Rand Paul's Remarkable Metamorphosis (Now he wants to go to war vs. ISIS)

[stevenleser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/09/03/rand-pauls-remarkable-metamorphosis/

By Jennifer Rubin September 3

After declaring certain Christian defenders of Israel to be “warmongers,” arguing we could not defeat the Islamic State without being an air force for Iran, opining we didn’t have a national security interest in Syria or Iraq, accusing interventionists of abetting the Islamic State’s rise and decrying Hillary Clinton as too hawkish, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has decided that if you can’t beat the “neocons” he might as well join them. He told the Associated Press: “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.” Well, welcome aboard, Sen. Paul. And thank goodness he has dropped his prior indefensible positions.

There are a few questions about Paul’s remarkable metamorphosis, which follows increasingly vocal criticism from potential opponents such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry (does he owe Perry an apology since he has now adopted some of the same views?) and conservative policy wonks. I asked his longtime adviser Doug Stafford a few of the questions that come to mind:

Has Paul changed his view of the Middle East since his Wall Street Journal pieces?

(More at above link)
-----------------------------------------------
There's your anti-war GOP candidate for you. As I have said repeatedly, any position he has that is supposedly 'progressive' is likely to be thrown under the bus at the first sign of pushback by his own party.

[pampango]

1. Here's another article from a few days ago regarding Paul's malleability on war.

Rand Paul’s flip-flop nightmare: “Non-interventionist” now backs war in the Middle East

Well, for all the talk of Rand Paul’s adherence to principle, we’re learning that he’s actually highly malleable when it comes to his policy positions. And as for his willingness to buck the Republican establishment, we’re seeing that whenever he does bend on policy, it’s usually in the direction of the Republican consensus. He did it on immigration, portraying himself as both a hardline border security proponent and an advocate for comprehensive reform, depending on which viewpoint dominated Republican thinking at the time. And now that Republicans are pressuring President Obama to take unspecified military action against ISIS, he’s abandoning his much-derided (in Republican circles) anti-interventionist foreign policy rhetoric in favor of the bellicose posturing of the rest of the hawkish GOP.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rand_pauls_flip_flop_nightmare_non_interventionist_now_backs_war_in_the_middle_east/

[stevenleser]

3. I talked about this on my radio show this week.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2014/09/08/what-to-do-about-isis-and-update-on-ukraine-and-immigration-reform-and-more

I think this is going to do permanent and irreparable damage to Rand Paul. There is nothing to differentiate him from any other GOP contender if he is going to take positions like this and he certainly has nothing on Hillary.

[grahamhgreen]

2. Exactly what I expected from this opportunist. How's he gonna pay for the war?

Oh right... He ALREADY admits he wants to gut social programs.

[William769]

4. And he has cheerleaders!

[stevenleser]

6. Haven't heard much from them on this topic though. Wonder why that is???

[MineralMan]

5. To the Devil with the Pauls,

pere et fils.

[stevenleser]

7. Agreed

Father AND son