Posted on 03/09/2014 11:56:32 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
(NEW YORK) -- It may be the opening salvo of the 2016 Republican primary. During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl for This Week, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a friend, but drew a distinction between himself and the Kentucky senator on foreign policy, saying the U.S. “has a responsibility to defend our values.”
“I’m a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends. But I don’t agree with him on foreign policy,” Cruz said. “I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did… The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.”
Cruz also took President Obama to task over Russia’s invasion of Crimea, citing the president’s “weakness” in dealing with matters of foreign policy as a reason for Russia’s seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula.
“A critical reason for Putin’s aggression has been President Obama’s weakness,” Cruz told Karl on This Week. “That Putin fears no retribution… [Obama's] policy has been to alienate and abandon our friends and to coddle and appease our enemies.”
“You’d better believe Putin sees in Benghazi four Americans are murdered, the first ambassador killed in service since 1979, and nothing happens,” Cruz added, echoing comments by other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “You’d better believe that Putin sees that in Syria, Obama draws a red line and ignores the red line. You’d better believe that Putin sees all over the world.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wabcradio.com ...
To paraphrase a line from Star Wars...
“Rand has too much of his father in him.”
I don't agree.
The United States government has a responsibility to limit our military endeavors to what is in our National Interest.
Otherwise we'd be fighting throughout the world, endlessly.
Kinda like what we're doing now.
Cruz and Paul and the others are going to have to answer some very specific, pointed questions over the next 3 years or so.
And this primary voter/contributor is not interested in fighting for "values"...like in Kosovo...Egypt...Libya...Syria...and, hopefully not Ukraine.
Neither one is talking about over the top crazy sanctions or war mongering in someone else's back yard.
Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz....that's how we win!
Uncle Owen: “That’s what I’m afraid of”.
Cruz isn’t stupid or naive, why don’t you get to your real point, rather than playing this silly game.
You are attacking Cruz, but why, what is the real reason, and it isn’t about American values either, what you really want to promote is a view of foreign policy that you won’t just come out and say.
I just don't see how someone can stand up today with a straight face and claim that the U.S. should be defending "American values" around the world. Let's start by establishing those American values right here in America first, then we'll worry about "defending" those values around the world.
Personally, I'm not sure it's possible to promote American values in places that don't have our legal, political and financial institutions ... but that's a whole different story.
I still am not seeing the real reason for all your energy to say nothing on this thread, yet to keep going after Cruz.
Especially since you seem to be posting isolationism on other threads.
Why not just get to what you really want to say.
Thanks SoConPubbie.
Maybe that’s your problem. You’re reading my posts on Threads B through Z and using them to read some kind of ulterior motives behind what I’m posting here on Thread A.
Hard to top for bullcrap. BTW Obama isn't weak, he is realistic. Cruz's 'defend our values' means everything is on the table, including war. A war with Russia would be outright stupidity. It would be existential for us and China would pick up our pieces. Cruz - just keep talking about eliminating the IRS.
When I read your posts, I see Cruz taking a beating from you.
So one vote for Obama over Cruz and Reagan in American foreign policy.
I don’t think there is much of a disagreement here.
Agreed. I dont really have any doubt that either of these guys would defend us in the event of a clear and present danger, or in the event of direct attacks on our homeland or citizens at home or abroad. That is the first and most important test for a POTUS, and I have confidence in both of their abilities to pass it, unlike current Presidents I could name.
What the question seems to be here is how far from that standard to justify intervention. Mr. Paul seems to have a more conservative (in the literal definition of the word) stance on that than Mr. Cruz, although Mr. Cruz’s stance is not outrageous.
In the current state of our economy, I would tend to side with Mr. Paul’s definition simply because our economic house is not in order to support anything beyond that. Get that in shape, and then we can expand our influence...but right now, we just aren’t in that kind of shape.
But with that being said, I’d support either of these fine gentlemen, should they be the nominee.
Weird post.
Cruz said...
Nothing wrong with what Cruz said.
Because they think Cruz's opinions are ridiculous and they like exaggerating Republican divisions.
This is a great example of why Ted Cruz is much better than Rand Paul.
Paul’s anti-foreign policy would be a disaster.
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.