The hawks, in particular, have been accusing Obama of pulling out of Iraq too early and not recognizing the dangers of the growing terrorist threat posed there by the militant network known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“I think the very first step … is to recognize that there is a threat,” Cheney said Monday. Yet even he acknowledged that there’s growing public fatigue from always having to watch out for terrorist threats: “You’ve got folks who simply don’t want to be bothered, and it’s been a long time since 9/11,” he said.
Paul, however, says the real problem in Iraq is that “there aren’t that many good choices right now” — and that he’s not about to call for sending the troops back in when, in his view, the Iraqis didn’t fight very hard for their own security.
“I ask Gov. Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Gov. Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?” Paul wrote.
Robert Zarate, policy director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank that’s affiliated with conservative commentator William Kristol, argued that “the internationalists need to not only debate the isolationists in Washington, D.C., but they also need to continue making their case persuasively to the American people.”
Craner, however, argued that Paul’s views are more in line with Americans who are growing increasingly distrustful after the experiences of the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and want a clearer sense of the objectives of future military actions and how they’re going to end.
“They kind of understand Afghanistan, but with the other two, they’re saying, ‘How did we get into that again?’” the Paul adviser said. “Before we do that kind of thing again, we need to ask some serious questions.”
I must agree with Rand Paul on this one. Why should we send American troops in to protect a people who refuse to protect themselves. I also agree that there are no easy choices, we are between the proverbial rock and hard place.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with Rand on this one. We cannot solve the problems of the middle east. We need to come home protect ourselves and let them fight it out.
ReplyDeleteWould the two of you vote for Rand if he is the nomine?
ReplyDeleteI possibly would. It depends on who his opponent is and upon their stands on various issues. I don't rule out anyone at this stage.
DeleteIn the spirit of genuinely being objective, I think people in the tea party look at Rand Paul with the same, well meaning but thoroughly irrational look at that liberals gave to Obama. From the start, people like McConnell made it clear that their one and only goal was to make Obama fail. Why would McConnell act any differently towards Rand Paul?
DeleteWith congress, we've seen what division looks like. They all hate the uppity "boy" who allegedly is the most divisive figure that humanity has ever known, but when it comes down to it, Paul is no less in opposition than Obama in everything that Boehnor and McConnell stand for. And he's certainly in opposition to people like McCain, Graham and the entire neocon cabal that wants us to remain perpetually at war. Some time ago, Paul made a comment to the effect that we have given arms to all kinds of people in the middle east and that this is kind of crazy.
I don't know William. I look at Rand Paul and see someone who has similar problems to Obama. He's another younger person who hasn't gone to war, hasn't served in the military and doesn't have that cold war mentality that those of his fathers generation do. He's basically just the other end of the spectrum from Obama and as such is just as much of a threat to the entrenched power bases.