Skip to comments.Ted Cruz: I’m ‘somewhere in between’ McCain and Paul on foreign policy
Posted on 09/12/2013 10:00:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Wednesday he considers his views on foreign policy to be somewhere in between the poles of libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and hawkish GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
I agree with Rand Paul that we should not intervene militarily in Syria, because its not in defense of our U.S. national security interests, said Cruz during a question-and-answer session following a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
But, Cruz added, he also agrees with John McCain that if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that we should intervene militarily to prevent it from acquiring those weapons. Why? Because it is in the vital national security interest of the United States.
Paul and McCain/Graham are on opposite ends of the foreign policy spectrum, leaving lots of room in between.
. . . . . . . .
There are three principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy, Cruz said: Number one, we should focus directly on protecting U.S. national security and the interests of the United States of America. Number two, we should speak with moral clarity. And number three, we should always fight to win.
In his speech, Cruz reiterated his opposition to a military strike against the Syrian government, which he detailed in Washington Post op-ed earlier this week. While he praised President Obama for consulting Congress on the matter, he also criticized the presidents approach to foreign policy, charging that hes too focused on international standards and not enough on U.S. national security.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ted Cruz Ping!
Its very simple. Exercise restraint in most cases and take decisive action when called for.
Sounds like the same place Ronald Reagan occupied.
That certainly meets with my approval.
Advice to Ted: Avoid any references to McCain. They can only hurt you.
McCain verges on adventurism and Paul on isolationism, so that means that Cruz is into realism.
I can live with that.
I am in a different dimension from either McCain or Paul.
Those two space cadets live in their own little worlds. Okay three space cadets if you count both Pauls.
Aren’t we all.
Ted should eschew any references to McQueeg and reword his statement to say he’s for a muscular, yet tempered foreign policy.
“McCain verges on adventurism . . . “
verges? I would say he’s past the border into deep insanity
There are three principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy, Cruz said:
Number one, we should focus directly on protecting U.S. national security and the interests of the United States of America.
Number two, we should speak with moral clarity.
And number three, we should always fight to win.
I can’t argue with these 3 points. How difficult is it for other pols to voice these simple truths?!
The headline is a little misleading. Washington Compost trying to stir up trouble in the ranks? Nah.
The time to intervene against Iran was during the last term of GWB. Now that window has closed. By acting against Syria the way we have, Russian and Iranian ties are now stronger then ever. An attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia now. So says the pact they have signed.
So Cruz is sitting on the fence between war and peace.
No wonder senators (and representatives) make poor executives. They don’t like to be put in the position of having to make decisions. Their lives are easier when they can vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘present’ or just stay home for that vote and receive a ‘not present’.
Mistake to even mention McCain.
While I am confidently assured that Senator Cruz’s interpretation of the headline remark makes sense, I find it disturbing that he mentions this in-between thing.
I can perfectly understand him relating he is somewhere south of Rand Paul - understandable. However, even the remote connection with McCain, even to say later that he is nowhere near him in sentiments gives me a pang in the pit of my stomach.
The fact is that McCain is as crazy and mad as a shithouse rat and any mention in connection to his ‘ideals’ ‘actions’ or whatever is a wasted exercise in sanity. McCain doesn’t even deserve mention in the context of positions, potential platforms or ideals for that matter. That man is completely insane in my opinion.
That said, it doesn’t diminish my opinion for Ted, but I sure as hell wish he wouldn’t mention McCain any more.
That is a very broad area.
Way too vague an answer, lol.
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.