|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Politico
Will the Real
Rand Paul Please Stand Up?
The Kentucky senator is trying to tell us he’s not an isolationist.
That dog won’t hunt.
By Rick Santorum
September 05, 2014
Rand Paul insists he’s not an “isolationist.” Writing this week in
TIME, he says, “I look at the world, and consider war, realistically
and constitutionally.”
But in reality, the Kentucky senator has advanced a brand of
neo-isolationism and appeasement that is as short-sighted as it
mistaken. Despite his recent, and frantic efforts to recast himself as
not completely ridiculous on national security issues, the truth is his
record often puts him in league with Barack Obama—or even to the
president’s left. Anyone who truly cares about American liberty at home
must not ignore real enemies and rising threats abroad. Rather, we must
confront such challenges wisely and decisively to protect American
lives, our economy and our allies.
He may be changing his tune now, but he can’t hide from his record.
Senator Paul has long been wrong and far out of the mainstream on three
key matters – Iran, the Islamic State and Israel. Let’s look at each in
turn.
Iran: Senator Paul now says “all options are on the table” when it
comes to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But few
believe he is serious.
In a radio interview in 2007, while helping his father, isolationist
Rep. Ron Paul, run for president, Rand actually denied that Iran is a
threat to the United States or Israel. He did so despite the fact that
the U.S. government designated Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” as
far back as 1984. “Even our own intelligence community consensus
opinion now is that they [Iran] are not a threat,” Rand said. “Like my
dad says, [the Iranians] don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have a
Navy. You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our
national security…. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a national
threat to Israel.”
In September 2012, the U.S. Senate voted 90 to 1 in support of Joint
Resolution 41 to advance a firm American policy “to prevent the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability,” a policy that “urges continued and increasing
economic and diplomatic pressure on …I ran,” and one that “warns that
time is limited to prevent … Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability.” The authors specifically noted: “nothing in this
resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force
or a declaration of war.” The focus was exclusively on urging the Obama
administration to increase diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.
The resolution was even non-binding.
Nevertheless, this was all too much for Senator Paul, who chose to be
the only member of the U.S. Senate to vote against it.
In February 2013, Sen. Paul delivered a disturbing speech at the
Heritage Foundation in which he urged leaders in Washington to
seriously consider a policy of “containing” a nuclear-armed Iran,
rather than focusing like a laser on preventing the Islamic Republic
from building or acquiring nuclear warheads.
“Containment,” Paul said, “should be discussed as an option.” This,
however, put him to the left of President Obama, who has said, “Iran’s
leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I
have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
In January 2014, Senator Paul sided with President Obama in opposing
the passage of new economic sanctions on Iran, further evidence he
would rather appease the mullahs in Tehran than ratchet up pressure on
them to give up their illegal and dangerous nuclear program. “I think
while they [the Iranians] are negotiating – and if we can see they’re
negotiating in good faith – I don’t think it’s a good idea to pass
sanctions,” Paul told CNN.
The Islamic State: Earlier this summer, Paul questioned in the Wall
Street Journal whether there was any good reason for the U.S. military
to stop or even slow down the Islamic State’s jihadist offensive in
Iraq. He did so despite the fact that ISIL, as it is commonly known,
has been slaughtering Muslims and Christians across the region
Read the rest of the article at Politico
|
|
|
|
