John Bolton Launches Dramatic Anti-Rand Paul Ad Over Iran Deal

[LatinsforPaul]

Embarrassing and ridiculous but this I believe will help Rand as the only anti-war candidate...





John Bolton Launches Dramatic Anti-Rand Paul Ad Over Iran Deal

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton’s Foundation for American Security and Freedom launched its first attack ad against Sen. Rand Paul ahead of Thursday night’s first Republican presidential debate

Echoing Lyndon B. Johnson’s notorious “Daisy” ad, the 30-second spot “The One” shows a family sitting down to dinner before they are incinerated by a nuclear explosion. Paul’s voice is then heard: “Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”

Bolton has vowed to ensure neither Paul nor Hillary Clinton get elected president, telling TheBlaze in June that the Kentucky senator “would lead us down the wrong path on national security.”

[Brian4Liberty]

The "Daisy" commercial. It never gets old for the neoconservatives.

[freejack]

lol wtf

[Brett85]

Bolton said that his group was only going to run ads against Rand if Rand's poll numbers starting rising in Iowa. Apparently he's not going to wait.

[bunklocoempire]

That's one of them whatcha call a "terror sells".

Koo koo ka choo.

[donnay]

hxxp://therightscoop.com/whoa-new-bolton-nonprofit-goes-nuclear-on-rand-paul/

[Sola_Fide]

Hahaha

[EBounding]

That was awesome.

[dannno]

Wow that was so creative, I wonder who came up with the concept for the ad...

[CPUd]

[LatinsforPaul]

Bolton said that his group was only going to run ads against Rand if Rand's poll numbers starting rising in Iowa. Apparently he's not going to wait.

Bolton needs a clue...

[EBounding]

It's funny how no one is ever worried about one of the thousands of US nukes going off accidentally.

[eleganz]

Im not going to click either of the article or youtube video you posted but I really hope you didn't just direct link the youtube video direct from the source of those who made it.

[jkob]

Rand should embrace it and support the deal, there is room for an anti-war candidate in a divided field

[SilentBull]

LOL, WTF is this?? Please don't tell me this $#@! works on people! WOW! That is so stupid and over-the-top.

[bunklocoempire]

[misconstrued]

How ironic that this video comes out on the 70th anniversary of us dropping a nuke on Hiroshima.

[Occam's Banana]

If you zoom in on the beards of those terrorists, you'll see little John Boltons in them.

And if you zoom in on the 'staches of those little John Boltons, you'll see more terrorists in them.

And if you zoom in on the beards of those terrorists ...

#MatryoshkaTerrorism #FractalsAreFun

[kahless]

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US. A nuke or material could fall into the wrong hands, end up coming across our borders or through one of our ports. A nuclear Iran will also create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East increasing that risk.

[thoughtomator]

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US.

If there is even the slightest grain of truth to that statement, it is without any doubt 100% our own fault for forcing them to develop one in self-defense. The post-9/11 era especially made clear that there are two types of nations in the world: those that may be invaded by the United States; and those with their own nuclear weapons.

[kahless]

If there is even the slightest grain of truth to that statement, it is without any doubt 100% our own fault for forcing them to develop one in self-defense. The post-9/11 era especially made clear that there are two types of nations in the world: those that may be invaded by the United States; and those with their own nuclear weapons.

Yet it does not mean we should fall on our sword.

[Occam's Banana]

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US. A nuke or material could fall into the wrong hands, end up coming across our borders or through one of our ports. A nuclear Iran will also create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East increasing that risk.

//

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran North Korea to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US. A nuke or material could fall into the wrong hands, end up coming across our borders or through one of our ports. A nuclear Iran North Korea will also create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East Southeast Asia increasing that risk.

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran Pakistan to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US. A nuke or material could fall into the wrong hands, end up coming across our borders or through one of our ports. A nuclear Iran Pakistan will also create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East Indian subcontinent increasing that risk.

I have not seen the Ad but allowing Iran polar bears to have nuclear weapons is a threat to the US. A nuke or material could fall into the wrong hands paws, end up coming across our borders or through one of our ports. A [N]uclear Iran polar bears will also create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East Arctic increasing that risk.

[thoughtomator]

Yet it does not mean we should fall on our sword.

Let's try stopping the bad habit of poking everyone else in the eye at every opportunity, and see if the threat of retaliatory poking diminishes.

[hells_unicorn]

This has to be, without a doubt, the dumbest and most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Right on the anniversary of Hiroshima no less.

If I was Rand and I get asked about this ad, I would question the decency of the group behind it by putting it out on this anniversary and maybe even muse about them harboring some racist tendencies towards the Japanese.

[kahless]

//

Except for the polar bears those are valid risks. I would however put North Korea at a lower risk than Iran. The instability in Pakistan and risk of radicals ending up with nukes is a threat.

The US and international community should monitor unstable regimes closely and intervene where necessary to ensure nukes do not end up in the hands of radicals.

[Occam's Banana]

Except for the polar bears those are valid risks.

The whole point of the polar bears is that everything you said could be applied just as "validly" to ANY country that has or ever might have "a nuke or material."

And that includes the United States itself - especially given that this very day ironically marks the fact that the US is the ONLY country that has EVER used nuclear weapons against another.

(IOW: Where the hell does the US get off arrogating to itself the authority to "monitor and intervene" in (and dictate to) other countries about such matters ... ?

I would however put North Korea at a lower risk than Iran. The instability in Pakistan and risk of radicals ending up with nukes is a threat. The US and international community should monitor unstable regimes closely and intervene where necessary to ensure nukes do not end up in the hands of radicals.

Iran is not an unstable regime. It's been stable for decades now (especially since the US stopped directly mucking around in its internal politics) - and there is no particular reason to expect that that is going to change (unless the US once again acts to "destabilize" it, thereby creating the very situation you profess to be so worried about).

A nuclear Iran is no more of a "threat" to the US (or to anyone else) than is Pakistan, or North Korea, or etc. - and for exactly the same reason: if Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea, or etc.) was responsible for the sort of scenario you conjure, it would be quite apt to end up as a very large sheet of radioactive glass. And they know it full well ...

[anaconda]

Rand could point out that Lyndon Johnson fully escalated the Vietnam war after successfully utilizing the A Bomb ad against Goldwater. Doesn't Bolton see some irony here?

[CaptUSA]

It's funny how no one is ever worried about one of the thousands of US nukes going off accidentally.

It's funny how no one is worried about any of the thousands of candidates running for President. Except one. The only one who will change the status quo.

[rich34]

I thought Rand opposes the Iran deal?

[Dianne]

Bolton, you f'ker ... Obama is giving Iran a nuclear weapon; not Rand Paul ... What a dip $#@! ... He needs to go back to selling Kentucky Fried Chicken.