Senator Rand Paul agrees with BNI: “The reason ISIS jihadists are attacking Iraq is because the Obama Regime has been arming them in Syria”

[rangerrebew]

Jun

26

2014

Senator Rand Paul agrees with BNI: “The reason ISIS jihadists are attacking Iraq is because the Obama Regime has been arming them in Syria”
 

And still are. The question, therefore, should be, whose side is Barack Hussein Obama on now that ISIS has expanded its violent jihad into Iraq?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e_4tUYc6ag

 

And still are. The question, therefore, should be, whose side is Barack Hussein Obama on now that ISIS has expanded its violent jihad into Iraq?

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/06/26/senator-rand-paul-agrees-with-bni-the-reason-isis-jihadists-are-attacking-iraq-is-because-the-obama-regime-has-been-arming-them-in-syria/

[DCPatriot]

....and Libya.....and Pakistan....and Afghanistan....Tijuana, Mexico too!

[massadvj]

Rand Paul seems to be the only politician willing to speak the truth about ISIS and its relationship with OPapaDoc.  Meanwhile, McCain and the GOPe seem hell-bent on the policy of arming them in Syria so that we can fight them in Iraq.

[alicewonders]

....and Libya.....and Pakistan....and Afghanistan....Tijuana, Mexico too!

And who knows where else?  Look anywhere there is terrorism and you have to wonder if Obama is helping the bad guys.  And yeah, I'm serious. 

[alicewonders]

Rand Paul seems to be the only politician willing to speak the truth about ISIS and its relationship with OPapaDoc.  Meanwhile, McCain and the GOPe seem hell-bent on the policy of arming them in Syria so that we can fight them in Iraq.

Rand Paul has said some things recently that I have not agreed with and so I am always at a "wait and see" place with him.  But - he is head and shoulders above 95% of the other potential candidates and the most interesting aspect is that he has a broader appeal than most of the other candidates.  He seems to be very intelligent too.   

[Oceander]

Rand Paul has said some things recently that I have not agreed with and so I am always at a "wait and see" place with him.  But - he is head and shoulders above 95% of the other potential candidates and the most interesting aspect is that he has a broader appeal than most of the other candidates.  He seems to be very intelligent too.   

I completely agree.

[alicewonders]

I completely agree.

In some ways, Rand Paul has Spock-like qualities.  He's very logical and not very emotive.  But, I think he IS very passionate about liberty!  He has the benefit of a lifetime of experience in the political world and has seen a lot firsthand.  I think he has been thinking about this for a long time.

[Oceander]

*  *  *

I think he has been thinking about this for a long time.

Which is precisely the sort of person we need now.

[massadvj]

Rand Paul has said some things recently that I have not agreed with and so I am always at a "wait and see" place with him.  But - he is head and shoulders above 95% of the other potential candidates and the most interesting aspect is that he has a broader appeal than most of the other candidates.  He seems to be very intelligent too.   

I saw Dick Cheney last night on Charley Rose, and it seems to me he is in denial about a lot of the Bush policies in Iraq.  I supported that war at he time, but I think we all miscalculated the degree to which the war would spell the demise of the GOP politically, and the degree to which Democrat control would erase everything gained by the war.

What is the point of spending all that money if it means that Democrats are going to exploit the situation and then squander everything that was gained?  Yes, Democrats squandered it, but in the end we are at least somewhat responsible for that because the country was sick and tired of war and voted them in. 

Also, Bush and Cheney "misunderestimated" the degree to which their nation-building would facilitate an Iranian client state.  In retrospect, since civil war was inevitable, they probably should have decimated the place and then let the locals settle things among themselves.  There simply are no good actors over there.

[alicewonders]

I saw Dick Cheney last night on Charley Rose, and it seems to me he is in denial about a lot of the Bush policies in Iraq.  I supported that war at he time, but I think we all miscalculated the degree to which the war would spell the demise of the GOP politically, and the degree to which Democrat control would erase everything gained by the war.

What is the point of spending all that money if it means that Democrats are going to exploit the situation and then squander everything that was gained?  Yes, Democrats squandered it, but in the end we are at least somewhat responsible for that because the country was sick and tired of war and voted them in. 

Also, Bush and Cheney "misunderestimated" the degree to which their nation-building would facilitate an Iranian client state.  In retrospect, since civil war was inevitable, they probably should have decimated the place and then let the locals settle things among themselves.  There simply are no good actors over there.

Yeah, I agree.  Let's just build a moat around them and cut them off - let nature take it's course.   

[musiclady]

Sorry, but why did Rand Paul just blame Bush and say it wasn't Obama's fault if THIS is what he believes?

I'm so sick of politicians speaking with forked tongue.

If someone can give an explanation for his about face here, I'd love to hear it.......

[alicewonders]

Sorry, but why did Rand Paul just blame Bush and say it wasn't Obama's fault if THIS is what he believes?

I'm so sick of politicians speaking with forked tongue.

If someone can give an explanation for his about face here, I'd love to hear it.......

That's one of the things I disagree with him about. 

But, whenever I read or hear news, I always have to ask myself certain questions to determine if it is credible news.  The media is incredibly biased and so I can only hope that some of Paul's statements are presented out of context or manipulated in some way.  It would stand to reason that he would be considered their enemy on the basis of his philosophy of libertarianism. 

Still, I think that there are always going to be a few things I don't agree with any politician, so you really have to be somewhat pragmatic. 

[GourmetDan]

What is the point of spending all that money if it means that Democrats are going to exploit the situation and then squander everything that was gained?  Yes, Democrats squandered it, but in the end we are at least somewhat responsible for that because the country was sick and tired of war and voted them in. 

Yeah, if you're going to do something like that you need to do it as fast as you can and as hard as you can until there is no opposition left.  Then you can look at the survivors for someone to 'partner' with to rebuild the place.

This 'one hand tied behind the back stuff' is evil...

[Rivergirl]

Paul flip flops more times than jon carry.

[musiclady]

That's one of the things I disagree with him about. 

But, whenever I read or hear news, I always have to ask myself certain questions to determine if it is credible news.  The media is incredibly biased and so I can only hope that some of Paul's statements are presented out of context or manipulated in some way.  It would stand to reason that he would be considered their enemy on the basis of his philosophy of libertarianism. 

Still, I think that there are always going to be a few things I don't agree with any politician, so you really have to be somewhat pragmatic.

I did hear him in his own words say that we couldn't blame Obama for the mess because we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, but I didn't hear the entire context, and I absolutely agree that the media distorts and maligns conservatives.  (I also find it ironic that the Dems who blast the Iraq war all voted FOR it while Rand's dad voted against it).

At any rate, regardless of where he stands on whether on not we should have gone to Iraq, it was a big mistake to absolve Obama in a previous statement, and I'm glad he's now clarifying.

It is WAY too early, IMO, to be 'settling' on a candidate, and I'm not dismissing Paul (completely) if THIS is the way he thinks and not what he said previously.  It is, however, dangerous to play to one's audience to the point where your true convictions are never apparent.  Time will tell if Paul has a fatal flaw in this area.

[alicewonders]

I did hear him in his own words say that we couldn't blame Obama for the mess because we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, but I didn't hear the entire context, and I absolutely agree that the media distorts and maligns conservatives.  (I also find it ironic that the Dems who blast the Iraq war all voted FOR it while Rand's dad voted against it).

At any rate, regardless of where he stands on whether on not we should have gone to Iraq, it was a big mistake to absolve Obama in a previous statement, and I'm glad he's now clarifying.

It is WAY too early, IMO, to be 'settling' on a candidate, and I'm not dismissing Paul (completely) if THIS is the way he thinks and not what he said previously.  It is, however, dangerous to play to one's audience to the point where your true convictions are never apparent.  Time will tell if Paul has a fatal flaw in this area.

I agree with everything you said musiclady.  Time will tell, and that's why I'm watching and waiting to see how it shakes out.

[musiclady]

I saw Dick Cheney last night on Charley Rose, and it seems to me he is in denial about a lot of the Bush policies in Iraq.  I supported that war at he time, but I think we all miscalculated the degree to which the war would spell the demise of the GOP politically, and the degree to which Democrat control would erase everything gained by the war.

What is the point of spending all that money if it means that Democrats are going to exploit the situation and then squander everything that was gained? Yes, Democrats squandered it, but in the end we are at least somewhat responsible for that because the country was sick and tired of war and voted them in.  

Also, Bush and Cheney "misunderestimated" the degree to which their nation-building would facilitate an Iranian client state.  In retrospect, since civil war was inevitable, they probably should have decimated the place and then let the locals settle things among themselves.  There simply are no good actors over there.

One mild correction/addition here....

The only reason the country was "sick and tired of war" was that the left made it seem much more dire and awful than it was.  They denigrated our troops (see John Kerry), they exaggerated Abu Grab,  they gleefully broadcast the casualties (a la Viet Nam), they accused Bush of lying daily, they never, ever, EVER wrote or talked about all the good things our troops were doing, nor the incredible progress and stability the surge created.

The only people in America who suffered during the war were the military families, and the vast majority of us still supported what our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives were doing there to liberate the Iraqi people and stabilize their country.

I completely reject the "war weary" meme.  It was leftist propaganda that caused the weariness.

[musiclady]

I agree with everything you said musiclady.  Time will tell, and that's why I'm watching and waiting to see how it shakes out.

Yep.  Me too.

[massadvj]

One mild correction/addition here....

The only reason the country was "sick and tired of war" was that the left made it seem much more dire and awful than it was.  They denigrated our troops (see John Kerry), they exaggerated Abu Grab,  they gleefully broadcast the casualties (a la Viet Nam), they accused Bush of lying daily, they never, ever, EVER wrote or talked about all the good things our troops were doing, nor the incredible progress and stability the surge created.

Was that not something any Republican administration should have anticipated?  Was the press and its nature something they were unaware of?  Were Democrats and their nature something the Bush administration should have been surprised by?

Again, why spend a trillion dollars over a five year period to build a nation when doing so resulted in one's political enemies beating us over the head with it and then they let that nation collapse in chaos anyway?  (to say nothing of the fact that the nation that emerged was more loyal to Iran than us)

Iraq was a failed policy not because bringing civility to the Middle East wasn't a good idea, but because of the administration's failure to anticipate all of the political consequences, and how those consequences would render the entire thing moot in the end.

[GourmetDan]

Was that not something any Republican administration should have anticipated?  Was the press and its nature something they were unaware of?  Were Democrats and their nature something the Bush administration should have been surprised by?

Right, which in my conspiratorial-mind indicates that the failure to respond was a deliberate decision to shift public opinion to the left and usher in a Bambi/Clintoon-type of candidate.

I don't think the GOP has the best interests of our country in mind either.  They are 'controlled opposition' who are allowed to come to power and implement policies that the left could never implement, but can be abused when the left re-takes power.

Think Patriot Act in the hands of the Bush Admin vs the Obama Admin...

[massadvj]

Right, which in my conspiratorial-mind indicates that the failure to respond was a deliberate decision to shift public opinion to the left and usher in a Bambi/Clintoon-type of candidate.

I don't think the GOP has the best interests of our country in mind either.  They are 'controlled opposition' who are allowed to come to power and implement policies that the left could never implement, but can be abused when the left re-takes power.

Think Patriot Act in the hands of the Bush Admin vs the Obama Admin...

The military industrial complex is only sustainable if the weapons we sell abroad are used, and if the political parties play musical chairs.  So the establishment constantly plays both sides against the middle, both at home and abroad.

[GourmetDan]

The military industrial complex is only sustainable if the weapons we sell abroad are used, and if the political parties play musical chairs.  So the establishment constantly plays both sides against the middle, both at home and abroad.

I think the motive lies at a higher level, but the tactics are the same...

[musiclady]

Was that not something any Republican administration should have anticipated?  Was the press and its nature something they were unaware of?  Were Democrats and their nature something the Bush administration should have been surprised by?

Again, why spend a trillion dollars over a five year period to build a nation when doing so resulted in one's political enemies beating us over the head with it and then they let that nation collapse in chaos anyway?  (to say nothing of the fact that the nation that emerged was more loyal to Iran than us)

Iraq was a failed policy not because bringing civility to the Middle East wasn't a good idea, but because of the administration's failure to anticipate all of the political consequences, and how those consequences would render the entire thing moot in the end.

Of course, they should have anticipated the hostile response of the media to the war in Iraq.  But, even given that, should they have not gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, given that he was, indeed, a threat, simply because they anticipated how the left would react?

If they truly believed, as I still think they did, that freeing the Iraqi people from brutality and giving them a chance for self-determination, was the right thing to do; that all people around the world desire liberty, should they not invade Iraq because the left would attack them for it?

If you look at what George W. Bush has done since his presidency,  if you look even momentarily at the Bush Institute, you will see that he is continuing to fight for liberty for the oppressed people around the world.......including those who suffer under religious persecution.

Agree with it or not, it's what he really believes.

And the 20/20 hindsight of what the Marxist, incompetent President who followed him has done, is nice, but I'm not sure you can use it to condemn the entire effort in Iraq.

[massadvj]

If they truly believed, as I still think they did, that freeing the Iraqi people from brutality and giving them a chance for self-determination, was the right thing to do; that all people around the world desire liberty, should they not invade Iraq because the left would attack them for it?

Freedom is not something that an invading force can "give" people.  And there is a big, big difference between liberty and democracy.  I do think Saddam could have extracted without the long-term commitment that cost the GOP so much politically.  All of that long-term cost is now down the drain.

[musiclady]

Freedom is not something that an invading force can "give" people.  And there is a big, big difference between liberty and democracy.  I do think Saddam could have extracted without the long-term commitment that cost the GOP so much politically.  All of that long-term cost is now down the drain.

I understand that point, mass, and again, hindsight is great, but in 2003, there weren't that many who objected to taking out Saddam on either side of the aisle.

And I also understand the difference between liberty and democracy, and think that President Bush tried to help the Iraqi's with both.

The only point I'm trying (albeit, feebly) to make, is that the Bush administration - both the President and VP - believed that they were doing a good thing by freeing the Iraqi people AND helping them create a country where they had a choice in the government they had.

When Bush left office, he left a stable Iraq, and it lasted until 2011 when Obama idiotically refused to leave a residual force there because he is at the extreme left of the anti-American left.  I don't think that it's realistic to fault them for not seeing into the future and knowing that an outright Communist would be elected next and destroy everything they had sought to accomplish.

I'm absolutely certain that there WAS a way to do it better.  And that's because I'm looking back at what has happened.

(btw, perhaps part of the discussion should also be the strategic wisdom of having an ally in the center of the ME.  We DID have that while Bush was President).