National Review: Rand Paul’s War

[jct74]

Rand Paul’s War
He works the phones and the media to make the case for not intervening in Syria.

By Robert Costa
SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 5:00 AM

It’s 9:15 on Tuesday night and Capitol Hill is quiet as Senator Rand Paul emerges from Fox News’s studio near Union Station. His face is slightly smeared with powder from his appearance minutes earlier on Hannity, and Sergio Gor, a political aide, is trailing him. Paul walks quickly to the street, heading toward his nearby apartment. It’s been a long day for him, starting with a flight from Kentucky and followed by a packed afternoon at the Foreign Relations Committee. He’s eager to get to his place, rest up, and get ready for a busy week of debate.

But then Paul spots a group of his Senate staffers in the shadows, relaxing in the outdoor lounge at Johnny’s Half Shell, a seafood restaurant housed on the first floor of Fox News’s building. They signal him to come over. Paul glances at Gor, smiles, and hops smoothly over the small fence. The bartender looks on disapprovingly. His advisers chuckle; they’re impressed with their boss’s athleticism, and one raises a glass to toast him.

For the next 30 minutes, Paul sits with them, nursing a beer and sharing the latest stories about his opposition to military action in Syria. At first, there’s talk of his testy exchange with Secretary of State John Kerry at a hearing, then whispered updates about Republicans’ growing unease. Paul never says it explicitly, but it’s clear from his upbeat manner how much he relishes this fight. Of course he’s troubled by the prospect of war and he’s realistic about his chances of stopping one, but he’s enthused by how the GOP is shifting away from the foreign policy of the George W. Bush era.

And now, after more than three years of making an often lonely case for less U.S. intervention abroad, this likely 2016 presidential contender finds himself coordinating a growing conservative rebellion — not only against the Obama administration, but also against his own party’s hawks. He’s huddling daily with conservatives in both the House and Senate and guiding them on how to battle the leadership. He also hasn’t ruled out a filibuster, though he has publicly played down the idea. One Paul confidant tells me the senator is already looking into buying comfier sneakers.

...

read more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-robert-costa

[ObiRandKenobi]

i appreciate robert costa's work but seems like all his articles are positive which is probably why he has such access to everybody.

[AuH20]

Rand has taken Ron's core beliefs and revamped it with obstacles of the real world. So glad to hear this:

Behind the scenes, Paul has held weekly meetings with former Reagan and George H. W. Bush advisers, asking them to help him articulate a “realist” foreign policy for a new generation. “I was surprised when he called and wanted to meet, but I met with him and we talked for a few hours about how different crises in the past have been handled by Congress and the president,” says a former Republican official who met with Paul earlier this summer. “It wasn’t what I expected. Clearly he wants to be more than Ron Paul’s son; my impression is that he’s staking out his own ground.”

Another official Paul has sought for counsel is Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany and State Department adviser for Reagan. “The senator’s instincts, in terms of defining the national interest, are exactly right,” he says. “He and I have spoken about how Syria doesn’t meet the threshold that Reagan would set for military action. What he’s doing isn’t knee-jerk isolationism but a return to Reagan’s sense of prudence.”

[cajuncocoa]

Rand has taken Ron's core beliefs and revamped it with obstacles of the real world. So glad to hear this:

I will never diminish Ron in order to promote Rand. There was nothing wrong with Ron's view of the "real world"....the problem was, the "real world" didn't want to hear it. They were discouraged by the voices to which they listen (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al). I hope Rand stays strong and doesn't waver even an inch on this.

[AuH20]

I will never diminish Ron in order to promote Rand. There was nothing wrong with Ron's view of the "real world"....the problem was, the "real world" didn't want to hear it. They were discouraged by the voices to which they listen (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al). I hope Rand stays strong and doesn't waver even an inch on this.

Ron was pigeonholed as the 'all or nothing' candidate, which diminished his candidacy. I think Rand's foreign policy perspective cannot be easily pigeonholed as "unworkable" or "unfit" for the contemporary world.

[cajuncocoa]

Ron was pigeonholed as the 'all or nothing' candidate, which diminished his candidacy. I think Rand's foreign policy perspective cannot be easily pigeonholed as "unworkable" or "unfit" for the contemporary world.

What do you see as the difference between the two? Most people here keep claiming they're both the same. Is it just a matter of perception?

[jbauer]

What do you see as the difference between the two? Most people here keep claiming they're both the same. Is it just a matter of perception?

I think they're damn close. Ron said things stronger but Rands votes seem on par. If this whole Syria thing hasn't brought anyone on the fence to Rand's side there's not much that's going to.

[Brett85]

“The senator’s instincts, in terms of defining the national interest, are exactly right,” he says. “He and I have spoken about how Syria doesn’t meet the threshold that Reagan would set for military action. What he’s doing isn’t knee-jerk isolationism but a return to Reagan’s sense of prudence.”

I hope he's wrong about that. I want to put a stop to overseas intervention, not oppose some overseas interventions and support others.

[compromise]

“The senator’s instincts, in terms of defining the national interest, are exactly right,” he says. “He and I have spoken about how Syria doesn’t meet the threshold that Reagan would set for military action. What he’s doing isn’t knee-jerk isolationism but a return to Reagan’s sense of prudence.”

I hope he's wrong about that. I want to put a stop to overseas intervention, not oppose some overseas interventions and support others.

The great Senator believes that in the 21st century, only Afghanistan met the threshold for military action and many, including myself, agree with him on that.

[Brett85]

The great Senator believes that in the 21st century, only Afghanistan met the threshold for military action and many, including myself, agree with him on that.

Well, that's good if that's what he believes. I don't consider Afghanistan to be an "overseas intervention" since we were attacked first. That was simply self defense.

[fisharmor]

Well, that's good if that's what he believes. I don't consider Afghanistan to be an "overseas intervention" since we were attacked first. That was simply self defense.

Well, apparently I have been living under a rock for the last 12 years, because I don't remember a time when Afghanistan attacked us.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Well, apparently I have been living under a rock for the last 12 years, because I don't remember a time when Afghanistan attacked us.

Yeah, thank God for Ron Paul, who bravely stood up against going there when the House voted 420-1 in September 2001 to authorize the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Oh wait, that brave one vote was Representative Barbara Lee.

[Brett85]

Well, apparently I have been living under a rock for the last 12 years, because I don't remember a time when Afghanistan attacked us.

Ok, so if our country gets attacked by an organization rather than another country, we just have to sit back and do nothing.

[cajuncocoa]

The great Senator believes that in the 21st century, only Afghanistan met the threshold for military action and many, including myself, agree with him on that.

I did too, at the time. But no longer.

[Brett85]

I did too, at the time. But no longer.

Yeah, I still do. My foreign policy, generally speaking, is very simple.

1) You don't mess with us, we don't mess with you.
2) You mess with us, we kill you.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, I still do. My foreign policy, generally speaking, is very simple.

1) You don't mess with us, we don't mess with you.
2) You mess with us, we kill you.

Yeah, I agree with that foreign policy of yours. The only problem with that and 9/11 is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were not from Afghanistan, but Saudi Arabia. Assuming you believe the official story in the first place, that is.

None of the 19 were from Afghanistan.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, I still do. My foreign policy, generally speaking, is very simple.

1) You don't mess with us, we don't mess with you.
2) You mess with us, we kill you.

If you begin time at 9/11 then sure, you can make a tortured excuse of an argument. If you know history however, you know we messed with them, and then they fought back. Afghanistan was a debacle from the beginning, aided by an even worse debacle in Iraq. Quagmires and rustbins of Empires. Besides, did we send an invasion and occupation force to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates, who were the actual aggressors in the situation? No. Ron wasn't against ALL action, he was against open-ended, invasive, and aggressive occupation and war. He was FOR letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have done the job a lot cleaner and easier, but of course that doesn't line the pockets of the War Profiteers for a decade.

[jmdrake]

I did too, at the time. But no longer.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cajuncocoa again.

And Ron Paul agrees. He supported the Afghan war initially, but later came to regret that vote. What is undeniable (to anybody who is at least remotely informed and honest) is that we never would have been attacked on 9/11 but for the U.S. government's creation of Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.

[FSP-Rebel]

The moral of this article is basically Rand is applying the libertarian hustle of the teens to defeat the neocon swindle of the aughts.

[robert9712000]

The main difference i see between Ron and Rand Paul is Ron inspired those who deeply desired freedom and liberty to take up cause ,where as Rand excites the average semi informed voter looking for catchy one liners.

What made Ron inspiring to only a certain group of people, is that there was a group that was looking for someone, who not only believed in the same ideas they did, but could be trusted to be rock solid in there convictions.When you ask even his enemies about Ron they will always mention that they may disagree with him but they know he fully believes what he says and is driven by it.

Rand on the other hand will never inspire like Ron did because hes not as unshakable in his beliefs.where as Ron would never change 1 iota of who he was to gain favor from the people Rand will.I'm not saying Rand is a flip flopper but he will play the game to a point, if he feels it will give him a advantage.I do think there are limits to that though and that he has a set of core beliefs he would never compromise on.

So while Ron may inspire some with a passion to get involved Rand will get the average cheerleaders to rally around him.

They both serve a very important role though because Ron Paul will inspire the passionate for freedom and liberty to take charge and help Rand Paul lead the simple minded cheerleaders to freedom.

[idiom]

Just a reminder...

Al-Qaeda translates as 'the list' or 'the database'. This is because it was literally the CIA database of Mujahideen being trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Thus even though their nationalities were largely non-afghani, they were ideologically linked.

There is a good argument to be made that the entire 'radical islam' movement "Qutbism" was entirely thought up by the CIA. All one would have to do is place Sayyid Qutb in solid contact at some point...

The turning point in Qutb's views resulted from his visit to the United States, where he aimed for further studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C., Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University.[22] He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

Anyways, the point is:

The Official Story of 9/11 is that Members of the (previously) CIA's Database hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings.

[idiom]

Just a reminder...

Al-Qaeda translates as 'the list' or 'the database'. This is because it was literally the CIA database of Mujahideen being trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Thus even though their nationalities were largely non-afghani, they were ideologically linked.

There is a good argument to be made that the entire 'radical islam' movement "Qutbism" was entirely thought up by the CIA. All one would have to do is place Sayyid Qutb in solid contact at some point...

The turning point in Qutb's views resulted from his visit to the United States, where he aimed for further studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C., Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University.[22] He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

Anyways, the point is:

The Official Story of 9/11 is that Members of the (previously) CIA's Database hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings.

[alucard13mm]

Invade saudi arabia. Take thier oil and cut off the snakes head of terrorism. Done.