Rand Paul nails it on Iraq then & now

This certainly sounds like a man that truly gets it, but we heard the same song and dance from Obama during his campaign in 2008. Everything he campaigned on has been a complete lie.

They are more concerned d with getting re-elected and gaining/holding on to power to admit their mistakes.

He was doing good until he held up Reagan as an example to be emulated, lest we forget his Mideast screw-ups. IMO, Bush 41 was the best foreign policy President in my lifetime, both in the Mideast and elsewhere.

Ron nailed it for a long long time too.

Unfortunately it wasn't trendy to like him at the time.

I fricking love this guy. I just hope people show up and support him

quote:

---

For former Bush officials to blame President Obama or for Democrats to blame President Bush only serves as a reminder that both sides continue to get foreign policy wrong.

---

Same goes for domestic policy.

quote:

---

Saying the mess in Iraq is President Obama's fault ignores what President Bush did wrong. Saying it is President Bush's fault is to ignore all the horrible foreign policy decisions in Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere under President Obama, many of which may have contributed to the current crisis in Iraq. For former Bush officials to blame President Obama or for Democrats to blame President Bush only serves as a reminder that both sides continue to get foreign policy wrong. We need a new approach, one that emulates Reagan's policies, puts America first, seeks peace, faces war reluctantly, and when necessary acts fully and decisively. Too many in Washington are prevented by their own pride from admitting their mistakes. They are more concerned about saving face or pursuing a rigid ideology than they are with constructing a realist foreign policy.

---

I like the guy, but this doesn't really tell us anything of substance.

It's one thing to put realism on a pedestal, it's another thing entirely to define what that means to a populace that really doesn't want to hear that the United States is not really some benevolent hegemony, but rather acts in its own self-interest just like any other nation-state.

FWIW -- most scholars consider Reagan an idealist in terms of his approach to foreign policy.

link to WSJ free-pass version (worked when i linked it)

LINK

Islamism is on the march; we can fight them over there where they establish bases for military expansion and train to attack us...or we can let them take the whole ME, establish their Caliphate and play our cards then.

Reagan bombed Quadaffi's HOUSE. Killed some of his family. What did Q do? He shut down the aggression.

From Regan to Bush to Obama and to Paul or WHOMEVER will deal with Muhammad's Islamism, it's going to be either bow to their Theocracy, or reject it. And if we reject it...they'll have to be killed; and done so while they hide amongst their families. It's no more complex than that.

Paul and his Daddy or Obama can run, but neither he - nor any leader sworn to protect our Freedom - can long hide. Either we shoot or we don't. Sooner or later. Drones/smart bombs now...nukes later. Pick your poison.

Earth 2014.