jct74
08-25-2014, 01:16 PM
Rand Paul says he scares Democrats. Should he?
By Chris Cillizza
August 25 at 2:42 PM
Here's Rand Paul on what a 2016 matchup between himself and de facto Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton might look like: "If you wanna see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you'll see a transformation like you've never seen."
While I'm not sure Clinton would describe herself as a "war hawk" she has tended -- as Secretary of State and in the Senate -- to favor more aggressive approaches to international conflicts then those advocated by President Obama or, for that matter, Paul.
Consider:
* Clinton, while in the Senate, voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq in 2002. Obama, spoke out in opposition to it. Paul, who, like Obama, wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote, has worked to repeal the use of force resolution.
* Clinton supported a larger troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009. Obama chose a smaller one. Paul penned an op-ed -- along with two Democratic Senators -- advocating for a faster withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan than Obama proposed.
* Clinton was a strong voice advocating military intervention in Libya. President Obama eventually sided with her. Paul opposed military intervention.
* Clinton favored more directly and broadly arming Syrian rebels early in the civil war, a move Obama resisted. Paul opposed arming the rebels.
...
read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/25/rand-paul-says-he-scares-democrats-should-he/
By Chris Cillizza
August 25 at 2:42 PM
Here's Rand Paul on what a 2016 matchup between himself and de facto Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton might look like: "If you wanna see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you'll see a transformation like you've never seen."
While I'm not sure Clinton would describe herself as a "war hawk" she has tended -- as Secretary of State and in the Senate -- to favor more aggressive approaches to international conflicts then those advocated by President Obama or, for that matter, Paul.
Consider:
* Clinton, while in the Senate, voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq in 2002. Obama, spoke out in opposition to it. Paul, who, like Obama, wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote, has worked to repeal the use of force resolution.
* Clinton supported a larger troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009. Obama chose a smaller one. Paul penned an op-ed -- along with two Democratic Senators -- advocating for a faster withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan than Obama proposed.
* Clinton was a strong voice advocating military intervention in Libya. President Obama eventually sided with her. Paul opposed military intervention.
* Clinton favored more directly and broadly arming Syrian rebels early in the civil war, a move Obama resisted. Paul opposed arming the rebels.
...
read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/25/rand-paul-says-he-scares-democrats-should-he/