https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbPIkEDqfhc
Printable View
Not a big fan of the spending more money thing...
Spend money on that bill from where?
the government is broke.
He's on roll lately, good stuff.
His budget cuts a lot of stuff elsewhere no doubt to pay for security
Yeah..I wished Rand hadn't made the "worst since 9-11" comparison. He definitely had to back track on that with Wolf.
It's not like it dominated the conversation, it took all of :10 seconds to explain. Obviously he meant a diplomatic blunder, this was a good interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by anaconda
As for the appropriation remarks. The appropriation will probably come out of the DOD's current budget. And frankly aslong as we have diplomats overseas we're responsible for their safety. This is spending we shouldn't be cutting; the issue is the military budget.
It's easy enough to clarify: say he meant it was the most deadly terrorist attack against a US civilian target since 9/11. 'Cause, you know, it was the most deadly terrorist attack against a US civilian target since 9/11. He shouldn't need to backtrack.Quote:
Originally Posted by anaconda
By way of the Vienna treaty, countries in which embassies and consulates are located are responsible for their security.Quote:
Originally Posted by dskalkowski
Additionally, arguing for military defense of these consulates and embassies is arguing for empire and overseas bases. Far from non-interventionism, this is an endorsement of our foreign policy.
Rand Paul: Benghazi A Judgement Failure By Secretary Clinton
CNN | January 23, 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXfIyYcMxc
http://youtu.be/3WXfIyYcMxc
Just wondering where's he getting the $55 billion from when the budget isn't balanced?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agorism
I don't think that the treaty applies when you are at war with country you have an embassy in.And the USA was at war with Libya.You can not go around the world attacking countries on all continents and have your fingers in every war,rebellion,dictator and not expect blow back.You reap what you saw,and when you saw death you certainly are not going to reap hugs and kisses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess
There never are any reports about Chinese,Japanese,Brazilian embassies being burned down and that is because they mind their own business.
Not to mention that USA embassies in almost every country are just a screen for the CIA,if you add marines to them as well they are completely legitimate targets.
.
Obsessing about Benghazi didn't exactly lead Romney & the GOP into the White House. Such things may have traction in the over 60 GOP crowd, which will be over 64 in 2016, but not too many other places.
He's clearly riding the wave of this current media topic to the fullest extant and keeping his name out there. Above all, he's getting the most press out of this, pissing off the left and getting major gravitas from most of the right wing media. He's playing each issue for all they are worth. If you're on Hannity and Levin in one day on a current major issue, you're doing something right in terms of being from the pro-liberty camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by furface
Yeah, but if the stances you're taking aren't pro-liberty (and let's be clear, he's calling for more security spending and for additional military bases in foreign countries - that is anti-liberty), you aren't helping the pro-liberty cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel
Romney didn't obsess over Benghazi. He pushed one little thing about it when under fire in the debate and failed. It was another example of Romney trying to "run to the middle."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess
wait what where in the interview did he ask for more military basis?
I thought he asked for more money to protect our embassies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Watch his Hannity interview from last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by cero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u6IE9R4f6NI
Also, he mentions having militarization of embassies at the 4:50 or so mark in the Blitzer video.
Whoa whoa. I want to hear about budget cuts elsewhere before I want to hear about increasing billions for security for CIA black sites.
Note to Rand: Don't talk about 9/11 ever. Learn from Debra Medina's path on this. Wolf appeared to be setting you up for a later "truther" interview. And for god sake don't talk about increasing budgets for any department unless your answer starts with cuts elsewhere. Talk about where you will cut FIRST. Then talk about where you think money can be better spent. /sigh
Where in the video did he say he wanted additional military bases, Abscess? All I heard him say is that they need more protection in dangerous countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess
He didn't call for more spending though, he said the State Department shouldn't be spending millions of dollars on idiotic things like charging stations for electric cars and sending comedians to India and instead dedicate those funds for things it should be doing such as guarding embassies and protecting diplomats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess
Yes, more protection that he specifically called to be carried out by the military. And even suggested aircraft carriers and other warships should be moved to North Africa. There is no spinning this in a positive manner. Rand isn't suggesting non-intervention. At all.Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
1) He said the Marines who currently guard documents at embassies and consulates should instead be guarding the actual embassies and the diplomatsQuote:
Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess
2) He questioned why our aircraft carriers are not near the places our troops are stationed on the ground in case they need assistance in cases like Benghazi