Skip to comments.Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives (Video)
Posted on 07/25/2013 5:32:38 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
In a veiled shot at influential neoconservatives within the Republican Party, Sen. Rand Paul tells The Brody File the following:
There are people who will do or say anything who are your enemies, Paul said. Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country, and I think they will do everything they can to try and vilify people who are trying to find a more reasoned approach where war is the last resort not the first resort.
While he didnt mention any names, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Paul is pushing back against neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and others who havent had too many kind words for the senator from Kentucky.
Overall, neocons dont like Pauls views on foreign policy and are no doubt concerned by Pauls increasing platform and visibility as he sets his sights on the GOP nomination.
Remember, it was the Washington Free Beacon that blasted out the story on Jack Hunter, Paul's aide who has since resigned. The article dug up quotes from Hunters past that make him look like a racist.
Anyhow, it turns out that the editor of the Free Beacon is Matthew Continetti, the son-in-law of Fox News Commentator Bill Kristol, who is of course a leading influential neoconservative within the GOP. Rand Paul defenders are pointing to this as evidence that neocons have it in for the senator.
This interview was done at the Pastors and Pews event in Des Moines, Iowa, last Friday. Video and a partial transcription are below.
Sen. Rand Paul: There are people who will do or say anything who are your enemies.
I think also those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country and I think they will do everything they can to try and vilify people who are trying to find a more reasoned approach where war is the last resort not the first resort.
The full title is
Brody File Exclusive: Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives:'Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country'
Brody File Exclusive: Rand Paul Takes Shot at Neoconservatives:’Those who believe in perpetual war are some of the most dangerous to our country’
Can’t argue with that. Rand Paul is making more and more sense.
I’d like to know more
about Rand Paul’s racist staffer
Rand Paul’s ex-staffer is less of a threat to the future strength and prosperity of America than Lindsey Graham’s efforts to get us into another pointless bloody war on the other side of the globe.
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that Paul is pushing back against neoconservatives like Bill Kristol
And the Cheneys.
The “Neocons” are the old Rockefeller-Nixon Republicans with a new label.
is that rinos ..... or... ainos ?????
Yeah right. Troll on back to DU
Sorry, no conservative with a functioning brain cell should fall for Rand’s blather.
These are Obama-like, Saul Alinsky-like tactics.
If I’m not on board with Rand, does that make me a Bill Crystal-ite? Absolutely not.
If I like Cheney on anti-terrorism after 9-11, including Gitmo and enhanced interrogation techniques, does that mean I agree with Cheney’s pass on what the out-of-control NSA is doing? Absolutely not.
This is childish and ridiculous.
This is “divide and conquor” - ourselves.
I won’t allow anyone to set up these invalid straw men and knee-jerk “choosing up sides” like little kids playing sandlot baseball, accompanied by mindless name-calling.
I will choose the policies I think are worthy and those I disagree with. I will so state. Other than that, Rand’s increasingly obnoxious rants will increasingly fall on my deaf ears.
The policy was wrong and the execution was wrong.
The policy was wrong not because we were mistaken about the existence of weapons of mass distruction, although we were. We were right and we continue to be right today to be concerned about the introduction into America of a weapon of mass distruction, atomic or germ or even chemical.
The policy was wrong because it was not fit for winning the war on terror. In fact, it proved to be counterproductive in waging the war on terror because we played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden and the Iranians. We impoverished ourselves at a time when America began its headlong rush toward the fiscal cliff. We forfeited allies, dismayed our friends, and embittered Muslims around the world to no purpose. We opened up Iraq to the Iranians and we have made a quagmire of Afghanistan. Strategically, our efforts have resulted in a breakdown of relations with Pakistan, a quagmire in Afghanistan, dither, muddle, and ineffectiveness against Iran and their reach for the bomb, Syria in flames, Egypt gone bad, Turkey moving from Democratic secularism to despotic sharia law, and Libya, well
The invasion of Iraq was wrong in execution because we had no plan post invasion, no plan against guerrilla warfare, no plan for an endgame. Our failings of execution led the world to believe that we were not quite the superpower we pretended to be and come from that our strategic aims. Domestically, it helped assure the election of Barack Obama which is a disaster for American foreign policy.
We conducted an experiment in nationbuilding when everything in our history should have told us that we would fail. We regarded a yearning for democracy to be in the DNA of every human heart and we were wrong. We failed to understand that democracy requires a culture, a respect for the rule of law, a secularization of science, a respect for the individual and his right to life liberty and happiness as he chooses, in short, the kind of Anglo-Saxon mindset which animated our founding fathers in 1776 and which is heartbreakingly absent in the Muslim world.
We started two wars because 19 men with box cutters took over airplanes and crashed them into American buildings. Put yourself into the sandals of Osama bin Ladin's ghost and decide whether you like that trade.
We obviously must devise a new strategy to fight the war against terrorism and we can start by calling it a war against militant Islam. We would then be well advised to be extremely selective about where and when we deploy military force maintaining a priority toward conserving American resources, including financial resources, as well as American lives. Above all, we should be able to say that a military action in any given Middle Eastern hellhole directly relates to prohibiting terrorist cells from infiltrating America and killing Americans or at least we should be able to say that we are protecting allies whose existence acts as a buffer for us. You must decide for yourself whether Israel serves that purpose.
We should be very careful about writing a blank checks abroad and outsourcing the control of American foreign policy to foreign countries. We should review our relationship to Israel and consider whether it is in America's best interest to be in a perpetual worldwide struggle against 1.6 billion Muslims with a great deal of the world's oil on behalf of a tiny nation with virtually no oil.
We have to decide how and with what weapons we wish to fight this war. Do we use drones or boots on the ground? I vote for drones. Do we restore waterboarding, or do we risk losing an American city? I vote for waterboarding. Do we confine our intelligence efforts to snooping foreigners or do we keep our borders open and feel compelled to snoop on Americans? I vote for closing the border. Do we conclude that Muslims coming into America contain within them a dangerous minority which threatens the homeland, or do we abide by political correctness? I vote against political correctness. We should reconsider our immigration policies concerning Muslims.
Above all, we must get our fiscal house in order before it is too late if we are to preserve our military as our shield and if we are to preserve our economy as the engine which powers the Republic.
If these views make me inimical to the positions of neocons then I guess I am a paleo. Nevertheless, I support Lynn Cheney and her bid in Wyoming.
I think you've gone off your medication if you believe that.
Know how I can tell that Rand’s words hit home in a personal way for you?
You accuse him of using Alinsky-like tactics, but then go on a rant tangential to the actual points Rand made.
We wanted fighters that would take the fight to Democrats and limp-wristed RINO’s in our own Party alike. Folks like Rand are doing exactly that...
And you are whining that he’s being “obnoxious”...
Also, if you didn’t see the NSA/DHS abuse coming from Bush/Cheney’s massive and unConstitutional PATRIOT Act, your myopia may be getting in the way as well.
Real conservatism hasn’t changed. Too many people have abandoned those base principles and have placed themselves in leadership. Not saying we should dump them, but a lot of them want to dump us true conservatives. Certainly we can disagree on some things, but we can’t keep compromising with the democrats - you can’t cheat a cheater, and they’ve outmaneuvered our so called “leadership” and pushed us further and further left. Time to put in new leadership.
Agreed. Replace Mitch with Rand and Boehner with Gowdy. Put Palin/Nugent on the 2016 ticket and West in Priebus' spot.
Or... Put Palin in charge of the GOP and West/Nugent on the ticket. That'd make some heads explode...
Go back to DU troll
He could also be referring to McCain, who seems to be war happy. And, let’s get real - McCain is an enemy!