Thursday, September 4, 2014

Rand Is Getting Worse By the Hour

Get a load of this from Eliana Johnson at NRO:
Richard Burt, one of Rand Paul’s foreign-policy advisers, says that the senator’s call to destroy the Islamic State is not merely a matter of political opportunity, but reflects the senator’s broader views about America’s role in the world. When I spoke with Burt, who served as ambassador to West Germany during Ronald Reagan’s second term, he was working with Paul’s team on an op-ed on the Islamic State threat.

Paul, Burt says, “understands that the United States is a global power and that there are occasions where the United States has to use military force.”

“I think this is all based on an approach to foreign policy that thinks in terms of American interests,” he says. “The thing that makes ISIS a particularly serious challenge is that we do have interests” in the Middle East, Burt says — in a thriving Kurdish minority and a stable, successful Iraqi government that integrates the country’s Sunni minority.

Burt tacitly suggests that what differentiates Paul from the neoconservatives who shaped policy at the top echelons of the Bush is his belief that the use of force should be “selective” and that leaders should think through the consequences of using force and have a strategy for bringing it to an end.

Though less idealistic that George W. Bush’s call to end tyranny in our time, Paul is embracing the conventional foreign-policy stance of the pre-Bush era.

His latest comments are something of an about-face. In a June interview, he told me that President Obama’s contention that the Islamic State might establish safe havens in Iraq from which it could launch attacks on the United States was “a bit of a stretch” and said of the group, “Their first objective isn’t getting to the United States, their first objective would be getting to Baghdad.”

Asked about those remarks, Burt says, “I don’t think two months ago any of us really had a clear understanding of the momentum this group had.”


  1. Great, more sacrificing our children to the military-industrial complex. Yeah!!!

    1. It's sad that there will be no viable anti war candidate.

  2. It would appear the bigger the state gets and the more totalitarian it acts, the more incentive to produce more fear for public consumption. Fear needs enemies, enemies and threats need to be addressed hence more war. As a rule, its absurd to think that Federal politicians in general would be anti-war. The state needs wars, enemy creation to divert attention from its crimes and solidify its legitimacy,

  3. He's positioning himself to get the GOP nomination, the apple does indeed fall far from the tree. :(

  4. “I don’t think two months ago any of us really had a clear understanding of the momentum this group had.” us? the leadership of the nation? think? why that would cut into our influence peddling time.

  5. Hopefully, more individuals who have previously overlooked Rand Paul's contradictory views are coming to the realization that he has unfortunately sold out his integrity and honor for 30 pieces of silver.