess we have to try to win the GOP primary by adopting Dick Cheney talking points on foreign policy?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Dick Cheney just proposed the exact same solution to what's going on in Russia and Ukraine that Rand did in this article. This is just getting ridiculous. I guess we have to try to win the GOP primary by adopting Dick Cheney talking points on foreign policy?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-courts-pro-israel-figures


Paul’s new contacts include Dan Senor

[Brett85]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-courts-pro-israel-figures

Well, I am critical of Rand for the position he's taking on Russia/Ukraine, but that article is from over a year ago, and I don't know if there's any evidence that Den Senor is actually advising Rand now.

[Badger Paul]

Rand is not a neocon. But this statement is so blatantly political its just ridiculous. And not only that, it's also a sign of weakness. Instead of stating we have no dog in this fight, we should be in the middle of negotiating a solution to avoid bloodhsed as an honest broker and criticizing the Obama Administration for the encouragement of demonstrations which brought about mob rule in Kiev and precipitated Russia's intervention in the Crimea. Instead Rand is saying whatever other Republican is saying. Why? Didn't he just win CPAC with 31 percent of the vote? Why is he so afraid of what supposedly are his views, that of his father and his would be supporters? Hmm? Does that victory not mean anything then, just another straw poll win? If that's the case then why do some act like it's the biggest event on the social calendar if it ultimately meaningless? Non-interventionists in the party are looking for a standard to follow, not the uncertain trumpet. If you say it's all political, go ahead and do so. But what that means is the Paul Movement has not succeeded in changing minds among Republican rank n'filers about foreign policy. Because if the movment had done so, then Rand would not need to call sanctions against Russia.

This has to be bigger than one man or one family's ambition. I don't support the Pauls as candidates, I support the ideas they espouse and their larger implications which I believe would be good for U.S. if adopted. I don't care if Rand sits in the Oval Office. It doesn't do me any good. What does me good and many many others is if he understands what got him there what his purpose is there. I don't believe he does understand this, not in the way his father did. And this statement is just more evidence of it. It was utterly unecessary and utterly stupid and I smell Trygve Olson's stinking ass behind it.

[Peace&Freedom]

Non-interventionists in the party are looking for a standard to follow, not the uncertain trumpet. If you say it's all political, go ahead and do so. But what that means is the Paul Movement has not succeeded in changing minds among Republican rank n'filers about foreign policy. Because if the movment had done so, then Rand would not need to call sanctions against Russia.

This has to be bigger than one man or one family's ambition. I don't support the Paul as candidate, I support the ideas they espouse and their larger implications which I believe would be good for U.S. if adopted. I don't care if Rand sits in the Oval Office. It doesn't do me any good. What does me good and many many others is if he understands what got him there what his purpose is there. I don't believe he does understand this, not in the way his father did. And this statement is just more evidence of it. It was utterly unecessary and utterly stupid and I smell Trygve Olson's stinking ass behind it.


If you want us to concede there could be a better strategic road taken to get a non-interventionist elected President, I'll grant there is. But please note the straightforward road Ron took has been tried, twice. Ron was consistently principled, rational--and almost entirely incapable of shaking the interventionist FRAMEWORK that emotionally drives foreign policy as manipulated by the neo-cons. Ron responded by talking about blowback, which is another argument, which thus could not overcome the emotional framing.

Rand is dealing with the framework issue via the jujitsu route (appear to agree with the enemy, then use the momentum of that position against them to advocate for something else) to bypass the emotional "we gotta be strong, gotta stop our enemies" hawkish spell put on GOP voters. Both the merits AND the emotionalism have to be addressed in the current environment, so Rand's rhetoric is in fact a necessary and intelligent way to deal with the problem.

I have suggested an alternative approach to dealing with the demagoguery, involving 'shocking' people out of the spell by bringing up 9-11 truth and other false flag/covert manipulations operating beneath the surface, to provide a pretext to justify hawkish policy. I maintain that exposing false flags is the superior approach---but of course, many here do not like that framework-breaking strategy. So, until somebody comes up with another idea, we'll have to accept Rand's verbal jujitsu, or 'paper-rock-scissors' method to overcome the framing.

In politics, emotion trumps reason, while pain can trump emotion. E.g., we have seen how Ron Paul's reasonable approach fails to break hawkish emotionalism, while we have also noticed how the post-election pain of losing can shake people out of their emotional embrace of the allegedly "electable" candidate ("oh, NOW I see, there was no way McCain/Romney could have ever won"). The rational merits of a political position are 'paper,' while the emotionalism is the 'scissors.' Rand's pragmatic emphasis on noting the costs, pain and futility of intervention, including the deliberately useless substance of his proposed sanctions and political theatre rhetoric, is an attempt to introduce "rock" to the equation, to trump the emotional hawk framework.

[Cutlerzzz]

Not many people who believe sanctions are an act of war have thought it out. Countries routinely ban goods and services from other countries. If sanctions are an act of war than virtually every country in the world has a casus belli right now, given that no country has free unregulated trade with the rest of the world.

[Brett85]

Not many people who believe sanctions are an act of war have thought it out. Countries routinely ban goods and services from other countries. If sanctions are an act of war than virtually every country in the world has a casus belli right now, given that no country has free unregulated trade with the rest of the world.

Sanctions are more than just a ban on trade.

[kcchiefs6465]

Not many people who believe sanctions are an act of war have thought it out. Countries routinely ban goods and services from other countries. If sanctions are an act of war than virtually every country in the world has a casus belli right now, given that no country has free unregulated trade with the rest of the world.
Many people simply see the destructive and bullying means of certain empires, imposing and enforcing sanctions, as inherently immoral, counterproductive, and a waste of time.

It is nothing to say I will not trade with you. It is something else to use the propped up status as the world reserve currency along with subtle or overt assurances of cash, when prohibiting trade or bribing other nations to partake in our petty conquests.

And as much, you'll run into particular questioning when trying to justify why one government, of whom has never been legitimately authorized or contracted to, who the people themselves may see as nothing more than a band of marauders and plunderers, may speak for every person here.

And furthermore, what the fuck does Rand Paul see in this endeavor of banning goods freely flowing from one country to or from another? (whether or not they freely flow now being no issue to the relevant discussion or rhetoric)

Patronized Reagan appeals, I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head.

[Badger Paul]

"and almost entirely incapable of shaking the interventionist FRAMEWORK that emotionally drives foreign policy as manipulated by the neo-cons."

Then you have to change the framework, otherwise you simply concede to it which is all but a defacto endorsement of it.

You all seem to think Rand will simply go back to the way he was after he wins the White House. My friends it is not that simple. Once you acknowledge a certain framework exists for the conduct of foreign policy, it becomes impossible to create foreign policy outside of said framework nor employ people outside the framework unless you have an electoral mandate for change excusively for that purpose.. Don't believe me? Go ask Barak Obama.

[Cutlerzzz]

Many people simply see the destructive and bullying means of certain empires, imposing and enforcing sanctions, as inherently immoral, counterproductive, and a waste of time.

It is nothing to say I will not trade with you. It is something else to use the propped up status as the world reserve currency along with subtle or overt assurances of cash, when prohibiting trade or bribing other nations to partake in our petty conquests.

And as much, you'll run into particular questioning when trying to justify why one government, of whom has never been legitimately authorized or contracted to, who the people themselves may see as nothing more than a band of marauders and plunderers, may speak for every person here.

And furthermore, what the fuck does Rand Paul see in this endeavor of banning goods freely flowing from one country to or from another? (whether or not they freely flow now being no issue to the relevant discussion or rhetoric)

Patronized Reagan appeals, I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head.

I agree with what you said.

But I don't agree (with some, not necessarily you) with the idea that sanctions by one government warrant another government militarizing and going to war, where it will kill both its own subjects and foreigners. I don't believe that governments have the right to force other governments to open trade.

I've also heard inconsistent arguments on the subject by some. Like that seizing foreign assets is a legit Casus Belli, but by that logic the US and UK had legitimate reasons topple Iran in 54.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Russia CRIMINAL
Ron talks about Obama's sanctions, not what Rand is advocating.

[Matt Collins]

Until Rand becomes President and then we find out "ahem" what these specific measures really are. And if turns out they're not much different than what Obama is doing right now, well then slap me silly, Rand's just another politician.
Nope, because you have his voting record to look at.



And Collins, spare us the freakin' apologetics will ya?" Ron said what he said without caveat and qualification. I don't need you to try to explain him to me. I think he comes in loud and clear. Go ahead and spin what Rand says because I'm quite sure in due time you'll be paid to do so. You might as well get the practice in.And Ron is factually incorrect when he calls sanctions 'an act of war'. I didn't understand that at first until I did my own research on it.

[Rudeman]

I'm looking for someone to explain how Rand and Ron are still only 1% apart.







I expect another neg rep from LE for asking this.


Ron made that statement, if you disagree with it why don't you explain why Ron is wrong?

[Rudeman]

Some of you are so fickle, and seriously enough with this calling anyone a neo-con that doesn't agree 100% with Ron's positions on foreign policy. It's beyond absurd to see people calling Rand a neo-con. OMG HE SAID THE SAME THING AS CHENEY ON THIS ONE SITUATION!1!11!!! It's the same tired shit over and over again, get over yourselves.

[fr33]

The Great Red Ammo Scare (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/jim-grant/the-great-red-ammo-scare/) It’s unsubstantiated. There are plenty of good Russian calibers to be had, says Jim Grant.

It's only the beginning though. There are many big boxes still available on the shelves of ammo dealers. Just the toothless threat of banning guns domestically causes prices of guns to rise rapidly. Who knows why .22lr is so scarce right now. Russian owned ammo companies operating in other countries will surely suffer to some extent.

I don't buy into the idea that sanctions are an act of war but sanctions do hurt you and me no matter which "side" of the border we are on.

I don't give a fuck about Ukraine personally. I do care about Mosin Nagants and ammunition. Mosins went up in price just like other firearms did after mass shootings and threatened govt regulations occurred.

For someone to view what is happening and statements like Rand's and then claim that prices won't go up or scarcity won't happen, is just propaganda.

[tommyrp12]

....

[anaconda]

Who is going to punish the USA for interfering in Ukraine? Backwater mercenaries on the streets in Ukraine and snipers shooting both sides to cause more violence. The USA is the one that is the aggressor here, not Putin.

^This. This might have been a great opportunity for Rand to expose the establishment on this black op type treason.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I see rand didnt push for "action against Russia" but I wish there was an acknowledgment that the US has no place to condemn Russia at all. None.


. But the proposals aren't really that tough, and they wouldn't work. We're going to "isolate" Russia until Putin leaves Crimea? When hell freezes over! The Russians have a naval base there! Putin ain't leaving. Ever. .


He did not present any kind of workable option. His proposals are mostly nonsense.


The point is not to win over the neo-con vote, but to neutralize them, by giving them the shell of what they want, without the inner substance---the "strong action" against Putin upon inspection will be measures that simply de-escalate the conflict, and promote non-intervention by all parties involved (just as his version of 'sanctions' are also nothing-burgers). Later, the neocons can't accuse him of being weak or reversing himself, because after all, he advocated for sanctions. Meanwhile, end result, we get a defacto non-interventionist policy, and a push back of the hawks.


Yeah, exactly. Rand has done a 180 on this issue, all for the sake of political convenience.

People need to read between the lines here. When Rand talks about both sides needing to "save face," it's not really Putin that needs to save face here. Putin already has the Crimea, that's a done deal. Who needs to "save face" are the hysteric neocons and John Kerry and elements in the EU. Toothless things like visa restrictions and G8/WTO restrictions allow the Western hysterics to save face by acting tough without actually starting a shooting WW3. I think we can al agree here that WW3 vs Russia would be bad, right?


The sanctions against Russia have nothing to do with expelling them from the G8. Those are two completely different issues.

You're just not paying attention. Rand's proposal about the G8 is taken straight from Rand's article that is the topic of this thread, "U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression." This is exactly the kind of "sanction" or "action" rand is talking about. Why would you even comment on this when you obviously have no idea what is being discussed?



(How is taking a lead role in stopping Putin *not* policing the world or being the world's ATM?).

Rand never said anything about "stopping" Putin. Those are your words. It's not policing, because there are no guns involved. Police have guns. And it's the opposite of being the world's ATM, because if yo actually read the article you were commenting on, you would have noted that Randsaid we should NOT LOAN MONEY to Ukraine.



what the fuck does Rand Paul see in this endeavor of banning goods freely flowing from one country to or from another?

Where did he do that? Cite, please.


(whether or not they freely flow now being no issue to the relevant discussion or rhetoric)

Reality is always relevant, unless yo're a schizophrenic.


Ron talks about Obama's sanctions, not what Rand is advocating.

What, you think people should read beyond the headline or something? Lulz.

[menciusmoldbug]

lots of words

symbolic +rep

[Brett85]

You're just not paying attention. Rand's proposal about the G8 is taken straight from Rand's article that is the topic of this thread, "U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression." This is exactly the kind of "sanction" or "action" rand is talking about. Why would you even comment on this when you obviously have no idea what is being discussed?

You're simply wrong. Simply expelling Russia from the G8 isn't all that Rand is in favor of. He said on Hannity's show last night that he's in favor of sanctions on Russia, such as travel bans and other things. There is going to be a full fledged sanctions bill that is going to be voted on in Congress soon, and Rand is going to vote in favor of it.

[Paulfan05]

Put me in the "WTF Rand" camp....

[cajuncocoa]

Ron made that statement, if you disagree with it why don't you explain why Ron is wrong?
If I have to explain it to you after the glaring differences between the two men with regard to the subject of this thread, it wouldn't matter anyway because you're obviously not capable of understanding it.

I know why Ron made that statement: he's Rand's Dad and doesn't want to hurt Rand's chances with his (Ron's) own supporters. I always knew that....that's what good Fathers do.

[Barrex]

ROFLMAOBAZINGAO

Rand Paul: I would re-institute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it.
Translated:
I say we should do it even tho everyone with 2 brain cells knows that Europeans will never pay for it....ipso facto: It will not be done. EVER.

Brilliant. He looks strong, strong words, panders to majority of voters, attacks Obama, turns to economy and how US should save money for people in US.That is 5+(or A+ by your american-weirdo standards) I couldnt do it any better... well maybe if I tried.

[Rudeman]

If I have to explain it to you after the glaring differences between the two men with regard to the subject of this thread, it wouldn't matter anyway because you're obviously not capable of understanding it.

I know why Ron made that statement: he's Rand's Dad and doesn't want to hurt Rand's chances with his (Ron's) own supporters. I always knew that....that's what good Fathers do.


Because this is the only issue they have an opinion on? You brought it up, not me. If you're going to bring it up then explain why you think Ron was wrong. Don't go around trying to bait others.

[cajuncocoa]

Because this is the only issue they have an opinion on? You brought it up, not me. If you're going to bring it up then explain why you think Ron was wrong. Don't go around trying to bait others.
It's a huge issue....worth more than 1% in my opinion. And I already told you why I think Ron said this. Not lying or wrong, just being a diplomatic Dad.

[klamath]

Glad Rand doesn't believe in Ron's dumb "Sanctions are acts of war". Glad he isn't cheering for the Russian invasion. Still standing with Rand.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Glad Rand doesn't believe in Ron's dumb "Sanctions are acts of war". Glad he isn't cheering for the Russian invasion. Still standing with Rand.

The only "dumb" people are those (like you) who feel they can get away with forcefully restricting a peoples' access to goods and services while ignoring the heartbreaking consequences that follow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

[jjdoyle]

The only "dumb" people are those (like you) who feel they can get away with forcefully restricting a peoples' access to goods and services while ignoring the heartbreaking consequences that follow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Yeah, Vladimir probably doesn't care a hill of beans if he is isolated. The man probably catches fish with his bare hands. And sanctions? When have sanctions worked to remove, or change a countries leadership and make big progress?
Cuba?
Iraq?
Old Soviet Union?
Iran?
North Korea?

Honest question. Sanctions rarely, if ever, harm the decision makers at the top in these countries it seems, at least from the examples I can think of. They still control the money, food, resources often times. Sanctions from what we know in Iraq, harmed the average citizens, not Saddam.

[cajuncocoa]

Glad Rand doesn't believe in Ron's dumb "Sanctions are acts of war". Glad he isn't cheering for the Russian invasion. Still standing with Rand.
It must have been painful for you having to endure "dumb" Ron Paul since you signed up here in June 2007. However did you handle it?

[boneyard bill]

I'll bite: maybe it's because they're not sure how to read him. There are people on this site who believe he's only saying these things to get the GOP nomination, and once elected, he will become a clone of his Dad. Maybe the interventionists aren't buying what he's trying to sell.

Of course they won't believe him. Why should they? We don't.

[klamath]

It must have been painful for you having to endure "dumb" Ron Paul since you signed up here in June 2007. However did you handle it?It must be painful for you sticking around here and having to endure "neocon" Rand.

[kcchiefs6465]

Where did he do that? Cite, please.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP3232:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112gHYUTt:e228628:



SEC. 1251. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012''.

SEC. 1252. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--In this subtitle:

(1) AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.--The term ``agricultural commodity'' has the meaning given that term in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).

(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' has the meaning given that term in section 14 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

(3) COAL.--The term ``coal'' means metallurgical coal, coking coal, or fuel coke.

(4) CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT; PAYABLE-THROUGH ACCOUNT.--The terms ``correspondent account'' and ``payable-through account'' have the meanings given those terms in section 5318A of title 31, United States Code.

(5) FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.--The term ``foreign financial institution'' has the meaning of that term as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513(i)).

(6) IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.--The term ``Iranian financial institution'' has the meaning given that term in section 104A(d) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513b(d)).

(7) IRANIAN PERSON.--The term ``Iranian person'' means--

(A) an individual who is a citizen or national of Iran; and
(B) an entity organized under the laws of Iran or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran.

(8) KNOWINGLY.--The term ``knowingly'', with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.

(9) MEDICAL DEVICE.--The term ``medical device'' has the meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).

(10) MEDICINE.--The term ``medicine'' has the meaning given the term ``drug'' in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(11) SHIPPING.--The term ``shipping'' refers to the transportation of goods by a vessel and related activities.
(12) UNITED STATES PERSON.--The term ``United States person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8511).
(13) VESSEL.--The term ``vessel'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of title 1, United States Code.
(b) Determinations of Significance.--For purposes of this subtitle, in determining if financial transactions or financial services are significant, the President may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances, including factors similar to the factors set forth in section 561.404 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).



(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Iran's energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors and Iran's ports are facilitating the Government of Iran's nuclear proliferation activities by providing revenue to support proliferation activities.
(2) The United Nations Security Council and the United States Government have expressed concern about the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear program.
(3) The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in this section referred to as the ``IAEA'') has in successive reports (GOV/2012/37 and GOV/2011/65) identified possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.
(4) The Government of Iran continues to defy the requirements and obligations contained in relevant IAEA Board of Governors and United Nations Security Council resolutions, including by continuing and expanding uranium enrichment activities in Iran, as reported in IAEA Report GOV/2012/37.




(1) IN GENERAL.--On and after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of any person described in paragraph (2) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

(2) PERSONS DESCRIBED.--A person is described in this paragraph if the President determines that the person, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) is part of the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran;
(B) operates a port in Iran; or

(C) knowingly provides significant financial, material, technological, or other support to, or goods or services in support of any activity or transaction on behalf of or for the benefit of--

(i) a person determined under subparagraph (A) to be a part of the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran;

(ii) a person determined under subparagraph (B) to operate a port in Iran; or

(iii) an Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution described in paragraph (3)).




(3) IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DESCRIBED.--An Iranian financial institution described in this paragraph is an Iranian financial institution that has not been designated for the imposition of sanctions in connection with--

(A) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction;

(B) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(C) Iran's abuses of human rights.




(d) Additional Sanctions With Respect to the Energy, Shipping, and Shipbuilding Sectors of Iran.--

(1) SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER OF CERTAIN GOODS AND SERVICES.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, sells, supplies, or transfers to or from Iran significant goods or services described in paragraph (3).

(2) FACILITATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall prohibit the opening, and
prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of goods or services described in paragraph (3).




(3) GOODS AND SERVICES DESCRIBED.--Goods or services described in this paragraph are goods or services used in connection with the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran, including the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall apply with respect to the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if, at the time of the purchase, a determination of the President under section 1245(d)(4)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(B)) that the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly their purchases from Iran is in effect.


Passed 94-0



Reality is always relevant, unless yo're a schizophrenic.

It's hilarious (though predictable) that the most particularly inept at even holding an intelligent conversation post such ridiculousness. What do you wish to talk about? Reality? Okay, I'll humor myself by providing you some reality.

Rand Paul, after all of his political pandering and bad votes, will still not be the republican nominee. Do you know why? Because there are factors at play bigger than a damn electronic voting booth. You think those who own the media, who own the military/military corporations, who get the no bid contracts in all of these various countries, and the first rights to drill... you think these people are stupid? Do you think that the weight of this leviathan -- down to the voter at home getting government benefits, will take the chance of their gravy train being ended (as Rand Paul certainly wouldn't end them all.. even if he could)? Aside from his Maddow interview, and his inability to articulate the problems with the CRA, which will be played ad naseum to the particularly fed "enlightened" voting sheep, he will be destroyed by the so called Republican channel as well. They will speak of how radical, isolationist, and naive he is. Neoconservative brain washers will rail by way of using tragedies of the day as a means to cast doubt in the generation that votes. And that generation most certainly doesn't want to see Social Security fixed (i.e. the investors getting bilked with nothing more to show for their robbery than a life lesson in trusting the government). The people like their sugar quotas. They like government cheese.

And as much, realistically speaking, what power does the president truly have? I know they run roughshod today, but a Rand Paul presidency, I'm told, would be different. And so what, he is going to veto every piece of unconstitutional legislation? They'd never pass a damn bill if that were the case, and you expect me to believe that "A," Rand Paul would, and that "B," Congress would do nothing about it. He'd be impeached before sunrise (or tragically go the way of other presidents passed). And people make jokes of "anarchist" 'unicorn fantasies.' Give me a fucking break. This is so absurd it's beyond talking about -- partly why I never do.

I appreciate what Rand Paul does in the Senate (until he does something particularly annoying). Ron Paul made inroads. What do you think woke people up? "Sanctions" and other half-assed Reagan-esque rhetoric or the truth, uncensored? People are fed up with the two party whores and what does Rand do? He positions himself easily perceived as one of them.

Watch when he votes in the affirmative for S.462.

[cajuncocoa]

It must be painful for you sticking around here and having to endure "neocon" Rand.
Wow...I haven't said a word about him being a neocon in over 6 months or so. For the record, I don't think he is. Are you projecting your own feelings onto me? I'm supporting Rand; Ron isn't coming back. That said, Ron is the "gold standard" as far as I'm concerned. I prefer Ron's approach to foreign policy issues, but that's not going to happen now.

[boneyard bill]

If you want us to concede there could be a better strategic road taken to get a non-interventionist elected President, I'll grant there is. But please note the straightforward road Ron took has been tried, twice. Ron was consistently principled, rational--and almost entirely incapable of shaking the interventionist FRAMEWORK that emotionally drives foreign policy as manipulated by the neo-cons. Ron responded by talking about blowback, which is another argument, which thus could not overcome the emotional framing.

Rand is dealing with the framework issue via the jujitsu route (appear to agree with the enemy, then use the momentum of that position against them to advocate for something else) to bypass the emotional "we gotta be strong, gotta stop our enemies" hawkish spell put on GOP voters. Both the merits AND the emotionalism have to be addressed in the current environment, so Rand's rhetoric is in fact a necessary and intelligent way to deal with the problem.

I have suggested an alternative approach to dealing with the demagoguery, involving 'shocking' people out of the spell by bringing up 9-11 truth and other false flag/covert manipulations operating beneath the surface, to provide a pretext to justify hawkish policy. I maintain that exposing false flags is the superior approach---but of course, many here do not like that framework-breaking strategy. So, until somebody comes up with another idea, we'll have to accept Rand's verbal jujitsu, or 'paper-rock-scissors' method to overcome the framing.

In politics, emotion trumps reason, while pain can trump emotion. E.g., we have seen how Ron Paul's reasonable approach fails to break hawkish emotionalism, while we have also noticed how the post-election pain of losing can shake people out of their emotional embrace of the allegedly "electable" candidate ("oh, NOW I see, there was no way McCain/Romney could have ever won"). The rational merits of a political position are 'paper,' while the emotionalism is the 'scissors.' Rand's pragmatic emphasis on noting the costs, pain and futility of intervention, including the deliberately useless substance of his proposed sanctions and political theatre rhetoric, is an attempt to introduce "rock" to the equation, to trump the emotional hawk framework.

I won't disagree entirely with your analysis. I think Rand needs to do a little bit of "triangulation" as they called it in the Clinton Administration. But this isn't that. It gets to the question of credibility, and I don't think any one, whether a supporter or opponent of Rand Paul, thinks he really believes what he's saying here. Yes, McCain will howl about the need to act tough and so will Cruz and others. But they usually just talk in generalities. Here Rand has spelled out what he would do if he were in Obama's position, and what he would do would be anything but tough.

Speed up the process of licensing gas shipments to Europe? Yes. Good idea. We should do that anyway. But any suggestion that we could replace Russia in supplying Europe's oil and gas needs is utterly unrealistic. Don't give any aid to Ukraine. Yes. Absolutely. They need to go bankrupt and govern on a pay-as-you basis until they get their financial house in order. It would have been great if Rand had stopped right there. But the other proposals, the "tough" proposals, aren't tough. Europe is not going to support sanctions on Russia. They're afraid of the reverse. They need the oil and gas from Russia. Isolate Russia? From whom? Europe, as noted, can't afford that. China and India have already come out in support of Putin. That leaves Japan and Brazil among the major economic powers and good luck with them.

How do you get tough with Putin? Send the Sixth Fleet into the Black Sea. Admit Ukraine to NATO and threaten to respond militarily to any foreign troops entering Ukriane, including Crimea. That's getting tough. It's also risking WW III which is why no one is willing do it. They all just want to talk. So maybe Rand has done us a favor in that by spelling out specific measures that aren't so tough he's really showing how empty all this rhetoric really is.

I don't see what he gains by this charade, and I think he loses a lot of credibility by attempting it. His being different from the hawks was on of his biggest assets. Now he's thrown that down the drain.

[klamath]

Wow...I haven't said a word about him being a neocon in over 6 months or so. For the record, I don't think he is. Are you projecting your own feelings onto me? I'm supporting Rand; Ron isn't coming back. That said, Ron is the "gold standard" as far as I'm concerned. I prefer Ron's approach to foreign policy issues, but that's not going to happen now. Rather dumb of you putting words in my mouth as well, don't you think. I said Ron had one dumb idea, "Sanctions are war". Never agreed with that but it is a minor issue. Maybe 2007 is an important date for you and RP however I go back to 1976 with Ron.

[kcchiefs6465]

Rather dumb of you putting words in my mouth as well, don't you think. I said Ron had one dumb idea, "Sanctions are war". Never agreed with that but it is a minor issue. Maybe 2007 is an important date for you and RP however I go back to 1976 with Ron.
You should hear Ron Paul now. Half of the intellectually bankrupt crowd might just call him "insane."

People do grow and their positions mature. And this isn't the damn 'red scare.' (though collectivists and legal positivists surely are in every corner of America, unabashed by their views.. they'll tell you straight to your face... as most often than not, in this current society, at least, the "law" is on their side.)

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

{Iran}

The topic here is Russia. Try to stay on topic. Can you cite anything for your claim relevant to the topic, Russia?


Passed 94-0

Do you not realize that without voting for that bill, Rand wouldn't have been able to add amendments that barred an actual shooting war from happening? (Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran - http://rt.com/usa/paul-iran-war-us-704/ )

Would you have been happier if the vote was 93-1 and the US nuked Iran? Would you look over the smoldering corpses and circlejerk yourself into ecstacy over how "pure" you are?


Watch when he votes in the affirmative for S.462.

That also has nothing to do with Russia. Try to stay on topic instead of foaming at the mouth about every other thing else under the sun. You might make a decent argument if you could control yourself.

[Natural Citizen]

And Ron is factually incorrect when he calls sanctions 'an act of war'. I didn't understand that at first until I did my own research on it.

Hm. Can I ask exactly what you researched to come to that conclusion. And it does appear that you have concluded this notion.

How would you define economic occupation? Just out of curiosity.

[kcchiefs6465]

The topic here is Russia. Try to stay on topic. Can you cite anything for your claim relevant to the topic, Russia?

My statement, "And furthermore, what the fuck does Rand Paul see in this endeavor of banning goods freely flowing from one country to or from another? (whether or not they freely flow now being no issue to the relevant discussion or rhetoric)", of which you responded to was more speaking of a general attitude elicited by Rand Paul... as was the rest of the post and my general criticism of his votes/rhetoric.



Do you not realize that without voting for that bill, Rand wouldn't have been able to add amendments that barred an actual shooting war from happening? (Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran - http://rt.com/usa/paul-iran-war-us-704/ )

Do you not realize that a position morally conclusive and in line with his father's would continue to grow the base that his father had nurtured? (a "base" that matters (not appeasing collectivist, war mongering republicans) in that it is moral and respects the Constitution though more hopefully so, said base has no intention of using the government's strong arm to take from some to give to themselves.)



Would you have been happier if the vote was 93-1 and the US nuked Iran? Would you look over the smoldering corpses and circlejerk yourself into ecstacy over how "pure" you are?

Is this serious? 93-1 on a sanctions bill (which only strengthens the given government allegedly at cause of said nuclear annihilation). And on top of that absurdity, then I am to "circlejerk" (when my supposed "circle" impart sometimes wishes to steal my money..) I mean, how could I concentrate? Your absurd rhetoric does nothing for your case. How "pure" I am comes to bat with how much I don't like being threatened and extorted for other people's so called "wise" schemes. That is what is at issue. Reaganesque rhetoric and absurd scenarios will never turn might to right.


That also has nothing to do with Russia. Try to stay on topic instead of foaming at the mouth about every other thing else under the sun. You might make a decent argument if you could control yourself.
Collectivists, legal positivists, and leeches annoy me. I've gone the route of respectfully explaining right and wrong. I have respectfully made the case, concretely. And what do I get? Bullshit quips of insanity and worse, outright admission of wishes for their means to collectively subject the minority. But so long as the government, never contracted or agreed legitimately to, mind you, convinces enough people (50.1%) that this is that, this becomes that.

"Has nothing to do with Russia".. right. What an insult to common sense. These global 'hegemonic' games of petty state offered absurdity.. you don't think a US/Israel spy center concerns the Russians? Thieves. Writ at large.

Fuck them. Let them pay for it themselves, if it's so noble. Oh wait, absent a bastardized, mandated currency, it could never happen.

(and of course, this had nothing to do with anything)

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

That is what is at issue

What is at issue, for me, is stopping World War 3. Your issue seems to be ranting about how you're a special little snowflake.

[kcchiefs6465]

What is at issue, for me, is stopping World War 3. Your issue seems to be ranting about how you're a special little snowflake.
And stopping WW3 surely will be done by sanctioning Iran, threatening countries who do business with them, and annoying the Russians with petty antics of global hegemony. (not to mention sponsoring a coup in Ukraine. Another country hopelessly enslaved to debt.)

I don't know how to take you seriously after your incredibly hyperbolic statement regarding if Rand Paul were to be the sole vote against an Iranian sanctions amendment, that it somehow would (or could) lead to a nuclear annihilation. Even the fear mongers on television don't illogically jump that far.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

(not to mention sponsoring a coup in Ukraine. Another country hopelessly enslaved to debt.)

Are you saying Senator Paul sponsored a coup in the Ukraine?

Do you support Paul's plan to stop loaning money to Ukraine, or not?


I don't know how if Rand Paul were to be the sole vote against an Iranian sanctions amendment, that it somehow would (or could) lead to a nuclear annihilation.

Maybe you should brush up on how the Senate works.

[kcchiefs6465]

Are you saying Senator Paul sponsored a coup in the Ukraine?

I'm saying that the United States government did, more specifically, the CIA, did. Much the way they sponsored a coup in '49 (Syria) '53 (Iran) or in '63 (Iraq) as well as dozens more.



Do you support Paul's plan to stop loaning money to Ukraine, or not?

Why wouldn't I?



Maybe you should brush up on how the Senate works.
Please enlighten me.

I'm particularly curious as to how one Senator's 'Nay' (on a NDAA Amendment, no less) could possibly cause WWIII or a nuclear annihilation. Their votes collectively could, though, especially with regards to the NDAA.

To be clear, what could cause World War III, or a nuclear annihilation, is the United States' foreign policy. Not one Senator's non-interventionist stands.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

There is going to be a full fledged sanctions bill that is going to be voted on in Congress soon, and Rand is going to vote in favor of it.

He has since voted against it in committee Wednesday.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

{clueless maturbatory prattling}

Do you not realize that without voting for that bill, Rand wouldn't have been able to add amendments that barred an actual shooting war from happening? (Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran - http://rt.com/usa/paul-iran-war-us-704/ )

Would you have been happier if the vote was 93-1 and the US nuked Iran? Would you look over the smoldering corpses and circlejerk yourself into ecstacy over how "pure" you are?

[Brett85]

He has since voted against it in committee Wednesday.

I didn't know they were going to add the foreign aid and everything else with it. Rand voted against the bill because of the foreign aid, not because of the sanctions. His amendment was to strip the bill of the foreign aid, not the sanctions. Still, I appreciate that he's at least a fiscal conservative on foreign policy, even though he's not a non interventionist.

[LibertyEagle]

Put me in the "WTF Rand" camp....

You didn't read beyond the headline either, did you. :rolleyes:

[Spikender]

As I said in another topic about this, the only issue I have is with that final line of Putin getting away with it, but other than that, Rand sounds 100% better than the past dozen of our leaders on foreign policy in this instance and he explained the reasons why we shouldn't lend money to China or use our military eloquently.

The part of the argument that really sits well with me is the fact that America is broke. I'm hoping many can sympathize with how destructive our own debt can be to our nation.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I didn't know

Rand did know; which is why he wins and you lose.

[Brett85]

Rand did know; which is why he wins and you lose.

Whatever. He would've voted for the bill if it had just contained the sanctions and not the foreign aid. And of course you would have no problem with that, since principles don't matter.

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't know they were going to add the foreign aid and everything else with it. Rand voted against the bill because of the foreign aid, not because of the sanctions. His amendment was to strip the bill of the foreign aid, not the sanctions. Still, I appreciate that he's at least a fiscal conservative on foreign policy, even though he's not a non interventionist.

Yeah he is. You just have gotten into the habit of not reading beyond the headlines. What's up with that? You used to be better than that.

[tommyrp12]

I will agree there are some nice economic outcomes for us, but they could have been done a long time ago, and TPTB want a war. Other than that all I read is he wants to isolate him until Putin caves. Which may work or it may start a real war, especially with consideration to the missile defense shield.According to him it "should not" require military action. Well that's a relief. This sounds like it is only going to escalate. Let the Ukrainians fight for themselves or ask someone else for help.


, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.


U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.


This does not and should not require military action.


Economic sanctions and visa bans


It is important that Russia become economically isolated until all its forces are removed from Crimea and Putin pledges to act in accordance with the international standards of behavior that respect the rights of free people everywhere.


I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it.

[Brett85]

Yeah he is. You just have gotten into the habit of not reading beyond the headlines. What's up with that? You used to be better than that.

I read the entire article and don't agree with his position on this issue. I don't support sanctions on Russia or any other country. I believe that sanctions, particularly when placed on a country like Russia that can easily retaliate, can lead to a full fledged war. I'm a Rand Paul supporter but don't feel the need to never criticize him and simply defend him every single time. I'm not a blind supporter.

[Spikender]

I read the entire article and don't agree with his position on this issue. I don't support sanctions on Russia or any other country. I believe that sanctions, particularly when placed on a country like Russia that can easily retaliate, can lead to a full fledged war. I'm a Rand Paul supporter but don't feel the need to never criticize him and simply defend him every single time. I'm not a blind supporter.

You deserve rep for that. That's the position I take on this too. I still support him, but to think that I won't criticize him is being unfaithful to my believes and, really, unfaithful to Rand since he needs to be criticized when he does something wrong.

Well, wrong in my opinion, I suppose.

[Crashland]

I read the entire article and don't agree with his position on this issue. I don't support sanctions on Russia or any other country. I believe that sanctions, particularly when placed on a country like Russia that can easily retaliate, can lead to a full fledged war. I'm a Rand Paul supporter but don't feel the need to never criticize him and simply defend him every single time. I'm not a blind supporter.

I agree. Economic sanctions don't actually hurt the people in power unless you make the entire population of that country so incredibly poor that they overthrow their government. And setting the moral problem with that aside, if it hasn't even happened in Iran, it's not going to happen in Russia.

It's too bad that Rand feels the need to pander on this particular issue, because it means that opposing economic sanctions might be a liability in the primary, which is more a reflection of the current state of the GOP. The GOP might be ready for selling non-military-interventionism, but maybe not yet ready to buy the full package. Rand usually plays his cards well and I am still hopeful that this is just pure politics and that it will pay off later.

[boneyard bill]

I agree. Economic sanctions don't actually hurt the people in power unless you make the entire population of that country so incredibly poor that they overthrow their government. And setting the moral problem with that aside, if it hasn't even happened in Iran, it's not going to happen in Russia.

It's too bad that Rand feels the need to pander on this particular issue, because it means that opposing economic sanctions might be a liability in the primary, which is more a reflection of the current state of the GOP. The GOP might be ready for selling non-military-interventionism, but maybe not yet ready to buy the full package. Rand usually plays his cards well and I am still hopeful that this is just pure politics and that it will pay off later.

I feel certain that it is pure politics and I am very disappointed in Rand for attempting this. It was pure politics, but it was foolish politics. As I have said before, if we don't believe Rand is sincere on this issue, how can we expect that his adversaries will believe him?

So far the reaction hasn't been as bad as I might have expected. He's received the obvious criticism which is that his position contradicts his previous statements on this issue as well as with his foreign policy positions generally. But I'm surprised that he hasn't received more of it. So far most of the criticism has come from the usual neocon suspects. I still fear that it will come back to haunt him further down the road.

One problem (among many) with his statement is that he took a military response off the table. So did most of Obama's Republican critics for that matter. But who HASN'T taken a military response off the table? The Obama administration! John Kerry said, just recently, "all options are on the table." That's pretty strong language and goes well beyond what most Republicans, who claim Obama is weak, are calling for. So these Republican hawks, like Ted Cruz, may end up looking pretty foolish as Obama takes us to the brink of nuclear war. It's a really pity that Rand Paul chose to join them.

Meanwhile, what does the American public think about this? They could care less what happens in Ukraine. They definitely don't want another war. Not even a little one. Rand had popular opinion on his side, and he threw it away. Let the critics carp all they want. Rand's position on foreign policy, not non-intervention but very rare and cautious intervention, fits the public mood perfectly. He will win with the public on that issue in every debate even as the critics will insist that the blew it on his foreign policy statements.

I hope Rand has learned a lesson on this issue. His critics made him look stupid. But the criticisms were far fewer, and from far less influential people, than I would have expected. I assume that this is because the White House has grabbed all the attention, and nobody has time for Rand Paul right now. In the meantime, assuming that weakling in the White House doesn't get us into World War III, Rand can focus his attention on stopping foreign aid to the Ukraine. He is right on that point. The best thing Ukraine can do right now is declare bankruptcy (and stick Putin for $1.8 billion in Gazprom debt), tighten their belts and live within their means from here on out. Small government will grow the Ukrainian economy.

Rand has been pretty clever up until now. Flip-flopping on an issue in not clever. That's what ordinary politicians do, and that's why we distrust them. Rand will never change politics in Washington by conducting business as usual.