Rand Paul on cover of TIME: #39;The Most Interesting Man in American Politics #39;
Original Posted By: bxtidre7 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrDll-6mx6qwIjdGAzc3UAA Morning Joe on MSNBC - 10/16/14 TIME Magazine: Rand Paul is the most in...
By: compelled2283
Follow this link:
Rand Paul on cover of TIME: 'The Most Interesting Man in American Politics' - Video
Eric Schmidt, Rand Paul, John Doerr, and Bob Woodward on Technology and Politics
Tech giants, a senator, and a journalist discuss potential advancements in public life at Vanity Fair #39;s New Establishment Summit. Watch Vanity Fair on The Scene: http://thescene.com Subscribe...
By: Vanity Fair
Read the original:
Eric Schmidt, Rand Paul, John Doerr, and Bob Woodward on Technology and Politics - Video
In a speech touting "conservative realism," the Kentucky Republican probed the failures of post-9/11 foreign policy, including too much war.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
"Americans yearn for leadership and for strength," Senator Rand Paul planned to declare in a foreign policy speech Thursday evening, "but they don't yearn for war."
His remarks (quoted as prepared for delivery at New York City gathering of the Center for the National Interest), were seemingly pitched to Republican voters: the Kentucky Republican dubbed his approach "conservative realism," criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and invoked Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower. But the substance of his speech seems likely to appeal to anyone who believes that U.S. foreign policy has gone astray since 9/11, due largely to imprudent interventions urged by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Big parts of his message should appeal to constituencies as diverse as Code Pink and my Orange County-conservative grandparents. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul stated. "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory."
He condemned wars waged without the consent of Congress or the people. adding: "Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis." But he also took care to preempt the charge that he's an "isolationist."
In passages that may alienate some of his father's supporters, Paul expressed his support for the invasion of Afghanistan (if not the decade-plus occupation that followed), declared that "the war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," and reiterated his support for airstrikes to weaken ISIS. He opposes funneling arms to rebels in Syria, arguing that they often end up in enemy hands. But even his support for airstrikes is arguably at odds with the principles he laid out elsewhere. "Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS," the speech said, "I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states." What happened to, "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory"?
The uncharitable interpretation of this tension is that, slowly but surely, Paul is going the way of Obama and succumbing to Beltway interventionism, whether as a response to D.C. culture or a gambit to win a GOP primary. The more charitable interpretation: He isn't ideologically committed to either interventionism or noninterventionism, but is simply less hawkish than Bush, Obama, or Clinton.
Either way, his rhetoric laid out an approach to foreign policy that is less bad than anything on offer from any other plausible party leader in Washington, D.C. It retains some of the idealism that candidate Barack Obama won with in 2012. "To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam," Paul argued, "America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values."
In another passage, Paul tried to make a point sensitive and complicated enough that few American politicians even attempt it: that Americans should be wary of a foreign policy that produces blowback; that it cannot always be avoided; that anger at actions like needlessly killing innocents in drone strikes creates anti-American terrorists; and that there are other, more complicated causes of terrorism too:
We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred," he says, "but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests. As Reagan said: When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. Will they hate us less if we are less present? Perhaps . but hatred for those outside the circle of "accepted" Islam, be it the Shia or Sunni or other religions, such as Christianity, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas.
Go here to see the original:
Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and Clinton
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) -- For the first time since facing an onslaught of criticism this year over his foreign policy views, Sen. Rand Paul will spell out his comprehensive national security platform Thursday in remarks that his office bills as a major foreign policy speech.
The Kentucky Republican, who's aggressively laying groundwork for a potential presidential campaign, is set to deliver his address in New York at the Center for the National Interest, a think-tank founded by former President Richard Nixon.
Rand Paul: Washington's 'barnacled enablers' push for constant war
In a four-pronged framework Paul will attempt to cement himself as a "conservative realist," according to his spokesman, and address critics that characterize his views as isolationist.
"America should and will fight wars when the consequencesintended and unintendedare worth the sacrifice," he will say, according to prepared remarks.
Paul has tried to defend his traditionally non-interventionist positions in interviews and high-profile Senate floor speeches this year, as well as a speech early last year at the Heritage Foundation.
But he aims to approach his speech Thursday from the perspective of a major, would-be U.S. leader, rather than a lawmaker, according to his spokesman.
Rand Paul takes veiled swipe at Ted Cruz
In four points, he'll outline how and when he would advocate for the use of force if the U.S. or U.S. interests are threatened, and he'll underscore his widely-known position that a U.S. president should seek authorization from Congress before taking military action.
See the original post:
Rand Paul to lay out four-pronged platform on foreign policy
NEW YORK (AP) Sen. Rand Paul is taking on critics who brand him an isolationist on foreign policy, advocating an approach for America that "recognizes our limits and preserves our might."
The libertarian-leaning Republican, a possible White House contender in 2016, is setting out the limits he sees for U.S. involvement in military conflicts.
"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory," he says in a speech scheduled for Thursday night at the Center for the National Interest. "America should and will fight wars when the consequences intended and unintended are worth the sacrifice."
"A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can't have perpetual war," according to his prepared remarks, obtained by The Associated Press.
Paul has drawn sharp criticism from within his own party for favoring a smaller American footprint on the international stage. The first-term Kentucky senator has called for the end of all foreign aid and the closure of U.S. military bases abroad.
Similar positions helped sink the presidential ambitions of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. That's a fate the younger Paul is working hard to avoid. Polling suggests that a war-weary American public might respond well to Paul's reframing, even if his positions concern some of the Republican Party's most powerful donors and opinion leaders.
Over the past year, the senator has courted foreign policy leaders across the political spectrum. In Thursday's speech, he was trying to distance himself further from the isolationist label, staking out a stand of "conservative realism."
"The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," Paul said. "We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action."
-----
Original headline: and Paul tries to peel away isolationist label
Read more:
Rand Paul Wants to Shed Isolationist Label