ISIS Has Put Rand Paul In A Very Difficult Position

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-has-put-rand-paul-in-a-very-difficult-position-2014-9



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has emerged as a leading potential 2016 presidential candidate after years building a brand as a conservative with a libertarian bent who often breaks from his fellow Republicans to criticize foreign military action. However, the rise of the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has left Paul scrambling to simultaneously express support for military action against the group while also trying to maintain his libertarian credentials and criticize President Barack Obama, who has launched strikes on ISIS.

Juggling these three messages has led to Paul making a series of seemingly contradictory statements have drawn attacks from his critics on both sides of the aisle.

Rep. Pete King (R-New York), who has called for aggressive action to confront ISIS, told Business Insider on Monday he believes Paul is changing his position. King cited a pair of potential reasons for these shifts.

"To me, the two most possible conclusions are, one, he's a total political chameleon or, secondly, he had no idea where he was in the first place," King said of Paul.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-has-put-rand-paul-in-a-very-difficult-position-2014-9#ixzz3DTd6ku4n

[MohRokTah]

1. The voting lines are expected to be long in 2016.

So long, in fact, that by the time you get to vote, Rand Paul may have agreed with himself again.

[mercuryblues]

2. LOL.

I think we have another McGrampy on our hands. Changing positions as often as Vitter gets a diaper change.

[wandy]

3. Libertarian = For sail to the highest bidder..............

And the M.I.C. is putting out bids and looking to buy!

[CJCRANE]

4. I'm not sure I'd rely on Pete King either

to back up my position.

[pampango]

5. From a few days ago: 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/

[CJCRANE]

6. Except he doesn't support arming the Syrian rebels.

He actually makes a lot more sense on this than most politicians, although that's obviously not the accepted wisdom here on DU.

[pampango]

7. Sounds to me like he's talking about another US land war in the Middle East.

“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.” That’s an overly simplified version of what the U.S. is looking at when it comes to confronting the terrorist group. Any U.S. effort to “destroy ISIS militarily” will require a huge commitment of men and materiel ...

I'm not at all sure that "makes a lot more sense" than what most (non-republican) politicians are recommending.

[CJCRANE]

8. He said previously he wouldn't have armed the Syrian rebels in the first place

but accepts that the situation is now out of hand so we have to deal with it.

Asking for Congressional approval sounds reasonable to me.

[pampango]

9. While arming the rebels may not be wise, another US land war in the Middle East,

even one with congressional authorization, does not sound like a better alternative to me.