Skip to comments.Rand Paul: No more 'bomb everybody' (Sees Aggressive GOP Foreign Policy as Political Detriment)
Posted on 09/10/2012 10:58:51 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Monday that Republicans can win in New England and on the West Coast if theyre willing to drop a we need to bomb everybody tomorrow foreign policy.
I think one of the problems we face, as a Republican party, is that were behind the eight-ball to begin with, Paul said on CBS This Morning. Were not winning the West Coast. Were not winning New England. Maybe we need to embrace more Ron Paul Republicans, more libertarian Republicans. It means people who are little bit less aggressive on foreign policy. They believe in defending the country, but they dont believe we need to be everywhere all the time.
There are only four GOP senators from the six New England states, and none from the three states on the Pacific coast.
We should have a more defensive foreign policy, a less aggressive foreign policy, Paul said. I think that would go over much better in New England than the typical we need to bomb everybody tomorrow policy you hear from some Republicans.
Pauls advice doesnt necessarily mesh with recent Republicans wins in New England. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), elected in 2010, has joined with some of the most hawkish members of the upper chamber. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), elected nine months earlier, has emphasized his service in the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Both sit on the Armed Services Committee. Another New England Senator, Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, won as a third-party candidate in 2006 after his support for the Iraq War cost him the Democratic primary.
Paul, who broke with his father, libertarian icon and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, to endorse Mitt Romneys presidential bid, said his family isnt holding it against him.
It makes it kind of contentious at Thanksgiving, the younger Paul said. But so far, theyre still letting me eat at the adult table.
Let’s drop the Big One and see what happens (they all hate us anyhow!)
No halt on bombing until we bomb the Dems. After they surrender we can talk about it.
As the article notes. Some of the most hawkish Senators are the two newbs from New England, and McCain proteges - Ayotte and Brown. So that sort of defeats that Paul meme.
Agree, let’s bomb da Dems + Mccain and his little bro Lindsey.
Very well put, jboot.
Only until the Dems are bombed in the next election
and with a Republican majority in the House and Senate,
can ANY kind of real dialogue on this issue begin.
I assume you meant that “bombing” figuratively, right?
What’s endlessly interesting to me now is that there is more
“diversity of opinion” WITHIN a single Republican, than there is ON ANY ISSUE with 99% of Democrats, who think in lock-step. At least they have until right NOW, as it becomes clearer to lots of them that there is no future in backing Obama.
Is Rand turning into a Paulbot?
The Clinton/Bush foreign policy, now continued by Obama, was really only a revival of the Dean Rusk foreign policy of the 1960s (See Democracy In The Third World.) It has been an expensive disaster, squandering our wealth, while breeding enemies like cock-roaches. Enough is enough!
less aggressive - good lord
He sounds more like his dad everyday.
We’re two decades overdue for a return to Taft’s principles and an end for our bipartisan Wilsonian meddling and empire building.
All we are saaaying, is give [total] war a chance. It’s worked every time it’s been tried. No nibbling around the edges. The longer we wait the more costly it will be. See WWII in history books.
Can we pass a federal law stating that 3 generations of political descendants not be allowed to participate in politics or in any governmental jobs?
I think Paul is right on in his very general outline calling for a paradigm shift in thinking, and I hope his candidate of choice, Mitt Romney, is open to it. We have been in a VERY different mindset since 9-11,though, and the people we always assumed we’d be fighting ad infinitum, the “Communists”, have morphed into the new enemy of worldwide Islamic Jihad.
It’s naive to think the Muzzies will leave us alone if we become isolationist.
The failure to realize that world for what it is was my main problem with Ron Paul. You can't be the lone pacifist in a rabidly unpacific world. If you are, you certainly won't be one for very long!
Ten years ago, “total war” seemed like a feasible idea, and if it was going to become policy, it should have happened then. But it wasn’t even tried by Bush, who is the one who had 9-11 fall into his lap. There is simply no scenario for total war against terrorist Islamic Jihad in ANYONE’s bag of tricks. It becomes something of a pipe dream, much like the pipe dream that informs the Islamic fantasies occupying the minds of people like Ahmadinejad.They’re both totally unworkable , and the smaller battles will be fought piecemeal, over time, like, for example, what Israel will eventually find it necessary to do in regard to Iran.
They won’t leave you alone now and are taking over.
In todays world, not submitting to islam is to be a dissident.
To be a dissident is becoming as dangerous as in the old Soviet Union; it is to go against the State and they *will* kill you one way or another.
The way to deal with this is the way we deal with families of idiots ~ STERILIZE THEM.
We’ll save Australia. Don’ wanna hurt no kangaroo.
And they got surfin’, too!
Our alternative that McConnell tried to shove down our throats was a former Clinton delegate to the DNC Trey Grayson, a RINO if there ever was one—pass.
I don’t want to bomb everyone. However when US interests are clearly evident use of military force should be used and overwhelmingly. Essentially if you are going to fight, fight to win, don’t tie the hands of our troops and quickly as possible get out of all those third world hell holes. I don’t buy the colin powell policy of you break it you own it.
I currently don’t give a hoot about rebuilding Afghanistan. If they want to continue to live like 7th century hermits fine by me. However, if they are setting up terrorist training camps to kill Americans those camps have to be eliminated asap.
I think he has it completely wrong. Bombing is what another country should expect if they act with violence against us or harbor or support those who do. It’s the occupying and nation building that has failed and we might as well give up on.
We’d better bomb those Irani nukers and ICBM’s soon or we won’t be here much longer to discuss Robert Taft.
4 years of protecting the dictators in Iran and their military buildup.
We have been led into danger, great danger.
Our great USAF can take care of the problem and yes, BOMB their nukes and ICBM’s before they use them on us. BOMBING can be a very very very good thing!
(And we should NEVER send our wonderful military into any battles again that we don’t let them WIN! They can WIN, and win quickly, if we only back them instead of impeding them. Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the way to use our fine military! But use it on occasion, we must, lest we put ourselves into great peril...as with Iran today.)
Indeed. And remember “War is the health of the State,” i.e. the Patriot Act, the expansion under two Presidents of the electronic eavesdropping program, and the whole notion now that since we are still “at war” any expenditure or action is permissable. Limited government conservatives should be skeptical of this perpetual war. I became skeptical immediately upon hearing the terms “War on Terrorism.” A good rule of thumb is that any time the Federal Gubbermint declares “War” on something, that “War” is not meant to be won; it’s only meant to be fought. Examples are “War on Poverty” and “War on Drugs.” Both have chipped away at our liberties, enriched the pimps and hangers-on, and have been anything but a success.
Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan - half-assed wars that never end are not the solution.
Mind your own business until struck and then unleash holy hell on the offender - and no Marshall Plan either.
Soon no one will bother us.
Sorry Randy, most Americans don't see it that way and don't know what the hell you're talking about. You shouldn't steal your rhetoric from the commie 'RATS because they're FOS too.
My point was that total war is always chosen belatedly, when it is most costly, because it is considered "unthinkable." So I agree the smaller battles will be fought unless or until the Jihadists go too far, forcing more global action (total war), tardy though it might be.
Afterthought. An Israeli attack of Iran may not be such a small war. But then again, I don’t think many (any?) Muslim countries will leap to the defense of Iran (HAMAS and the Palestinkians excluded) so it need not be a global conflict. If we are attacked by Iran in such an event, a certainty if Iran is to be believed, Iran should/must be dealt with severely. But there’s little chance our dictator-in-waiting would do that.
What “aggressive foreign policy” is he talking about? We tried to root out the people who attacked us on 9/11, and then we abandoned that and since Obama’s election have been supporting radical Islam wherever it raises its head.
And in fact, Bush could never have gotten away with the drone attacks Obama and the Dems are using to take out anyone who makes them look bad. And if Bush had had Osama bin Laden assassinated, he’d be in the Hague Court now.
So maybe Rand Paul should think again about who’s doing the “bomb everybody” routine.
Most people are not all that into globalist Nation building and war. That includes conservatives. We act like bullies and our political and global elite are basically criminally insane.
We are sticking our noses into everything. Hillary’s even running around ordering everyone in the world to accept and celebrate gay sex now. They have turned the homeland “war on terror” against conservatives and they are molesting people at the airports.
McCain’s and his girlfriend Lindsay are trying to kick us into war in Syria for a regime change in aid to the radical mulsim rebels...we are fighting all over the world and who are committed to wiping Israel off the map.
Any of this make any sense to you?
Sounds to me like he’s turning into a conservative. Just in time, as Americans are about to forget what conservatism ever was.
Meanwhile, Barbara Boxer beat Carly Fiorina by ten points and a million votes in 2010. Dianne Feinstein beat Dick Mountjoy by more like twenty-five points and two million votes in 2006. And Ron Paul had two hundred thousand votes, roughly, in this last primary. Explain to me how that math works, Rand.
My tongue is in my cheek. I think.
Obama is pushing for ZERO nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. He’s shooting for 300 for now and has pretty much taken off the table ever considering their actual use in a response to the United States getting hit.
Maybe Rand can take pointers from Liberal elitest professors. After all, they have high dollar edumacations.
Obama’s foreign policy has been decidedly pro-Islamist, helping to torture and murder a POW named Momar Gaddafi while refusing any support for the democracy movement in Iran. Can’t say Bammy is a continuation of Clinton-Bush. He’s backing the Muslim Brotherhood and won’t stand by Israel.
Homeland Security’s big issues these days are illegal music and porn distribution on the web.
The enemy wears burkas for a reason. Let god sort them out..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.