From his entry into the crowded race for Republican nominee for president in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) has struggled to shake the reputation of being slightly less hawkish than the rest of the field, and today attacked the Iran nuclear deal during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting.
In his comments, Sen. Paul toed the party line of Iran as inherently untrustworthy, and took comments of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei out of context, claiming when he said America “didn’t stop” Iran from making nuclear arms, he meant they were going to. Secretary of State John Kerry corrected this point, noting that Khamenei had issued a religious fatwa against ever acquiring nuclear arms long before the talks began, and was making the point that the deal was “stopping” them from doing something they had no intention of doing in the first place.
While Sen. Paul insisted in the comments to Kerry that he supports a nuclear deal in theory, he also declared that “diplomacy doesn’t work without military force,” and insisted he was ready to endorse a US military attack on Iran to “delay” them from getting nuclear arms.
Sen. Paul acknowledged that attacking Iran would likely force them to try to get nuclear arms, and would also lead to the expulsion of UN inspectors from the country, but insisted he was still supportive of the idea of an attack even if it ended up with Iran getting a bomb faster because of it.
26 thoughts on “Sen. Paul Bashes Iran Deal, Says US Must Prepare Military Force”
Rand Paul believes the U.S. won the war in Iraq. Just goes to show how low a presidential candidate
believes he has to go to turn on the campaign cash flow.
he is not his father son, unlike his father he is Bibi's poodle
Rand Paul is an unprincipled opportunist… anti-war libertarians such as Justin Raimondo denounced him in the past … the rest of the movement needs to permanently expel him … he's not one of you
I expect him to change his mind eventually. Sometimes this guy's rational sophistication get in the way of doing the right thing. He'll give semi-decent reasons to argue a completely dumb position. If he's serious about running for president he's got to take on the role of the peace candidate. Otherwise we'll end up with 20 Republicans holding he same views and he'll become irrelevant. The Iran deal is a no-brainer. No reason for anyone not even a desperate candidate to align himself with aicrap/against Obama on this one.
The more Rand Paul talks, the more ridiculous he gets. He's completely off the reservation.
Might be better if he went back to practicing ophthalmology.
The nice thing about this world is that it appears just as simple as is your own mind. Herein originates the Republican worldview, that carries no unnecessary burden, not even that of internal logical consistency.
And I actually (thought) this man was different from the other
hacks in Congress on AIPAC's payroll. I should have known better.
Why is anyone surprised?
"He could have been a contender…" Not anymore. He's taking the Zionist stance.
And their 30 Pieces of Silver.
I voted for Rep. Ron Paul. Not a chance that I'd vote for this guy.. So he wants to be the 'anti-war' candidate who starts a real war in order to prevent a fictional nuclear weapons program. Yep, that makes lots of sense.
What a disappointment Rand Paul has become on foreign policy. Up until several weeks ago, I donated to him. But that's not going to happen anymore. He's good on several domestic issues, but his foreign policy is convoluted and sheer pandering to the neocons and pro-Israel lobby. WHY DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE GROUPS HATE HIM ANYWAY? They are not going to vote for him. He's alienating the largest extra-establishment groups – the antiwar and non-interventionist ones.
I've been on the fence about him since he was the only 2-party fraud candidate to stand up against mass spying without a warrant but he lost me here. Both Republicans and Democrats are determined to take us to war and I will not be a party to it by voting for them, regardless on where they stand otherwise.
Prior to this I thought he made sense. O boy was I fooled.
All these clowns in the clown car have to do this posturing as properties of AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson.
Facts, moral principles and US interests are secondary to the Israel First posturing.
Jennifer Rubin isn't going to go for this sweet talk. Women need action not words. Now if publicly slammed and dissociated himself from his dad and then wrote a declaration of war against Iran. Then that would make her heart flutter and the Sheldon dollars coming! His ambition would be complete. Then him and Wesley Clark can jail us all for telling them how stupid a war with Iran would be.
Do you want to know what a man looks like who tries to sale out but lacks the gravitas to be believed by the crowd they are trying to associate with? All Rand has to do is look in the mirror.
Rand's base hates Iran, so he thinks he has no choice.
I saw Rand Paul on Letterman shortly after he became one of Kentucky's U.S. Senators. Paul could not answer even the most basic questions about his own policy position. It's an gross understatement to say I was unimpressed, both with Paul and the people of Kentucky. Unfortunately, once a Senator always a Senator–we're stuck with Paul for decades.
Mr. Ditz and most of you commenting, I encourage you to actually review and watch the Senate hearing here is a link: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/072315 Mr. Ditz before you write such blogs/articles which clearly make false and damaging statements about someone you should do your diligence or not write. Paul speaks at about 3 hours 57 minutes into the almost 5 hour hearing for less then 7 minutes asking a spot on question of why are we releasing sanctions immediately instead of over time without the rhetoric as you mention to help insure consistent compliance. He never once says as you seem to be quoting him "diplomacy doesn’t work without military force,". Furthermore he did not take the Ayatollah comments out of context and if you watch the entire minutes of the portion where Paul speaks before yielding as you should have done prior to writing an article Kerry confirms the Ayatollah said EXACTLY THIS PUBLICLY and Sen. Paul did not take it out of context but the Ayatollah is saying this for his own "domestic turf" political correctness within his country and Kerry furthermore almost admits not only does the Iranian government and the Ayatollah believe that American did NOTHING to stop them from getting a bomb but it was he through this Fatwa that stopped it. In essence making this deal the stupidest thing ever, if these sanctions are the only stick we have (must be working as it got them to the table) we should not immediately release them but gradually release making sure compliance to the agreement by Iran is met. To all others, Paul is the only antiwar candidate that has a chance of winning, that is if you do your diligence and not listen to persons that spout off rubbish such as Ditz just did.
I took a wait and see approach to Sen. Paul. He is, as all mainstream politicians are, a Warmonger. Even his Dad, Congressman Ron Paul seemed to focus too much on the importance of getting Congressional approval before entering Americas next War of Aggression, rather than coming out of the closet as a full blown antiwar person. In other words unless we are in are under attack we will not under any circumstance become involved in war. Congressional approval does is not the same thing as having a moral stance against war. If you really are antiwar your actions and life choices will reflect it. You will not be deluded by the endless jingoistic, lying propaganda fed to us by the State as well as so-called Religious leaders of nearly all mainstream "churches" who's pulpits and soft pews are filled with pro life warmongers…I know, I used to be one of them. I repented and lost almost all of my pro life Christian friends and even some family members. You must be prepared to lose everything if you really want to Follow Jesus in HIs footsteps. Remember, he was murdered by the State with the cheering of the religious community. I can't find the scripture reference at this moment but Jesus did say, albeit somewhat paraphrased "they will turn you over to the authorities to be killed and THINK THEY DO SERVICE TO GOD" . "They", are your friends, family, and brethren.
Iran being inherently untrustworthy is NOT just the republicans party line. It is a general consent. Why else would the entire world community insist on nuclear site inspections. If the difference between people like McCain, Graham, Walker, Rubio, Menendez, Clinton, compared to Dr. Paul’s position is unclear to you, you must be either ignorant, or your motives to throw him into this neocon trash can have a more sinister purpose. I absolutely agree with his father’s position that sanctions are an act of war. But guess what. We live in a pretty screwed up world, and trying to take a pure libertarian position on some of these issues, should be considered unrealistically naive, and would not benefit the cause of Liberty. At least not at this point. Is Rand Paul the perfect candidate ? Does the perfect candidate even exist ? We still have to make a choice. I choose Liberty/Freedom/Peace and Prosperity for the long run, and pay VERY close attention to the big picture.
I choose RAND PAUL
"Iran being inherently untrustworthy is NOT just the republicans party line. It is a general consent. Why else would the entire world community insist on nuclear site inspections."
The P5+1 is not "the entire world community." And of the P5+1, at least four of them — Russia, China, France and Germany — would have demanded a lot less from this deal if the US and its UK poodles hadn't insisted on more … and would have made their own separate deals if the US and UK had kicked out of a deal altogether.
Of course, ALL states are "inherently untrustworthy," but on the evidence, Iran far less so than the US.
If you pay VERY close attention to the big picture, then you know that Rand Paul is a political whore who will say or do whatever he thinks he needs to say or do to make voters like him this week, and next week he'll do a 180 if he thinks they have. His picture should be in the dictionary next to "inherently untrustworthy."
Oh, and by the way. TrueAmerican’s comment above is 100% on the money. People commenting based solely on blogs and articles without informing themselves by actually watching/listening to the senate hearings, are just as useless as Congress voting on bills they haven’t even read. Not credible !
Knapp, If I have to pick what you call a “political whore”, I will go with the cleanest, most innocent whore.
You go right ahead and pick one of your dirty seconds. Hope your condom breaks, you moron.
No one but Rand Paul in 2016 !
If I vote in 2016, it will likely be for a candidate from the Libertarian Party (although if the LP fails to nominate a libertarian, I may vote Peace and Freedom or whatever). If I'm going to vote for a candidate who has absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning, why waste my vote on Rand Paul, when there are other losers out there who actually have principles?
The next time I vote for a Republican for president will be the first time. And it's never going to happen.
The next time I vote for a Democrat for president will be the second time (as a callow youth, I cast my first presidential vote for Dukakis in 1988). And that's never going to happen again.
Comments are closed.