The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
1 vote

Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?

by David Shams | Huffington Post

- snip

What a difference a year makes.

Last Friday, I received an email from Rand Paul's office. He was, ostensibly, responding to my letter urging the Senate to oppose a new resolution that would call for the U.S. to enforce sanctions and provide economic, political, and military support if Israel attacked Iran. I opened it assuming that I'd read an email about how Senator Paul remained committed to standing strong against the push for war and sanctions. Boy was I wrong.

Ten months after sitting with what I assumed was a sympathetic ear, I read the following:

Iran continues to pose a threat to the region and the world as it continues nuclear development in the face of international sanctions and pressure to halt this aggressive behavior. Though a nuclear Iran would be a threat on the global scale, there is also concern that a nuclear Iran would aggressively target our ally Israel.

The United States and Israel have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unifies us across many thousands of miles and calls on us to work together toward peace and prosperity. This peace is not only between our two nations, but also our neighbors.

In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced S.Res.65, a Senate resolution stating it is the sense of Congress that the United States and international organizations should continue the enforcement of sanctions against Iran. In addition, S.Res.65 reiterates the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and our continued support of our ally Israel.

I supported S.Res.65, which passed both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate unanimously.

He goes on to mention that he got language included in the resolution stating that it does not authorize war. But I admittedly had to re-read the letter a few times. Here was a letter from Sen. Rand Paul, a supposed anti-sanctions, anti-war isolationist, that was basically doing a complete 180 degree turn away from what Paul's been advocating since before his election.

-end snip

read the whole thing...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Rand Paul is going Neocon in general...

Rand Paul is going Neocon in general...

I told you this was going to happen, and you just down-voted me... so down-vote me some more.

Just remember in the future, I told you so. Rand isn't his dad... period.


looks like I am voting third party for the rest of my life. I hope Jesse Ventura runs. I love his tough take no bullshit attitude as well as his foreign policy which is almost identical to Ron Paul's. Rand is OK, but once in awhile I hear something like this that makes my stomach turn.

P.S. I would like to make a small correction to the OPs statement about antiwar isolationism. It is important to note that isolationism has more to do with cutting off communications and trade with countries and not so much with invading/policing the world. Non-interventionist anti-war is a much better term since it only implies that we don't want to be involved in others military and political affairs. We don't want isolationism, we want non-interventionism. If you think about it, interventionism IS isolationism since the first act of war is to impose sanctions, cut off trade and communications.

If Rand is a neocon

his dad sure did one hell of a job fooling us. I thought we were supposedly the awakened ones among the sheeple? Rand rates getting attacked 3 years before the next election, so we are making headway. My conclusion for the Rand attackers can be summed up in three logical answers. Either they love drama, are on the other "team" trying to keep him from winning, or they are still secretly bah, bahing behind closed doors.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Rand Paul is not a neocon.

Rand Paul is not a neocon. He's a conservative, libertarian republican who would handle the Iran situation with diplomacy, not war.

It's such a double edged sword of an issue for any true republican trying to break through the old guard's gate. It's unfair to judge Rand Paul on his Iran rhetoric.

What is he supposed to say? If he echoed his true feelings, the race is over. Rand doesn't wear his heart on his political sleeves, and that's a good thing. He must walk a fine line, and not waver off of his course to the White House. If he must tell white lies to get there, then so be it.

The only way America is going to change is if the leadership of the country changes.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Guess what

Rand is not going too be our next President. He can sell his farther out back Mitch, and do all the back room deals he wants. That will not make him president. THAT MAKES HIM A SELL OUT PIECE OF SH@t! Rand is just another GOP Insider that sold this country out. I sure ain't going to vote for Rand I sold you out Paul. Keep making excuses for Rand. He is NOT his dad or has the morals of Ron or any Libertarian.

Lying and saying Iran is

Lying and saying Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon to nuke Israel with and therefore we have to wage war on its civilian population is hardly a fine line.

Who said that?

If Iran has nukes it's a threat to other countries in the region, Israel is one example. That is a fact.

Some of you try to dumb this down to a black and white issue when it clearly isn't. Rand Paul is clearly advocating a cautius policy which is the best thing to do.

Except that Iran is NOT

Except that Iran is NOT developing a nuclear weapon. They are signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty, which Israel is not BTW, and they haven't violated ANY of their obligations under it. Not one provision. So Rand Paul is a liar, plain and simple and has put that lie as the foundation for his support of "crushing sanctions" against the Iranian people.

Iran's not pursuing nuclear weapons?

I have some beachfront property to sell you!!! LOL!

Now I'm not saying we should be involved in taking sides, but you need to at least acknowledge that they are seeking nuclear weapons. They don't need nuclear energy they have all the oil they could ever use for energy.

This is what we're left with

This is what we're left with in this movement? Idiots like you who don't read? The IAEA and every intelligence agency in the world has stated repeatedly that they are not and have continued to state such in every report since. Every ounce of uranium is accounted for by inspection and not an ounce of it has been diverted to any use not permitted them under the non-proliferation treaty. They haven't the capability nor are they seeking the capability of enriching said uranium beyond 20%. If you'd like to argue with fact you're welcome to, but it doesn't change the fact that you'd be wrong.

Just that all the Rand haters...

... are acting like he just flip-flopped yesterday shows how ignorant they are.

Rand has voted for sanctions since the beginning... nothing new!

A position that I may disagree with but am not immature enough to throw a fit each time he vocalizes it and say for the 100th time that "just as I started liking Rand he does this"

... when he has don it since the beginning.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

And he has been GOP Garbage

And he has been GOP Garbage since he's been elected. I NEVER been a fan of Rand I sold my dad out Paul!

No... I don't think you get

No... I don't think you get it. We were HOPING he flip-flopped now that he's got a little more strength and clout. The anger is in the fact that he's opted to continue to promote the neocon lies about Iran and stated his intent to CONTINUE to wage war on its civilian population.

A Little More Strength And Clout???

It's only 3 1/2 years from 2016...

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

Oh I gotcha, have to keep the

Oh I gotcha, have to keep the lies going till he's elected and THEN he can suddenly become principled like his dad. Now I get where you guys are coming from.

Just When You Thought...

Just when you thought Rand was growing a pair, he proves he's just a child murdering coward when it comes to sucking Israel's you-know-what. I'm done with the guy, just as I was starting to warm to him a bit.

Once again, save for the case of one, Ron Paul, voting is a complete waste and only contributes to legitimizing mass murderers like Rand Paul. Just cuz he murders LESS than his competitors doesn't mean... ah fuck it, you idiots will vote for him anyway.

"Iran continues to pose a

"Iran continues to pose a threat to the region and the world as it continues nuclear development in the face of international sanctions and pressure to halt this aggressive behavior."

Nevermind the fact that this statement is patently FALSE and the lying manipulating Rand Paul KNOWS IT! Iran has violated NONE of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. His father knows it and HE knows it. The fact that he's willing to sanction, i.e. starve and murder women and children to perpetuate neocon lies tells you all you need to know.

Seriously, how can all you apologists just dismiss murder? His own father called it "murder" several times. Oh, I know, he's just saying and DOING what he needs to get elected, right? Even if that involves a little economic terrorism that ruins hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right? Just sucks if your one of the eggs. But whatever, they're just hajis eh?

Life's not fair, is it?


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

I have always been against

I have always been against the "special relationship" garbage... I always wondered what was so special we fought a war to create the country... We give them piles of money... we constantly have to step in and save them... Special for whom exactly what do we get?

Then came anti Israel Obama and now I have to rethink everything. So far exactly everything Obama has done is to destroy freedom. If he is against Israel I have a feeling we should be standing with them.

I have never understood the

I have never understood the label that Obama has been stuck with: "anti-Israel." In what ways has Obama the cruel hoax done anything to "stick it to Israel"? George H.W. Bush was the last president with the courage to threaten Israel with any loss of aid. Obama has in fact, repeatedly kissed Israel's ass. I am utterly amazed that anyone in our camp thinks otherwise.

Obama has been labelled as

being "anti-Israel" by the neoconservatives and the religious right because he's being portrayed as weak in regards to US-Israel ME imperialism (which, as we know is in reality false). For example, he refuses to openly send troops to Syria even though we all know that the US are covertly looking to "balkanize" the ME for the benefit of Israel: Iraq is basically in ruins and Egypt-Syria are being fragmented as we speak. He's also portrayed as being soft against Iran by the neos and evangelicals. Labeling him as "anti-Israel" is more or less an admission from those two factions that all their ME foreign policy is for Israel.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Rand has always been for sanctions and against war....

....nothing new here. Rand is not a pure non-interventionist like Ron, but Rand is FAR less of an interventionist than the leadership of either party.

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

For sanctions & against war? Sanctions *are* an act of war
"Sanctions are literally an act of war" -- Ron Paul

The idea that Rand is for sanctions and against war is nonsense.

I understand your point....

...but it is entirely irrelevant. Enforcing an embargo against Iran and invading Iran are both acts of aggression, but they are not the same thing, and the latter is far worse than the former.

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

I have to disagree

How did McCain and Mitt promise the neocons the wars that they live for? With exactly the same kind of tough talk about "threat to the region," backing sanctions, etc. Talking about acts of agression more overt than sanctions would be politically dumb, and entirely unnecessary. The neocons only need the President to cooperate enough to provoke the other guy into throwing a punch. When that happens the President has no politically viable choice but to retaliate. The neocon warmongers go get their boom-boom on and get to say "the other guy started it."

The neocons see sanctions as

The neocons see sanctions as a means to bring about war, yes. But it doesn't follow that everyone who supports sanctions likewise wants war, nor that sanctions have to lead to war.

Let me put it this way: would you rather have a McCain in charge who wants sanctions to bring about war, or a Rand in charge who gives lip service to sanctions so that he has the stature to effectively oppose war? ...neither is a great choice, but that's all we have (other than a noble but futile opposition to the whole interventionist program).

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

Sanctions to have the stature to oppose war?

How does an act of war (and as Ron Paul said, sanctions *are* an act of war) work as a way of opposing war?

I do certainly agree that Rand is no uber-hawk like McCain, but it looks like in 2016 the neocons aren't going to have an uber-hawk to support. So they're going to have to settle for a president who will keep the sanctions going, and the tough talk about "threats to the region," etc. That creates an environment that makes a shooting war far, far more likely, and *any* president who does this would have no politically viable way to avoid retaliation if sanctions provoke a military response. That's all Mitt would have done for them, and it's all any of the other non-hawk GOP candidates would do for them.

And in that situation what difference does it make that Rand or any other non-hawk GOP President might not want war? If sanctions provoke a military response, the neocons have their war no matter what Rand wants.

I'm not as confident as some about how to tell the difference between Rand telling the truth and Rand saying something he doesn't really believe for the sake of political viability, so I tend to just take Rand at his word. Personally I think an honest Rand who is a libertarian-leaning Republican whose differences with the GOP mainstream are much much smaller than his Dad's, is a more appealing candidate than a politically calculating Rand whose true views are much closer to his Dad's but who is willing to say things he doesn't believe and support acts of war like sanctions for the sake of political viability.

Yeah, sanctions only starve

Yeah, sanctions only starve and kill children, the sick and elderly. Fuck em, right? After all, the will of Israel is what's most important to be elected President.

This is it for me. I was starting to warm up to this guy a bit but he can kiss my vote goodbye. Rand is a baby killer just like the man he wants to follow in the White House.

So Rand should take on the whole UN

the whole media machine, and the whole establishment, while still up against a whole brain washed populace who believe Iran to be one of great threat. No offense Revere1776, but please don't offer to help Rand Paul on his Presidential campaign in 2016, we need to win.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Blah Blah Blah

...would you prefer sanctions or Operation Iranian Freedom?


Get your head out the unicorn's ass.

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