Liz Cheney would eat Rand Paul for LunchSubmitted by Paul 3V0L on Wed, 07/02/2014 - 03:26
Edit (Because I needed a better headline)
Excellent interview. Scott Horton is sharp as a razor. He's not a fan of Rand, or is he? Horton delivers much deserved criticism of Rand. But not like you may think.
WOODS: Scott, I know you are not a fan of Rand Paul, but I wonder if you were pleasantly surprised by the fact that he was willing in this case to say, I just don’t see how this could possibly be considered Obama’s fault. None of it would have happened if it hadn’t been for George W. Bush. Now, he has bought into the surge worked stuff, and his comments weren’t perfect, but they are more than anybody else in the GOP these days is saying.
HORTON: Yeah, well, and you notice how they didn’t really fight with him about it. He was outright saying, hey, look, Obama’s been more or less, he wasn’t careful, but [Rand] basically accused Obama of backing ISIS in Syria, and Candy Crowley pushed back a little bit out of her ignorance, but you notice he didn’t get in kinds of trouble politically for this all week, and the answer is because it’s true!
John McCain was over there posing on the porch with the Northern Storm Brigade, who were veterans of al Qaeda in Iraq. Obama and McCain, both the entire Republican and Democratic establishments, they’re all guilty of treason up to their eyeballs, and have nothing to say to what Rand Paul said except silence.
They’re lucky he let them off the hook at that. But the problem is, then he turns around and says, well, maybe we should do airstrikes. 'I am open to bombing them.' He still can’t rule it out, even though he is right that Bush created this mess, Obama made it worse not by leaving, but by the intervention that he’s been doing in Syria next door. It’s time to do like Ron Paul and just say, hey, call it off. Just stop it.
It’s my undying frustration that he won’t just shoot straight. He’s always got to split the difference, and instead of being everything to everyone, he’s going to end up being nothing to nobody. It’s a disgrace, especially, I mean, he’s the best Republican, he’s the best senator ever, probably. I can’t think of a better senator in all of American history, but compared to his father he’s falling so far short in really hammering home the message, and I think if someone had truly tried to cross-examine him and say, what do you mean Bush’s war benefitted Iran? What do you mean Obama’s been backing ISIS in Syria? It seemed to me from the way he said it he hadn’t really done his homework. He’s got his talking points correct, but does he really know how to defend those very controversial positions? I don’t think so, and I think that that is also that lack of principle, because if he had the principle, then he would be very serious about being as good as he can possibly be on this stuff so that he can fight about it and win.
What if he was up against Liz Cheney? I think she would eat him for lunch, and not because she’s right about anything but because she’s ready to fight!