95 votes

CNN: Rand Paul Counters Romney on Foreign Policy

(CNN) – A Republican senator and surrogate for Mitt Romney chided the GOP presidential nominee on Wednesday, saying he was "a bit dismayed" by Romney's foreign policy speech earlier in the week.

In an op-ed on CNN.com, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who endorsed Romney in June, took issue with key points of Romney's approach to international affairs.

"Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree," Paul wrote.

A tea party favorite and known for his libertarian views–many of which he shares with his father and former presidential candidate Ron Paul–Sen. Paul maintained he's not an isolationist, as he believes in engagement with the world through trade, commerce and diplomacy. He would not hesitate, he added, to send troops to war as a measure of self-defense.

"But we are in too many places, too often, and we don't seem to even know the reason - or where we will end up when we're done," he wrote. "This foreign policy has created more enemies than it has vanquished."

Continue http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/sen-rand-pau...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Good for Rand. Rom us a

Good for Rand. Rom is a weathervane, so he needs to hear from the liberty wing of the GOP (pitifully minor wing though it is) that the endless warmongering and empire building has to stop. Maybe it'll at least reduce his bellicosity if not change his mind.

But goodness, Rand is gonna need some help or he's gonna be out on his behind in 4 years. Running attack ads on Dems he's not even running against is going to cost him and now the GOP neocons are gonna be after him, especially if Rom loses.

Rand continues to puzzle me but I really like this move.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

When Rand was on cnn with

When Rand was on cnn with Erin Burnett tonight telling how romney is wrong on Syria and the defense budget she was so happy I thought she was going to cry. If she is that happy, this has to be damaging to romney. Maybe Rand publicly endorsed romney but he is still getting his jabs in when he can, and on national tv. There is only one Ron Paul. No one can replace him but I sure am glad Rand is in the senate.

tasmlab's picture

1000+ comments

Apparently lots of folks have opinions about politics! With so many minds on the problems at hand, we'll get this ship righted in no time!

(and, I'll put mine in the queue too)

Interestingly, all about Romney, I didn't see any about Rand.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

we all knew it... y didnt he

we all knew it... y didnt he bother to check this out BEFORE endorsing? thats not all, NDAA, Patriot act, indefinite detention, Audit the fed.. Romney supports none of these. This goes to show, Rand has no principles, he will support whoever is the nomenee, no matter what they believe, even if it was santorum.. he would have supported.. what a sell out

His criticism holds more

His criticism holds more weight to the masses BECAUSE he endorsed him.

Without the endorsement he is just some "isolationist wingnut like his father". Now he is a leading US Republican leader in the Senate.

Exactly!

Genius. Go Rand Go!

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Bingo

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

...so Rand should endorse Obama to be a relevant Obama critic?

Or... do you wanna REWORK your BS?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

I think the downvotes say it

I think the downvotes say it all.

metalhed19's picture

Yep, exactly. RP Senior was

Yep, exactly. RP Senior was an all or nothing guy, and God bless him. But he's going to retire, and i think Rand's trying to stay revelent. If the SHTF any time in the near future, RP Senior is going to look like a genious prophet, and hopefully his son reaps the benifits.

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

While I'm glad he wrote this,

While I'm glad he wrote this, it begs the question; What did Rand expect?

SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

You're spoiling his magical-fantastical-super-secret "sellout/infiltrate" scheme. Romney, Ryan, Boehner, McConnell, etc are SUCKERS being duped! SHHHH!!!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Still boilin' frogs...

..he is.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Here's some logic

For your MSM loving friends that like to spout the isolationist misnomer;

If Ron Paul's foreign policy was isolationist than by that same token the entire rest of the world must be isolationist, since no other country even comes close to our military expansion.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

and Iran

By extension, since they have no foreign occupations and spend a fraction of what we do on military, they also must be isolationist and therefore no threat.....oh snap.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Wow...

so after selling out the Tea Party... and the Liberty Movement... and his own father (to the dizzy euphoria of leftist Sean Hannity)...

now he's selling out... his new leftist, progressive, chickenhawking, Constitution-shredding family?

OH, I GET IT!!!!!!! This is the part of his deceptive "strategy" where he "Goes Rogue," Like FAKE-conservative Palin, right? Or is it goin' "Maverick," like FAKE-conservative McCain? Or is there some new cute Kentucky sayin' that will title his next book? I GOT IT!!!!!! "Rand Paul - Optin' Out!" PERFECT!!!! With that title, he can also co-opt the third party - leaning folks for his LEFTIST GOP... while FALSELY positioning himself as OUTSIDE the GOP.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Hmmm

You must have won a lot of participation awards as a child.

Eric Hoffer

ytc's picture

Yup, Rand is taking one of a thousand ways to re-orient

the USA back to rational lean effective foreign policy.

We'll do our parts in our own ways, but let's bless what he's doing as well :-)

Yup...

Rejecting a noninterventionist... and endorsing an interventionist... to promote NONINTERVENTION... is WELL WORTHY OF MANY blessings.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Good for Rand. He should

Good for Rand. He should subtly chide Romney about his abortion comments too.

Haters gonna hate

Brothers and sisters!

Let us never loose the courage to subtly chide the enemies of freedom!!!

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Yuppers...

and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONALLY-funded COMPULSORY "healthcare"
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL NDAA
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Patriot" Act
and "subtly chide Romney about" INSTITUTING homosexual "marriage"
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL TARP
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL Bailouts
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL Stimulus
and "subtly chide Romney about" UNCONSTITUTIONAL Weapons Bans
and "subtly chide Romney about" PRIVATE Federal Reserve
and "subtly chide Romney about" outsourcing
and "subtly chide Romney about" croni-capitalism
and "subtly chide Romney about" flip-flopping (lying)
and "subtly chide Romney about" rejecting the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
and... and... well... and...

or just endorse a CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

(I wonder if ACKNOWLEDGING ANTI-AMERICAN LEFTIST DESTRUCTION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... is "Hatin'")

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Not that I disagree...

but I'd replace 'PRIVATE Federal Reserve' with 'CENTRAL', which is the real issue.

Anyway, I don't know if Rand is pulling some double agent ninja tactics or if he's a sellout or something else entirely. In any case, I never expected him to be a carbon copy of Dr. Paul...though I never expected him to do half the things he has done, for better or worse.

A signature used to be here!

The real issue IS PRIVATE


The real issue is PRIVATE.

For it is the Rothschilds corrupt private, for-profit (personal profit), Banking system that owns and defines and operates the 'Federal Reserve' (which is a deceptive name), for the benefit of themselves.

This is a private bank run by its owners:

1. Rothschild's of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York

This Banking Cartel has total monopolistic control over the creation of money, and the money supply (and hence its value or worth). And by controlling money, they and not the elected government are the true originators and makers of public policies, and use that money to ensure that only their corrupt agenda gets acted upon, and gets favorable Media treatment.

This is also why we have perpetual Wars, the piracy of World Resources, and other orchestrated calamities (9/11).

When private power becomes more powerful than the government - you have fascism. This is what has made a mess out of this Country.


reply

"For it is the Rothschilds corrupt private, for-profit (personal profit), Banking system that owns and defines and operates the 'Federal Reserve' (which is a deceptive name), for the benefit of themselves. "

The fact that the Fed is private, or that *gasp* people looking to make a profit isn't the issue, it's the fact that they have a monopoly and can do as they please. I just don't see how the scam would be any different if the Federal Reserve were actually, y'know, federal. It's not as if the feds give a shit about us little people anyway, right?

So what, making a profit is now bad? See how easy the argument can be flipped to have an anti-free market slant when one bases their criticism of the Fed by pointing out that it's private rather than pointing out the monopoly?

"This Banking Cartel has total monopolistic control over the creation of money, and the money supply (and hence its value or worth). And by controlling money, they and not the elected government are the true originators and makers of public policies, and use that money to ensure that only their corrupt agenda gets acted upon, and gets favorable Media treatment."

...yeah, that's pretty much my point, minus the 'not elected government' part (I mean, just look at our 'elected' 'leaders'. They're arguably worse for getting in bed with banksters in the first place.)

When someone says the Federal Reserve is bad because it is PRIVATE rather than CENTRALIZED, it opens up the door to say "well geez yeah, I guess we should do away with private banking" and so on. I've seen plenty of mainstream political junkies take that route.

A signature used to be here!

You're not seeing the corruption here


If The Private Banksters did not control everything (for personal profit) as they do today, and instead it was the government who had the sole control over the money supply, then there would be no borrowing from private investors involved; and hence there would be no usury, no ponzi scheme, no pyramiding of interest, and no self-generating debt produced.

But the Private Bank Empire (Rothschilds) designed this system not to serve the public, or to enrich the government -- but to enrich themselves, and to make the public pay for it. It is all this debt that paralyzes the economy, prevents us from rebuilding our cities, and puts American taxpayers enslaved to that self-generated debt.

So there is a huge, huge difference here indeed -- which is why Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and others (such as James Garfield) all spoke about the evils of Private Banking as the King over the monetary instrument.

"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any Country is absolute master of all industry and commerce

And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

--President James Garfield



Maybe Napoleon said it best:

"When a government is dependent upon BANKERS for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that vies is above the hand that takes.

Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."

--Napoleon Bonaparte



The converse is that if a not-for-profit entity (i.e., the government) take control away from the Banks, then the control is shifted away from Wall Street and away from the profiteers, and put back into the hands of the public sphere with genuine public representation (which we do not have today).

So Get the Banks & Wall Street out-of-the-picture and then the incentive will be to serve the interests of the public, and not to serve an International Empire, or a borderless World Government (i.e. War, Torture, etc.)

"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency.

Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurers, and the other helps the people."

--Thomas Edison

The choice is made clear.

"The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.

I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

--President Abraham Lincoln

That's exactly what happened to our Country.....

You lost me a "Obomba"...

which is a PURE ESTABLISHMENT GOP screen name.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

*yawn*

Please point out a single post where I have ever supported anything " Establishment" GOP. If you're going to spout nonsense, then at least *try* to back it up.

Or, you know, you could just stop being so childish and paranoid.

A signature used to be here!

Well... based on this exchange ALONE...

1. "Obomba" is Establishment GOP, same as "Obummer," "Obozo," "Obammey," etc, etc.

2. Smug defensiveness is another dead giveaway.

3. Rand-apologetics is another giveaway. The ol "I'm upset that he (insert offense)... but at least he's (insert pathetic consolation prize)." Establishment people use this formula constantly. It's the "better evil" strategy... just stated a little differently.

I ain't perfect, but I KNOW the signs.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

" I ain't perfect, but I KNOW the signs."

Translation: I want to believe I'm right so I don't appear foolish, and it has the side benefit of fueling my paranoia."

1. "Obomba" is Establishment GOP, same as "Obummer," "Obozo," "Obammey," etc, etc.

Or maybe I use the name because of all the drone attacks? Ever think of that? Talk about jumping to conclusions.

2. Smug defensiveness is another dead giveaway.
I didn't realize that asking for proof to back up your claim was "smug defensiveness" Also, that's pretty rich, considering some of the posts you've been making lately.

Rand-apologetics is another giveaway. The ol "I'm upset that he (insert offense)... but at least he's (insert pathetic consolation prize)." Establishment people use this formula constantly. It's the "better evil" strategy... just stated a little differently.

First, it'd probably help your case if you quoted things I actually said rather than what you want to interpret it as.

Second, no, I really don't care about Rand one way or the other. I'm just not going to take love/hate sides on a person or pretend that I know for a fact what he's doing. Unlike some here, I don't consider speculation to be fact.

This whole "you don't agree with me, therefore you're a shill!" crap is really getting old, by the way. It's childish, illogical, and hypocritical. ('free' thinkers, riiiight....)

A signature used to be here!