Video: Rand Paul on military spending: Do more with what we have

[mello]

[LawnWake]

That's a point I wished he would hit them with and I'm glad that he's raising it.

Haven't seen the interview yet, but throw in some private sector references saying that a successful business doens't just throw endless amounts of money at something and hope it works -- that's how the public sector wastes cash. Budgets make you streamline and get the best use out of your resources!

[FriedChicken]

He didn't quite answer the questions - he pointed back at mistakes made in the past (which is good that he did) and said that we should apply the knowledge to future decisions regarding the region but didn't give any options he would do in the present time.

I think he would sound much better saying "As president I will defeat ISIS and the best place to start is looking back and seeing the mistakes we've made in the past that unintentionally made ISIS stronger and make sure we don't repeat any of them. It was a mistake to arm them in Syria, it was a mistake to topple secular leaders, etc. etc.
We don't have any perfect options on the table, unfortunately, and we can't go back in time. But with knowledge gained from the past I think we should work with Jordan, the Kurds, etc. etc."

"As a Senator I was the leading voice warning against ISIS when the president wanted to arm them in Syria. If elected to be commander and chief I can assure the American people the same mistake won't be made twice. Anyone running for president that advocated for arming them in Syria would be a disastrous and dangerous president."

I don't know.
I think looking back and showing the mistakes is important, very important, but I think people are very curious as to what he would do. He would also be very wise to show a military budget plan that outlines the waste and maybe even highlight some areas that he wants to increase the budget (by taking money from the areas of waste) to show that under president Paul America will have a stronger military than under president Rubio.

[ZakCarter]

Rand needs to do something that would make headlines for his national security position - maybe drop a high profile name for his potential Sec. Def. - then host a national security conference on why non-intervention will keep us safer. I helped with the "Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops" march in 2012, but something more grownup is needed this time around in my opinion.





And Fried Chicken, I think you're spot on!

[robert9712000]

As FC said, he kind of avoided the question that was asked. Which maybe is the best thing to do for now, since emotions are high and reason is not. I hope he states that he would pull completely out of the Middle East and then focus on securing our borders. We should then put a stop on all immigration from the Middle East and clarify that if they every attacked us as a country we would then take them out.

[RJB]

Do more? They do too much.

[LibertyEagle]

He didn't quite answer the questions - I pointed back at mistakes made in the past (which is good that he did) and said that we should apply the knowledge to future decisions regarding the region but didn't give any options he would do in the present time.

I think he would be sound much better saying "As president I will defeat ISIS and the best place to start is looking back and seeing the mistakes we've made in the past that unintentionally made ISIS stronger and make sure we don't repeat any of them. It was a mistake to arm them in Syria, it was a mistake to topple secular leaders, etc. etc.
We don't have any perfect options on the table, unfortunately, and we can't go back in time. But with knowledge gained from the past I think we should work with Jordan, the Kurds, etc. etc."

"As a Senator I was the leading voice warning against ISIS when the president wanted to arm them in Syria. If elected to be commander and chief I can assure the American people the same mistake won't be made twice. Anyone running for president that advocated for arming them in Syria would be a disastrous and dangerous president."

I don't know.
I think looking back and showing the mistakes is important, very important, but I think people are very curious as to what he would do. He would also be very wise to show a military budget plan that outlines the waste and maybe even highlight some areas that he wants to increase the budget (by taking money from the areas of waste) to show that under president Paul America will have a stronger military than under president Rubio.

I think this would have been fantastic!

[derek4ever]

Time to tell the Pentagon: "You're drunk as a sailor!"

[PCKY]

All the "conservatives" on my Facebook feed are very riled and it feels like post 9/11. Oddly enough, John Bolton was on Fox today and he says this is very tricky business. We should be very careful how we react and so forth. To be honest I was really surprised.
Vitter is trying to push the neocon narrative. Rand could maybe mimic Bolton, but at the end of the day, it was France, not the US that was attacked and I have not yet heard them invoke NATO.
That said, Rand is pushing the vetting of anyone coming in to the US...and he has been for some time. He's also pushing a narrative about waste and abuse at the DOD. Nothing anyone could say is isolationist unless they want to deflect profligate spending i.e. Rubio.

[PCKY]

He didn't quite answer the questions - I pointed back at mistakes made in the past (which is good that he did) and said that we should apply the knowledge to future decisions regarding the region but didn't give any options he would do in the present time.

I think he would be sound much better saying "As president I will defeat ISIS and the best place to start is looking back and seeing the mistakes we've made in the past that unintentionally made ISIS stronger and make sure we don't repeat any of them. It was a mistake to arm them in Syria, it was a mistake to topple secular leaders, etc. etc.
We don't have any perfect options on the table, unfortunately, and we can't go back in time. But with knowledge gained from the past I think we should work with Jordan, the Kurds, etc. etc."

"As a Senator I was the leading voice warning against ISIS when the president wanted to arm them in Syria. If elected to be commander and chief I can assure the American people the same mistake won't be made twice. Anyone running for president that advocated for arming them in Syria would be a disastrous and dangerous president."

I don't know.
I think looking back and showing the mistakes is important, very important, but I think people are very curious as to what he would do. He would also be very wise to show a military budget plan that outlines the waste and maybe even highlight some areas that he wants to increase the budget (by taking money from the areas of waste) to show that under president Paul America will have a stronger military than under president Rubio.

Have any of the GOP candidates said they would step up the military in Syria?

[osan]

I'd say Rand Paul did much better here than he has done in the past, especially in the face of that smarmy little media douche who was clearly attempting to corner him.`

[osan]

He didn't quite answer the questions

I disagree. Given the circumstances that include a media jackass attempting to paint him into a corner and the fact that he was given very little time to respond, I'd say he did a fair to middling job of it. Note that the moment the douche (or rather his handlers in the booth) realized they were either not going to get what they want or more than they'd bargained for, they were probably screaming into said douche's earpiece to cut it short, as notable in the very sudden termination despite the fact that these guys usually drill down at this point.

[FriedChicken]

Have any of the GOP candidates said they would step up the military in Syria?

Not sure.
But I know that Graham and probably Rubio advocated for arming the "good" rebels in Syria before ISIS really came into being.

[KEEF]

I tell you whenever FAUX has a young inexperienced reporter interview Ron and/or Rand, those newbies really give away the FAUX bias. They always stutter when they try to interrupt. It is as if the producers are speaking into their little ear piece "Hey he is starting to make a good point, interrupt in 3...2...1...NOW!"

[FriedChicken]

I tell you whenever FAUX has a young inexperienced reporter interview Ron and/or Rand, those newbies really give away the FAUX bias. They always stutter when they try to interrupt. It is as if the producers are speaking into their little ear piece "Hey he is starting to make a good point, interrupt in 3...2...1...NOW!"

Ya know, I'm no friend of Fox news, but I thought this interviewer was fair.
He did interrupt Rand a couple times but the times he did it was only to go back to the original question asked - not to cut off his point or not allow him to answer. More so to actually get an answer to the specific question that had already been posed.

Rand kept dodging and the interviewer gave up on getting specific answers and ended the interview is what I saw.

The questions asked are exactly the questions Americans want to here candidates running for president answer - if they were president what they do right now in the current situation?
The interviewer was spot on in saying that spending increases and involvement are two different debates - they are. You can increase spending and decrease involvement in the situation while you can also decrease spending and increase your roll in the situation. Rand did fine, I'm not saying he didn't, but he missed an opportunity to stand out from the others as "a man with a plan" that wouldn't bankrupt us, repeat mistakes, cost freedom and deal with the present situation in an effective and reasonable common sense way.

[FriedChicken]

I disagree. Given the circumstances that include a media jackass attempting to paint him into a corner and the fact that he was given very little time to respond, I'd say he did a fair to middling job of it. Note that the moment the douche (or rather his handlers in the booth) realized they were either not going to get what they want or more than they'd bargained for, they were probably screaming into said douche's earpiece to cut it short, as notable in the very sudden termination despite the fact that these guys usually drill down at this point.

I guess we just saw it differently then. I thought, for once, the interviewer was asking the questions that every voter wanted to hear the answer to and didn't get a straight answer from Rand this time.

[whoisjohngalt]

All the "conservatives" on my Facebook feed are very riled and it feels like post 9/11. Oddly enough, John Bolton was on Fox today and he says this is very tricky business. We should be very careful how we react and so forth. To be honest I was really surprised.
Vitter is trying to push the neocon narrative. Rand could maybe mimic Bolton, but at the end of the day, it was France, not the US that was attacked and I have not yet heard them invoke NATO.
That said, Rand is pushing the vetting of anyone coming in to the US...and he has been for some time. He's also pushing a narrative about waste and abuse at the DOD. Nothing anyone could say is isolationist unless they want to deflect profligate spending i.e. Rubio.

I thought they did invoke Article V?

[The Gold Standard]

Do more? They do too much.

That's what I was going to say. I was hoping they would be doing less.

[Matthanuf06]

Rand proposed to declare war on ISIS. This isn't a matter of "interventionalism" at this point. Rand sees ISIS as a clear and present danger to the United States, and that we should go into a defensive war against them.

He needs to emphasize that he wants to declare war, and that he wants to defeat ISIS using the might of the American military.

If the topic of military funding is raised, he needs to be clear that the problem with our military is not its size of its funding but rather our willingness to use it effectively. We have plenty big enough of a military. We just aren't willing to go to war when we feel morally obligated to, and we aren't willing to fight that war to win.

[ds21089]

Russia had done more to stop ISIS than we have and they spend way less than we do on their military. If that doesnt prove spending more money doesnt equal better results when it comes to warfare, I dont know what does...

http://truthinmedia.com/syrian-ambas...tm_campaign=nl