Skip to comments.Tea party friction: Sen. Rand Paul lashes Ted Cruz approach to Russia and China
Posted on 09/14/2013 10:00:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbieEdited on 09/14/2013 11:12:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON ó It was bound to happen eventually. Two tea party allies angling for president canít agree on everything, and Tuesday, a gaping foreign policy schism came into focus as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul went out of his way to critique Sen. Ted Cruzís approach to Syria.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Ted Cruz Ping!
Yep, which disproves the media's notion that we're all marching in lock step to the beat of one ideal.
One thing I CAN agree on with every Tea Partier is that the Clown and his party ought to be politically defeated at every turn.
Russia and China are hardly going to be embarrassed, even when they are not on the same said with American public or military opinion.
The paper does seem to be embellishing. Tempest in a Tea pot much?
Non-story. The libs are just trying to drive a wedge between the two.
“So in other words the paper is attempting to stir up crap.”
And last time I checked, Cruz wasn’t a supporter of the UN. Defund the UN!
Real Politik says that Russia and China are enemies of the US, even though Obama was seriously wrong on Syria and Putin saved his bacon.
I favor ABM shields and China having to worry about Taiwan.
Isolationism is naïve, adventurism is dangerous, interventionism is costly, but realism is just right.
Cruz is closer to me than Paul, but Paul has done well in his opposition to adventurism in Syria.
Sounds like Cruz is working to create the dynamic that would allow us to support our allies, embarrass Obama, and keep military contractors fully employed. It’s a mixed bag, but Rand’s approach sounds naïve. How do you negotiate with Russia when they support one side of a Syrian civil war and, via Obama, we support the other?
The allegation of Syria using chemical weapons has all the appearances of being yet another US government lie, told at the behest of its new world order masters.
After almost 30 years of voting, I will no longer vote for war mongering of any kind.
The number one way of staying out of wars is preventing new world order from instigating them. As long as new world order is allowed to instigate wars, all the military hardware in the world will not prevent wars.
I’ll never support a gold standard and I’ll never support removing Biblical morality from society and from our laws.
So I’ll never be pro-pot or any other recreational drug.
And I’ll never be anti-alcohol, which is unbiblical.
Seems to me that Cruz has a much deeper and more sophisticated strategy - looks like Presidential material at this point.
“How do you negotiate with Russia when they support one side of a Syrian civil war and, via Obama, we support the other?”
Well, we can start by cutting off the military aid to AlQaeda.
And by the way, Russia and China will not be embarrassed by votes in the UN. Nobody gives a rat’s a$$ about the votes in the UN.
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]
Don’t see how this would come as a surprise. Thanks SoConPubbie.
We’ve got to be vigilant against this kind of thing. The media wants nothing more than to destroy both of them.
Paul tartly derided the idea of forcing "show votes" in the United Nations to embarrass Russia and China.Yes, of course he does. His old man is a 9/11 "truther" who supports Iran, and claims Hamas was invented by Israel. Rand doesn't criticize that, maintains his no-comment stance, because they are two peas in a pod.