Rand Paul's Evolution On Iraq Is Fully Complete

[Vine Gatherer]

Source: HuffPo

Posted: 09/03/2014 6:41 pm EDT Updated: 59 minutes ago

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised eyebrows this weekend when he endorsed one of the most hawkish positions toward the Islamic State militants currently wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

That put the self-professed non-interventionist to the right of many of his fellow presidential hopefuls, who sounded more tentative notes when asked about the proper U.S. response. Seeking to "destroy ISIS militarily" would require some sort of ground presence in the region, and involve larger American engagement in another Middle East conflict.

But during an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Wednesday, Paul sought to clarify that position. The libertarian-leaning senator said that Iran, Syria, and Turkey could be “enjoined” in fighting Islamic State militants because of their proximity and interest in the region.




Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/rand-paul-iraq_n_5762270.html

---

Another "coalition of the willing," Ayn Randy?

[flamingdem]

1. Randism doesn't sell in the current environment

so why not simply change the product!

[Hoppy]

2. A coalition of the willing except for a few..

Well, fuck any fig eating surrender monkeys.


U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.. (I'm running out of breath) U.S.A. U.s.A. u.S.A.

aw, you get the idea.

[pampango]

3. Salon: Rand Paul’s flip-flop nightmare: “Non-interventionist” now backs war in the Middle East

Well, for all the talk of Rand Paul’s adherence to principle, we’re learning that he’s actually highly malleable when it comes to his policy positions. And as for his willingness to buck the Republican establishment, we’re seeing that whenever he does bend on policy, it’s usually in the direction of the Republican consensus. He did it on immigration, portraying himself as both a hardline border security proponent and an advocate for comprehensive reform, depending on which viewpoint dominated Republican thinking at the time. And now that Republicans are pressuring President Obama to take unspecified military action against ISIS, he’s abandoning his much-derided (in Republican circles) anti-interventionist foreign policy rhetoric in favor of the bellicose posturing of the rest of the hawkish GOP.

“If I were President,” Paul wrote in an email to the Associated Press, “I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.” That’s an overly simplified version of what the U.S. is looking at when it comes to confronting the terrorist group. Any U.S. effort to “destroy ISIS militarily” will require a huge commitment of men and materiel, along with political commitments from regional actors, and will take years.

And as Steve Benen points out, this is a complete flip from what Rand Paul was saying just last week about America’s role and responsibility in confronting ISIS:

A week ago today, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal condemning “interventionists,” who are quick to use military force abroad “with little thought to the consequences.” Over the course of his 900-word piece, the Republican senator was dismissive of the “hawkish members of my own party.”

“A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe,” Paul wrote. “Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rand_pauls_flip_flop_nightmare_non_interventionist_now_backs_war_in_the_middle_east

Some of the "shine" coming off the Paul non-interventionist rose. Guess we'll see if he backs away from some other policies which are popular with some here and moves "in the direction of the Republican consensus".

This flip-flop on intervention is Iraq does show that he is very serious about running for the republican nomination for president.

[Thor_MN]

4. The Military Industry must have had lunch with Rand...

And "explained" a few things.

[beerandjesus]

5. Well, there goes his hope for peeling off anti-war voters from the Dems...

Recently, there was a thread about how Rand Paul had called HRC a "War Hawk", and said that the next presidential election could be transformational if (in effect) Republicans were able to garner the anti-war vote. I thought it was an important point, because it's about the only way I think HRC could be beaten by Him-Whose-Name-Sounds-Like-A-Form-Of-Anal-Sex.

Barely a week later, and he blows it. Looks like the field's clear after all.