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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

No answer for this yet?

[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.

[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.

[jmdrake]

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.

And good for her for having such foresight. The question becomes now is, how many times will most of us be fooled again?

[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.

[AuH20]

No answer for this yet?

They are very similar, but Rand isn't dominantly ruled by non-interventionism & the commonplace "who started it" paralysis and frankly, thank god for that. Rand is a non-interventionist, but let's say there was a critical event in the Gulf of Mexico or Panana Canal, Rand wouldn't hesitate as CiC. He's meshed Ron's teachings with his own sense of national responsibility.

[cajuncocoa]

They are very similar, but Rand isn't ruled by non-interventionism & the commonplace "who started it" paralysis and frankly thank god for that. Rand is a non-interventionist, but let's say there was a critical event in the Gulf of Mexico or Panana Canal, Rand wouldn't hesitate as CiC. He's meshed Ron's teachings with his own sense of national responsibility.

If he's not "ruled by non-interventionism", how can you call him a non-interventionist?

[AuH20]

If he's not "ruled by non-interventionism", how can you call him a non-interventionist?

90% of the events you would come across as CiC you would fall back on the tried and true non interventionist approach. Then there is that rare ten percent where you would have to deviate (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

[cajuncocoa]

90% of the events you would come across as CiC you would fall back on the tried and true non interventionist approach. Then there is that rare ten percent where you would have to deviate (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

The events of the Cuban Missile Crisis put us in imminent danger (if the official story is to be believed...that disclaimer must always be stated explicitly). That's not interventionism IMO; that would fall into the category of legitimate defense.

[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]

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

No, of course not. Next time an organization attacks us, we'll draw another country's name out of a hat and go attack them to make all the neocons feel better.

[Brett85]

No, of course not. Next time an organization attacks us, we'll draw another country's name out of a hat and go attack them to make all the neocons feel better.

We didn't draw Afghanistan out of a hat. We went there because Osama Bin Laden was located there, who was responsible for the attacks and was the #1 Al Quaeda leader.

[cajuncocoa]

We didn't draw Afghanistan out of a hat. We went there because Osama Bin Laden was located there, who was responsible for the attacks and was the #1 Al Quaeda leader.

Yep, that's what we were told....that's why I initially supported it. Who knows what the truth really was?

[klamath]

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

well I would say go after that organization specifically, and leave the regime change nation building out of it. The nation of afganistan did not attack us but wouldn't extradite OBL to us which they really had no obligation to do. However if they tried to stop our direct attack on OBL we would be forced to defend and neutralize that attack.

[alucard13mm]

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.

yep.. we shouldve went into saudi arabia. those snakes.