Mediaboss Marketing

Washington Has Rand Paul morphed into a hawk?

Thats the question now that the junior GOP senator from Kentucky, long known for anti-interventionist views, has blasted the Obama administration for inaction in the wake of atrocities carried out by the brutal Islamic State.

Over the weekend, Senator Paul said in a speech that if he was president hed have asked for congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily. (The IS is sometimes referred to as ISIS or ISIL.) He repeated this assertion on Thursday in an op-ed on the subject for Time Magazine.

If I had been in President Obamas shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS, writes Paul.

If nothing else, this proves Paul is pretty much certain to run for president in 2016. His relatively dovish foreign-policy views have long been seen as perhaps his biggest handicap in Republican primaries. Some pundits have gone so far as to leave him off their lists of serious contenders because they judge his anti-interventionist philosophy to be too far out of the mainstream of his partys thinking.

Now Paul seems to be using the IS crisis as a means to rebrand himself as not entirely his father Ron Pauls son. When he ran for the White House Rep. Ron Paul railed against what he saw as the waste of US resources on foreign adventurism.

Rand is distancing himself from dads isolationistic words.

Ive said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist, writes Paul in Time.

So what is he? According to his recent statements, hes a Ronald Reagan-like peace-through-strength conservative, who sees war as a last resort but knows sometimes the US has to fight if vital interests are threatened.

Paul isnt a neo-conservative of the type who directed much of the nations foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration, according to a key adviser.

Original post:
Have Islamic State atrocities turned Rand Paul into a hawk?

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, responded to critics questioning his foreign policy stances saying, I am not an isolationist, and laying out his own strategy to deal with Islamic State militants on Thursday.

If I had been in President Obamas shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session even during recess, Mr. Paul wrote in an op-ed for Time magazine.

Mr. Paul, a rumored contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has been the subject of harsh media scrutiny in recent weeks, being accused of flip-flopping on foreign policy in the middle east.

In June, Mr. Paul said theres no good case for U.S. Military intervention, in Iraq in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. But later said he had mixed feelings about airstrikes against the Islamic State and blasted Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for her war hawk policies in Syria.

Now, Mr. Paul wants to set the record straight. He clarified his foreign policy agenda for confused pundits saying, Ive said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

Mr. Paul wrote on Thursday that he still sees war as a last resort, but added that no country should mistake U.S. Reluctance for war as a lack of resolve saying, Peace through Strength only works if you have and show strength.

He joined a chorus of other GOP leaders who have lambasted President Obama for saying he did not have a strategy to combat the Islamic State during a press conference last week.

This administrations dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking, Mr. Paul said.

The Obama administration must first define the national interest and lay out a strategy to defend it, Mr. Paul said.

He wrote that the U.S. Should continue targeted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, arm and aid allied Kurdish fighters, reinforce Israels Iron dome, and keep terrorists out of the country by securing the vulnerable southern border and revoking passports from any American or dual citizens fighting with jihadists groups.

Link:
Rand Paul: 'I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS'

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS.

By: Keyur

Link:
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS - Video

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies."

Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Read more from the original source:
The Fix: Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies."

Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed