The lonely Republican dove
by digby
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a “war hawk” and added that if she decides to run for president in 2016 voters will question whether she wants to bring the U.S. into another war in the Middle East.
Paul, himself a potential 2016 candidate, made the comments during an appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press.
“I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war,” Paul said, according to The Associated Press. “We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.”
A legitimate concern, I’d say. I know I’m concerned about it.
But why exactly is Rand Paul running in the Party who’s membership is currently peeing its pants and running around hysterically exhorting the current president to start bombing/invading/killing something immediately because the boogeyman is coming to kill-all-our-babies-oh-my-God!!!!
House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Sunday that he believes the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has put the U.S. in more danger than it was in the lead up to the Sept. 11 attacks more than a decade ago.
“Before 9/11, there were single-level threat streams coming to the United States. So, pretty serious. Obviously they got in and conducted the attacks on 9/11. Now you have multiple organizations, all al Qaeda-minded, trying to accomplish the same thing,” Rogers said in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Now you have two competing terrorist organizations, both of them want to get their credentials to the point where they can say, ‘We are the premier terrorist organization.’ Both want to conduct attacks in the West for that reason. And guess what? That means we lose at the end. If either one of those organizations is successful, we lose.”
“The threat matrix is so wide and it’s so deep. We just didn’t have that before 9/11,” Rogers said.
The ever-distraught Huckleberry Graham:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday called for President Obama to target leaders of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria after the beheading of an American journalist last week.
“It’s about time to assume the worst about these guys,” Graham during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “They’re not the JV team anymore, they’re the most prominent terrorist organization in the world.”
ISIS leaders released a video last week of a man who appeared to have a British accent beheading journalist James Foley.
Graham said it would be easy for ISIS to target locations in the U.S. if they are not confronted directly by the Obama administration because members hold western passports.
“I would argue that the intel that we’ve been provided in Congress is that there are hundreds of Americans citizens holding U.S. passports, there are European citizens going to the fight,” he said. “They’ve expressed a will to hit the homeland. That’s part of their agenda to drive us out of the Mideast.
“There’s no way you can solve the problem in Iraq without hitting them in Syria,” the South Carolina Republican said.
“The goal is to hit ISIL in Syria to deal with their command and control,” he added.“I think the purpose of going into Syria is deal with the threat to the homeland,” Graham said.
Bill Kristol on This Week:
“I would like a little overreaction now!”
Meanwhile, the Democrats (so far) are the ones who are keeping their cool. Senator Jack Reed:
“We have to begin with the assumption that they could be such a threat, then we have to evaluate what their capabilities are, what their intentions,” he said. “I don’t think we can simply dismiss , but to jump from what they’ve done with this horrific incident with Mr. Foley to the idea that they would be an immediate threat to the homeland, I don’t think you jump to that.”
I don’t think most Arkansans believe that we should be the world’s policeman,” Pryor said this week, according to the Baxter Bulletin.
“We need to work with our allies. We need to try to help and provide a stable situation, and certainly look out for the humanitarian concerns, but at the end of the day, a lot of these countries, they just have to take responsibility for their own countries,” he said.
Yes, Democrats are warmongers too and perhaps Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Rand Paul says she is. But unless Rand Paul is willing to govern with a Democratic majority and face impeachment from his own, he’s not going to have any room to be a dove. Even Obama is getting hit hard and he’s hardly an isolationist. How in the world could Paul hope to fight that martial impulse as a GOP president? It makes no sense. If there is one thing you can count on in the modern Republican Party it’s the bloodlust for war.
Again, the question is, if Paul wants to run on the peace platform, why in the world is he a Republican? They have about four people in the whole party who don’t believe we should be bombing the hell out of the entire middle east right now. At least on the Democratic side leaders are taking a short breath before they run around in circles, rending their garments and wailing about the threat to “the Homeland.” I’m sure it won’t be long before they join in the hysteria, but it does show at least a couple of degrees of difference between the two parties.
On the other hand, Democrats believe in Social Security and Health Care. And fighting the war against those programs is a war Rand Paul is more than willing to lead. Priorities.
.