SHOCKER! Rand Paul Flip-Flops, Now Supports U.S. Military Intervention In The Middle East
You might recall how Paul accused Hillary Clinton of being a war-hawk, while planting himself in the non-interventionist camp, thus appealing to the pacifistic tendencies of the left.
Here’s Paul on Meet the Press, August 24:
“If you wanna see a transformational election, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton.”
And in The Wall Street Journal, August 28:
To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn’t get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.
Anyone who put their money on a flip-flop regarding Middle East intervention within five days wins the jackpot. Here’s Rand Paul on Tuesday, September 2, after news broke about a second beheading of an American journalist by ISIS terrorists.
Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”
In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”
Apologies for the whiplash. First of all… CONTINUE READING
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
28 responses to SHOCKER! Rand Paul Flip-Flops, Now Supports U.S. Military Intervention In The Middle East
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Reconmarine7 September 3rd, 2014 at 08:08
Flip Flops??? Hey Alan…don’t you remember when Obama was against Executive Order before he was for it?
jasperjava September 3rd, 2014 at 08:45
President Obama has never said that he was against the responsible use of executive orders, so your idea that he did is only a product of your delusional hate-filled imagination.
President Obama had issued fewer executive orders than any President in modern times. So if you don’t like executive orders (although they’re perfectly constitutional) you should be thankful.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 08:49
Do you remember when the GOP was calling the president a dictator and abusing his power, by not getting congressional approval, after they ignored his request for it?
NW10 September 3rd, 2014 at 10:55
That is what is called a deflection. Why not address Rand Paul essentially advocating for what GWB did?
Reconmarine7 September 3rd, 2014 at 08:08
Flip Flops??? Hey Alan…don’t you remember when Obama was against Executive Order before he was for it?
jasperjava September 3rd, 2014 at 08:45
President Obama has never said that he was against the responsible use of executive orders, so your idea that he did is only a product of your delusional hate-filled imagination.
President Obama had issued fewer executive orders than any President in modern times. So if you don’t like executive orders (although they’re perfectly constitutional) you should be thankful.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 08:49
Do you remember when the GOP was calling the president a dictator and abusing his power, by not getting congressional approval, after they ignored his request for it?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 3rd, 2014 at 10:55
That is what is called a deflection. Why not address Rand Paul essentially advocating for what GWB did?
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 09:21
Big Oil’s Rand Paul’s only consistency is flip-flopping on whatever he said. The Greedy Oil Party pines for crISIS whenever U.S. Crude Oil (WTI) prices fall below $100/Brl. http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 10:34
Instability in the world lines the pockets of the Oligarchy. Whenever someone is pushing for something that may bring about instability look to see who profits the most from the instability and that is where you will find the real enemy. Politicians are often pawns of the peoples enemies.
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 10:46
Who really benefits from the building of the Keystone pipe line…..
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/25/john-boehner-lies-america-personal-investment-keystone-xl.html
R.J. Carter September 3rd, 2014 at 11:02
Conversely, look at who loses benefits if the Keystone pipeline is built: Warren Buffet is against the pipeline, so he invests heavily in railroads. Because the oil has to get transported somehow, and he makes money off of one of those options.
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 11:05
And if the pipeline is built through Canada WE will lose what…..?
Point is no one with a financial interest should have sway over laws that benefit their portfolio.
R.J. Carter September 3rd, 2014 at 11:07
Well, if it’s not built from Canada through the US, we will definitely lose jobs.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 11:32
Water for 2 million people vs less than 50 permanent jobs for 88% of oil exported to other countries. No thanks Canada can best refine their own highly acidic, corrosive & toxic bitumin under their Carbon emission cap & trade:)
FYI> Existing Keystone Pipeline Has Poor Safety Record. TransCanada insists that there is little risk of a spill from the Keystone XL pipeline, and that it is prepared to contain leaks quickly and effectively. But TransCanada gave similar assurances about the current Keystone pipeline, which spilled 12 times in its first year of operation — including a major leak of about 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Since 1990, pipelines in the U.S. have spilled more than 110 million gallons of crude and petroleum products. And environmentalists warn that tar sands oil is more corrosive than conventional oil, which would make the Keystone XL pipeline more prone to leaks. via Myths Debunked http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/14/5-myths-about-keystone-xl-debunked/192668
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 16:11
Then lets put people to work in the alternative energy industry. Lots of things to do there.
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 16:09
The tar sands oil should stay in the ground where it belongs. Do not transport it anywhere using any method of transportation.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 09:21
Big Oil’s Rand Paul’s only consistency is flip-flopping on whatever he said. The Greedy Oil Party pines for crISIS whenever U.S. Crude Oil (WTI) prices fall below $100/Brl. http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 10:34
Instability in the world lines the pockets of the Oligarchy. Whenever someone is pushing for something that may bring about instability look to see who profits the most from the instability and that is where you will find the real enemy. Politicians are often pawns of the peoples enemies.
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 10:46
Who really benefits from the building of the Keystone pipe line…..
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/25/john-boehner-lies-america-personal-investment-keystone-xl.html
R.J. Carter September 3rd, 2014 at 11:02
Conversely, look at who loses benefits if the Keystone pipeline is built: Warren Buffet is against the pipeline, so he invests heavily in railroads. Because the oil has to get transported somehow, and he makes money off of one of those options.
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 11:05
And if the pipeline is built through Canada WE will lose what…..?
Point is no one with a financial interest should have sway over laws that benefit their portfolio.
R.J. Carter September 3rd, 2014 at 11:07
Well, if it’s not built from Canada through the US, we will definitely lose jobs.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 11:32
Water for 2 million people vs “The proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations” for 88% of oil exported to other countries, and that closes Midwest refineries raising US gas prices +30-50 cents per gallon. No thanks! Canada can best refine their own highly acidic, corrosive & toxic bitumin under their Carbon emission cap & trade rules:) http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/ And “Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs. Previous Studies Are Misleading; Project May Kill More Jobs Than It Creates. Job losses would be caused by additional fuel costs in the Midwest, pipeline spills, pollution and the rising costs of climate change. Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of Keystone XL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by the project.”
Spills & Kills> Existing Keystone Pipeline Has Poor Safety Record. TransCanada insists that there is little risk of a spill from the Keystone XL pipeline, and that it is prepared to contain leaks quickly and effectively. But TransCanada gave similar assurances about the current Keystone pipeline, which spilled 12 times in its first year of operation — including a major leak of about 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Since 1990, pipelines in the U.S. have spilled more than 110 million gallons of crude and petroleum products. And environmentalists warn that tar sands oil is more corrosive than conventional oil, which would make the Keystone XL pipeline more prone to leaks. via Myths Debunked http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/14/5-myths-about-keystone-xl-debunked/192668
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 16:11
Then lets put people to work in the alternative energy industry. Lots of things to do there.
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 16:09
The tar sands oil should stay in the ground where it belongs. Do not transport it anywhere using any method of transportation.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 10:56
He’s slimey. I especially loved his run from the Dreamers … epically funny. I thought he was going to choke on his food. Run Forest! RUN!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HCpkVlX5OA
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 10:56
He’s slimey. I especially loved his run from the Dreamers … epically funny. I thought he was going to choke on his food. Run Forest! RUN!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HCpkVlX5OA