21 votes

GOP Wonders What The Hell It Will Do About Rand Paul's Foreign Policy

by Sam Stein
06/21/2014 8:00 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- The divisive role that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has played within the Republican Party on matters of foreign policy was amplified on Friday amid ongoing chaos in Iraq.

At a gathering of social conservatives in Washington, D.C., Paul’s call for more measured U.S. engagement -- if not outright restraint -- was criticized by fellow attendees, including a potential rival for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

In an interview with The Huffington Post outside the Faith and Freedom Conference, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a 2012 presidential candidate, offered a message “to the Rand Paul types” within his party.

“You can see what happens when America creates a vacuum,” Santorum said. “Other people fill it, and it is not to our security interests.”

Paul's remark that President Barack Obama wasn't to blame for the rise of Sunni militants in Iraq drew even more admonishment from the neoconservative wing of the party, which has begun openly fretting about the possibility that the Kentucky Republican could end up becoming the GOP standard-bearer.

Michael Goldfarb, founder of the unapologetically hawkish Free Beacon, distilled Paul’s message on foreign policy into a simple: “Don’t blame Obama.” After tweeting his disdain, he elaborated in an email to The Huffington Post.


Comment viewing options

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

Before the Obama, Romney race, I read somewhere that 70%

of all Americans were against any more war. And of those people 80% considered it "deal breaker" meaning that if given a choice they would absolutely NOT vote for a pro-war President.

A little quick math tells us that 80% of 70% equals 56% of the general population.

In other words 56% of the general population if given a serious choice would absolutely vote NOT for a pro war President, regardless of other issues.

That says that if either the Democrats or the Republicans had offered us an true anti-war President he would have won.

Obama sounds anti-war sometimes, but people knew by then it was only rhetoric. he had certainly not ended the wars as he had promised, and he had bombed Libya during his first four years.

Romney was unabashedly prowar.

So the single issue that would have given either mainstream candidate a victory was completely ignored.

You mean AIPAC,, you know,

You mean AIPAC,, you know, the ones who control/finance the Government.
Ron Paul is the true GOP

santorum and the others that share AIPAC agenda need to be thrown out of the GOP and those criminals need to be prosecuted for war crimes. Bush/Chaney/rumsfield/rice and all the other murderers.


90% of Americans against further wars for any reason

90% of pols and commentators support wars of aggression.

And yes, a so called pre-emptive war is a war of aggression.

Frothy knows all

about vacuums? He's nothing but a butt kissing 'Frothy' Ziocon, who's for killing all Israel's alleged enemies, and which are preventing them from creating the 'Greater Israel' prophecy. I think this 'new' Iraq conflict they created is failing badly in public opinion. I saw the media asking the sheeple on the streets of Houston, who normally aren't the brightest on non-pop culture events, but all those interviewed said 'that's not our problem, and we have no business getting involved'. I was dumbfounded when I heard their viewpoints.
We will see, if Rand backtracks on his comments like he usually does, when the estblishment attacks him? Ron always hits back at them harder, but Rand usually, at least, softens his stance, as he doesn't want the Zionist's to believe he's weak on foreign policy.

Huffington post comments

are always very weird.

anything not a democrat is evil, no matter what. Its very weird reading comments from someone with that kind of viewpoint.

Cyril's picture

Well, this has a name. And it's also documented

[...] anything not a democrat is evil, no matter what.

Well, this has a name.

And it's also documented, for anyone interested in learning about it:


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Where do the two words "foreign policy" appear

Where do the two words "foreign policy" appear in the Constitution booklet, again?

Pointers, anyone? Heya, GOP, any idea about those?

AFAIC, I was also wondering about :

"uncooked, unpressed cow milk cheese with a pungent aroma"


"sweetened condensed milk",

both of which, I think, are Constitutional topics of crucial importance to be brought up on the table -

- granted, especially mine!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

SteveMT's picture

Foreign policy is what separates Ron Paul from everyone else.

The same thing is starting to happen with Rand, and he is using the Constitution to back himself up. Good! Rand has successfully negotiated his way through the political mine field up to now, but this will be the biggest test yet. Foreign policy is a big issue with the neocons, so how Rand is going to placate their need to make war will be a significant challenge for the KY Senator.

The country is trending in Rand's direction...

if the GOP want to win the presidency, they are going to have to face the facts: neocons are not wanted. Rand's timing seems perfect for running...his ideas are peaking among the population. But, then again, the GOP establishment may not really care if they win as long as they are still making money (individually).

War powers shifted to the president

There are a number of reasons why war powers shifted to the president, the first, likely being that in the event of a nuclear attack, Congress would not have time to vote.

Second, the worst of them all, is that they got lazy, didn't want to put their names on record during a war resolution, as it could put their next term in jeopardy.

Third, I would say, a number of other countries abolished it, most notably not the British parliament, which is quite sad that we are in such a situation.

Fourth, pressure from the military industrial complex, various lobbies that believe they stand to gain from warfare and arms dealing, probably including the CIA.

So if you have a president that doesn't want to use his war powers what do you do? Very bad situation we are in regarding this area.

Foreign policy issues

Foreign policy issues are "above politics" which means they are none of the public's business. The public are only expected to pay their taxes and stand on the sidelines and cheer for every hare-brained intervention.