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.
“I can live with that”
So can I..
>>Advice to Ted: Avoid any references to McCain. They can only hurt you.<<
That was EXACTLY what I was thinking. A rare instance when a Ted Cruz soundbite made me cringe.
Ted, word of advice, stay far, far away from McIdiot. Don’t have your name associated with him in an form or fashion.
A McCain quote represents the Oligarchy mindset.
(The above is true except in the following instances: where McCain is running to win reelection as US Senator; or running to loss the election as US President Wantabe; or when McCain has temporarily run out of medication.)
There's nothing in Cruz's background that would suggest that he's ready to develop his vision yet. He needs more study and experience.
I hope Ted Cruz is the answer. So many others have looked promising and then disappointed us. I think part of getting it done will be for intelligent, passionate, informed people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz putting together a coalition and figuring out what the US needs to save us.
My only disappointment was that Cruz seemed to go along with the assumption that Assad was responsible for the use of chemical weapons.
That’s a little vague, because mccain is on flipping Mars...
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Sen. Cruz Statement on Egypt (Suspend aid over anti-Muslim Brotherhood coup)
Ted Cruz blames Egyptian violence on Obamas disregard for foreign aid law
Rand Pauls immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Lets start that conversation by acknowledging we arent going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[but hes not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Pauls Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
Obama started the war in Syria. Let Obama finish it all by himself.
I agree. But not on his statement in the ABC interview that assumed that it was Assad who used chemical weapons. What I stated is that he needs more experience in evaluating world affairs, and we need to see more votes. We've been disappointed so many times by politicians who voted totally against their campaign promises.
As far as Sara Palin goes, now she seems fine on foregin affairs. During her VP campaign, she didn't have a record. The way things are going now, my dream ticket would be Paul/Cruz (either order) with a promise of Palin in charge of energy issues.
I could live with that kind of policy. I’d like Rand’s simply because of the dire straits we are in after a decade of disaster, but Cruz would do in a pinch.
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.