Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Ted Cruz: The Most Hawkish of Them All?

  1. #1

    Default Ted Cruz: The Most Hawkish of Them All?

    The nation’s foreign policy is “a manifest disaster.”

    Its approach to cutting a deal with Iran on nuclear development is “catastrophically reckless.”

    Its policy on assisting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia is “incoherent.”

    This White House is home to the “most hostile administration to Israel in modern times.”

    That’s Sen. Ted Cruz’s scathing assessment of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, a blistering critique that is positioning him as the most blazingly hawkish Republican to potentially run for president in 2016. He also tellingly dubbed it “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy,” a subtle hint that he’d lob much of the same argument against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she seeks the White House.

    The Texas Republican spoke at a pair of foreign policy events in Washington this week, appearing before the Concerned Veterans for America on Tuesday and at the Foreign Policy Initiative conference Wednesday.

    In a 45-minute conversation with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz called for a larger defense budget, accused the Democratic administration of using politics to drive Pentagon decisions and cited what he viewed as “repeated mistakes.”

    “It seems the whole world is on fire right now,” he said.

    Regarding Iran, Cruz said the administration is repeating the mistakes of former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, when he decided to relax sanctions on North Korea. North Korea subsequently made progress on its nuclear program.

    “And yet the administration seems hellbent on pursuing a fool-hearted deal just for the sake of the deal,” he said of its approach to Iran.

    He also said he thought the Obama administration’s response to the crisis in Ukraine has been feckless.

    “I don’t think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a complicated man. He’s a KGB thug,” Cruz said.

    Cruz took a more open-minded approach to Obama’s likely pick of Ashton Carter as the next secretary of defense. He said he did not know Carter, a former top Pentagon official, but noted he “has a good reputation.” Cruz voted against the confirmation of outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, but declined to pile on his resignation, instead making a broader point about the cohesiveness of American foreign policy.

    “It is not encouraging that in six years now, we’re now on to our fourth secretary of defense, particularly at a time when the world has gotten more and more dangerous,” he said.

    Other potential GOP candidates for president also have been making a point of outlining their foreign policy visions.

    Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said in a speech on Tuesday that U.S. policy is “creating greater instability and greater unraveling” of the world.

    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has acknowledged he’s attempting to forge a third way on foreign policy, advocating a less hawkish approach that also recognizes emerging threats.

    "I will admit to being different from other Republicans and Democrats," Paul told a gathering of business executives in Washington on Tuesday. “To those Republicans who love a Republican intervention, Iraq's worse off now. Do you think we're better or worse off with [Saddam] Hussein gone?"
    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run...sh-of-them-all



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Hanging out with Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Sheldon Adelson will fry your brain. Cruz is quickly becoming totally unacceptable.

  4. #3

    Default

    Damn, is he trying to outdo peter king?
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  5. #4

    Default

    Sometimes I think Cruz is just trolling the neocons. His FP stances are much much more entertaining if you look at them that way.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Hanging out with Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Sheldon Adelson will fry your brain. Cruz is quickly becoming totally unacceptable.
    amen
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  7. #6

    Default

    Oh well. Cruz has no chance to win the GOP nomination anyway.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Oh well. Cruz has no chance to win the GOP nomination anyway.
    Why so sure?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Why so sure?
    I think he's right, Ted Cruz has no major wing in his corner, except for Tea Party Twitter warriors. His record is not liberal enough for the pro Israel donors he needs to fund his campaign.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  10. #9

    Default

    No, I don't think so. Rhetoric wise he is up there, but not policy wise.

  11. #10

    Default

    The Texas Republican spoke at a pair of foreign policy events in Washington this week, appearing before the Concerned Veterans for America on Tuesday and at the Foreign Policy Initiative conference Wednesday.

    In a 45-minute conversation with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz called for a larger defense budget, accused the Democratic administration of using politics to drive Pentagon decisions and cited what he viewed as “repeated mistakes.”
    You can't go much more neoconservative than Bill Kristol and the Foreign Policy Initiative. That is neocon central:

    The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East and other global hotspots. The group is similar in its aims and operations to an earlier neoconservative advocacy initiative, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a now defunct letterhead organization associated with the American Enterprise Institute that played an important role pushing for the U.S. invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[1]
    ...
    FPI's board of directors includes four individuals who were closely associated with the Bush administration's "war on terror" policies: Robert Kagan and William Kristol, who cofounded PNAC and were high-profile proponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq; investment banker Dan Senor, a former Bush administration spokesman in Iraq and lead foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney; and career diplomat Eric Edelman.[3]

    FPI's executive director is Chris Griffin, a former staffer for Sen. Joe Lieberman. Among its staff members are: Ellen Bork, daughter of former Supreme Court Justice nominee Robert Bork and former acting director of the Project for the New American Century; the neoconservative writer Jamie Kirchick; and policy director Robert Zarate, a frequent Weekly Standard contributor and a proponent of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.[4] FPI was previously directed by Jamie Fly, who left the group in January 2013 to become an adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).[5]
    ...
    http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/p...icy_Initiative
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    No, I don't think so. Rhetoric wise he is up there, but not policy wise.
    And you know this how? Has the Senate voted on any policies that you are basing this on? Or are you making $#@! up as usual?

  13. #12

    Default

    except for Rand, they are pretty much the same. maybe Kasish in between Rand and the others. but I don't see any difference between Cruz, or Huck or Jeb, or Perry.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And you know this how? Has the Senate voted on any policies that you are basing this on? Or are you making $#@! up as usual?
    Neg rep for hostility and ignorance.

    To answer though:
    Cruz's position on Syrian intervention was in support of a narrow mission to secure chemical weapons, not a full blown invasion. He thinks we got too involved and stayed too long in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also doesn't believe in sacrificing civil liberties due to war (for the most part and as far as I know) and believes Congress must declare war.

    So while Cruz is vocally bombastic on foreign policy, as with everything else, policywise he is nothing like the neoconservatives.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Why so sure?
    The GOP has never nominated the most unelectable candidate, at least not in the last 50 years. Cruz does at least 5% worse against Clinton than any of the other Republicans running.

    I don't think Rand has the same problem, because he's established himself as someone who's solidly conservative but is also electable. He has a lot of crossover appeal with independents and Democrats.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Neg rep for hostility and ignorance.

    To answer though:
    Cruz's position on Syrian intervention was in support of a narrow mission to secure chemical weapons, not a full blown invasion. He thinks we got too involved and stayed too long in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also doesn't believe in sacrificing civil liberties due to war (for the most part and as far as I know) and believes Congress must declare war.

    So while Cruz is vocally bombastic on foreign policy, as with everything else, policywise he is nothing like the neoconservatives.
    Oh please, you are saying all this talk is just rhetoric then the examples you give out about his policies are rhetoric as well? Was there a vote on Syria? No. So all that is rhetoric. How do you even send in troops into another country without considering that an invasion anyways? So I ask again, what has he voted on that shows his policy because the only evidence that you have of him not being a neo-con himself is rhetoric...

  17. #16

    Default

    more rhetoric??

    Ted Cruz: Joe Lieberman for Defense secretary

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a person in mind to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel: Joe Lieberman.

    Cruz floated the former Connecticut independent senator as a “strong” option to succeed Hagel, who announced his resignation earlier Monday. President Barack Obama has not yet named a proposed replacement.

    “One strong option would be former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a member of the president’s own party with deep experience and unshakable commitment to the security of the United States,” Cruz said. “I urge the president to give him full and fair consideration for this critical position.”
    Lieberman, who retired from Congress in 2012, was known for his hawkish views on foreign policy that he shared with Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three men were dubbed the Three Amigos.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...#ixzz3LHFzd2ZG

  18. #17

    Default

    I'm listening to it now. On defense spending, his answer wasn't quite as bad as the article made it sound. He basically made it sound like more money should be spent on legitimate defense spending, but money should be saved by getting rid of pork and waste in the defense budget. He's certainly not as good as Rand on that issue to be sure, but someone like Dick Cheney likely wouldn't admit that there's any waste in the defense budget at all.

  19. #18

    Default

    On everything else he sounds really bad though, especially Iran. "Iran is going to nuke LA or New York City." Lol.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Oh please, you are saying all this talk is just rhetoric then the examples you give out about his policies are rhetoric as well? Was there a vote on Syria? No. So all that is rhetoric. How do you even send in troops into another country without considering that an invasion anyways? So I ask again, what has he voted on that shows his policy because the only evidence that you have of him not being a neo-con himself is rhetoric...
    Ok, I'll grant you it is rhetoric. But it is policy rhetoric, as opposed to "I stand with Israel" or "Iran is a grave danger" rhetoric. That isn't policy, more like abstract statements, which Cruz likes to do.

    The policies he supports-and I am not saying they are non-interventionist-are also not neoconservative.

  21. #20

    Default

    Look, whereas Dick Cheney would like to overthrow Assad and attempt nation building in Syria, Ted Cruz would send the Air Force in and destroy their weapons stockpile.

    Both are interventionist, but one is neoconservative (or "Wilsonian") and the other is more "Jacksonian". Walter Russell Meade's paradigm is worth looking into: http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/20...teresting.html

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Look, whereas Dick Cheney would like to overthrow Assad and attempt nation building in Syria, Ted Cruz would send the Air Force in and destroy their weapons stockpile.

    Both are interventionist, but one is neoconservative (or "Wilsonian") and the other is more "Jacksonian". Walter Russell Meade's paradigm is worth looking into: http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/20...teresting.html
    You can't bomb chemical weapons without harming the people who live nearby. I know nothing about that kind of stuff, but I remember Cruz getting ridiculed for having that view and I think he eventually changed it.

    I consider myself a big tent libertarian and I generally like Cruz. (Though even on domestic issues he is considerably worse than Rand.) But his foreign policy would be a Mark Levin/Donald Rumsfeld foreign policy. That is pretty clear.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    You can't bomb chemical weapons without harming the people who live nearby. I know nothing about that kind of stuff, but I remember Cruz getting ridiculed for having that view and I think he eventually changed it.

    I consider myself a big tent libertarian and I generally like Cruz. (Though even on domestic issues he is considerably worse than Rand.) But his foreign policy would be a Mark Levin/Donald Rumsfeld foreign policy. That is pretty clear.
    The thing is, I am not saying Cruz is a libertarian, non-interventionist, perfect, or someone I want to run for President. I just think it is ignorant to throw everyone in either Bill Kristol or Ron Paul. There is a lot of room in between.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    The thing is, I am not saying Cruz is a libertarian, non-interventionist, perfect, or someone I want to run for President. I just think it is ignorant to throw everyone in either Bill Kristol or Ron Paul. There is a lot of room in between.
    I agree with the last part. I certainly am more open to military intervention than most of the people here but I really don't know enough to have strong views on foreign policy.

    And I doubt Ted Cruz had strong foreign policy views coming into the Senate. It looks like he has been influenced along the way to be very hawkish. Bill Kristol has been praising his foreign policy. Winning Sheldon Adelson's favor is not good. It isn't just one thing. It is like a dozen different incidents that I have noticed that have convinced his foreign policy is terrible.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Look, whereas Dick Cheney would like to overthrow Assad and attempt nation building in Syria, Ted Cruz would send the Air Force in and destroy their weapons stockpile.

    Both are interventionist, but one is neoconservative (or "Wilsonian") and the other is more "Jacksonian". Walter Russell Meade's paradigm is worth looking into: http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/20...teresting.html
    During that Syrian issue, Ted Cruz said nothing about air-strikes to destroy their weapons. He said he wanted to send a team in to secure it. This conversation is pointless because Obama (who is a hawk himself) was able to get those weapons destroyed without a shot fired.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    And I doubt Ted Cruz had strong foreign policy views coming into the Senate. It looks like he has been influenced along the way to be very hawkish. Bill Kristol has been praising his foreign policy. Winning Sheldon Adelson's favor is not good. It isn't just one thing. It is like a dozen different incidents that I have noticed that have convinced his foreign policy is terrible.
    Cruz and his wife have a close relationship with Condoleeza Rice....

    Rice, who has been endorsing various GOP Senate candidates in the upcoming races this year and fundraising, says a 2016 candidate for the top office must "understand the importance to this country of immigration and immigration reform." That's a view she shares with Bush and Rubio.

    She also praised Ted Cruz, whose wife, Heidi, worked for Rice at the National Security Council. "While I don’t agree with Ted Cruz on everything, he’s energetic, he’s working hard, he loves his country," she said. "From time to time when we disagree, I’ll tell him."
    ...
    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Jeb-.../15/id/571538/
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Hanging out with Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Sheldon Adelson will fry your brain. Cruz is quickly becoming totally unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Damn, is he trying to outdo peter king?
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I think he's right, Ted Cruz has no major wing in his corner, except for Tea Party Twitter warriors. His record is not liberal enough for the pro Israel donors he needs to fund his campaign.
    And with these 3 statements from various seasoned liberty lovers, I wish to no longer see any serious talk about Ted Cruz in 2016. If it hasn't been clearly obvious since the government shutdown, Ted Cruz's presidential poll base is just Tea Partiers who don't like Rand's bigger party x smaller government x bipartisanship message. Ted Cruz should do Rand a favor and run to drop out before Iowa and just give a Rand endorsement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
    "Young people want a Republican Party that believes in limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty, but they want a party that also acts on it.”

    THE FUTURE OF THE GOP = R[∃vo˩]ution 2.0: Rand Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVALibertarian View Post
    First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
    Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
    Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
    And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

  28. #27
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    70
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    except for Rand, they are pretty much the same. maybe Kasish in between Rand and the others. but I don't see any difference between Cruz, or Huck or Jeb, or Perry.
    Mike Huckbee's prolly better than ted. He wants to negotiate with Iran
    "Huckabee has criticized the Bush administration for "only proceeding down one track with Iran: armed conflict". He noted that the US has "[not] had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years, and a lot of good it's done"."

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philipped View Post
    And with these 3 statements from various seasoned liberty lovers, I wish to no longer see any serious talk about Ted Cruz in 2016. If it hasn't been clearly obvious since the government shutdown, Ted Cruz's presidential poll base is just Tea Partiers who don't like Rand's bigger party x smaller government x bipartisanship message. Ted Cruz should do Rand a favor and run to drop out before Iowa and just give a Rand endorsement.
    I could be wrong though, its possible that certain groups will fund Cruz to play spoiler against Rand.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
    "Young people want a Republican Party that believes in limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty, but they want a party that also acts on it.”

    THE FUTURE OF THE GOP = R[∃vo˩]ution 2.0: Rand Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVALibertarian View Post
    First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
    Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
    Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
    And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016






Similar Threads

  1. Christie’s Hawkish Errors
    By Brian4Liberty in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2015, 07:30 PM
  2. I'm hawkish about the Constitution
    By radiofriendly in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-06-2014, 01:44 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-21-2014, 08:15 PM
  4. Paul should say: I'm hawkish!
    By blabam in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-06-2012, 01:57 PM
  5. Wah! waah! Obama's looking hawkish!
    By klamath in forum Obama Watch
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 06:50 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •