Rand Paul's evolution on Iraq is fully complete (Huff Post headline)

[cindy25]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/rand-paul-iraq_n_5762270.html

[twomp]

An interesting quote from that article:


He then followed up by criticizing "war hawks" like Hillary Clinton, only to advocate for war himself two days later.

[Christian Liberty]

How accurate is the article? Is Rand actually advocating putting troops on the ground?

[Christian Liberty]

Rand is making it REALLY hard for me to support him...

[cindy25]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/09/03/rand-pauls-remarkable-metamorphosis/

[jeffro97]

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10559806_317693355077160_8081609542718060153_n.png ?oh=d15bc9e98470eff0a59919ee9a466457&oe=5471B954

The is from The Independents (https://www.facebook.com/IndependentsFBN/photos/a.215995785246918.1073741828.215106025335894/317693355077160/?type=1&theater) on FBN.

Yeah, I'm starting to lose faith more and more. 2016 will be my first time voting at all, so we still have two years to go. He could either do a lot to impress me, or a lot to make me angry. Time will tell.

[jeffro97]

Scrolled down to find this little jem as well. Um, Rand, you better have some good reasons for this.

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10628284_311304599049369_4232842712877225436_n.png ?oh=c88c5be2ea049f9563722fde1223d43b&oe=545E9D62

[Brett85]

Rand never flip flopped or changed his position on this. He said all along that he was open to air strikes against ISIS. He ultimately came to the conclusion that we should launch air strikes after the events of the last several weeks took place. But he was never against air strikes.

[Brett85]

When Rand referred to Hillary as a "war hawk," he was referring to the fact that Hillary has supported every war. She supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, supported the war in Libya, supported Obama's plan to get rid of Assad with military action, supported arming the Syrian rebels (ISIS), etc. Rand supports one limited intervention with air strikes against a group of people who actually pose a threat to U.S national security. Rand will easily be able to paint Hillary as a rabid warmonger who helped ISIS rise to power. Rand will be the strong on defense candidate who opposes unnecessary interventions that help terrorist groups but supports killing our enemies and defending the American people.

[Brett85]

Rand is in favor of destroying a monster (ISIS) that the neocons are responsible for creating.

[cindy25]

will Rand vote no on the Wolf resolution?

[Brett85]

will Rand vote no on the Wolf resolution?

I doubt if it will even come up for a vote. Congress will pass a narrow resolution if they pass one.

[fr33]

Rand should be more like his father in educating his fellow Republicans about declarations of war and the the whole scam about how it's constitutional

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand is in favor of destroying a monster (ISIS) that the neocons are responsible for creating.

This is justification for every government program and action ever taken. In perpetuity, no less. If this is the prevailing attitude within the liberty movement - government has caused the problem, therefore more government action is needed to correct it - then the gig is over. The movement has been assimilated into the establishment faster than even the Goldwater insurgency folded.

That would be sad if Ron Paul's legacy becomes such dismal failure.

Serious question: why is bombing ISIS ok and even justified/good, but affirmative action, welfare, socialized health care, civil rights, gay marriage, etc bad? The underlying principle you stated - government created a problem, therefore it needs to do something to resolve it - is the same principle underpinning progressive arguments for all of those other things.

[cindy25]

this is a tactical error. by Jan 2016 (Iowa) the new war will have lost its luster, American boots on the ground will be coming home in body bags, and being able to be the ONLY anti-war candidate in a field of chicken hawks would be popular, even among Iowa Republicans. maybe not a majority, but a plurality. just being another neo-con voice won't.

[Brett85]

this is a tactical error. by Jan 2016 (Iowa) the new war will have lost its luster, American boots on the ground will be coming home in body bags, and being able to be the ONLY anti-war candidate in a field of chicken hawks would be popular, even among Iowa Republicans. maybe not a majority, but a plurality. just being another neo-con voice won't.

Sigh. You guys really need to go research the definition of the word "neo-conservative." It has a very specific meaning, and it doesn't just refer to anyone who doesn't support an entirely anti war or anti interventionist foreign policy. It refers specifically to people who support invading foreign countries for the purpose of "spreading democracy around the world." Rand has been consistently speaking out against that foreign policy. He's said that our policy of spreading democracy overseas has created chaos in Iraq and Libya.