Monday, September 15, 2014

As the World Changes Views and Positions Follow...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Sen. Rand Paul on Monday pushed back against heightened criticism that he has flip-flopped on foreign policy issues, saying he has stood firmly against the Obama administration’s policies in Syria.

Appearing on CBS “This Morning,” the Kentucky Republican conceded that he has shifted his views in some areas, including on what is an appropriate U.S. response to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “As world events change, obviously you change your analysis. Five years ago, ISIS wasn’t a threat,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group that has mobilized across much of northern and central Iraq.

Paul acknowledged that his thought process on ISIL has been “influenced” by ISIL’s recent beheadings of U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines.

He had previously been publicly skeptical about potential airstrikes against ISIL, but just a few months after criticized the president for not acting more forcefully against the group.

The senator on Monday mainly stuck to his critiques of President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s policies in Syria, saying their plans to potentially arm the Syrian rebels and bomb Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime last summer would have emboldened ISIL.

“Had we bombed Syria — had the president actually got what he wanted and what Hillary Clinton wanted, to bomb the heck out of Assad — my guess is ISIS would now be in Damascus,” he said.

The above excerpt, taken from POLITICO, is illustrative of what a rational politician/leader will do as world events and conditions change. They change their position(s) to meet the realities of the present while remaining true to their core principals. Something Senator Paul has done.

Senator Paul's acknowledgement that President Obama's stated strategy with regard to ISIL/ISIS, and the administration's efforts to create a broad coalition to combat the regional and potentially global threat ISIL/ISI presents, shows political maturity and certainly makes him a more viable candidate for president in 2016.
Paul, a potential 2016 presidential contender, also accused the president of being the real flip-flopper, saying he had changed his views on war authorization. “I have always said that the president is required by the Constitution to come to Congress. … The president used to agree with me.

It’s actually the president who’s changed his position,” he said. Paul was referring to the president’s contention in his address to the nation last week that he does not need congressional approval for airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama said George W. Bush would have to come to Congress to receive authorization for military action against Iran.

Fair enough,  the President should go to Congress for authorization when he wishes to declare act of war. But then there is something called the War Powers Act , which says in part: the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Yet once again the parties continue to play political football and jockey for position rather than uniting behind a common cause while following the letter of the law as it presently exits. For the complete article continue reading BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. While I admit that Paul is probably one of the lesser offensive of the potential Republican candidates, this particular move I see as pure political opportunism (similar to Obama's flip-flop on ISIS being driven by the poles). The dude wants to be President and the surest way not to get the Republican nomination is be a dove/quasi isolationist.

  2. You may very well be right Wil. As I posted this they very same thoughts crossed my mind.

    I was recalling (in my mind) the heat from republicans over the statement that President Obama's posistions "evolve." Senator Paul is in effect, by his statement in fact "evolving", just like the President. Right?

    My point is simply that evolving views and changing positions based on the realities of changing circumstances is NOT a bad thing per se. Whether you're a democratic president or a republican senator. When it sensible and not just a political ploy.

  3. "When it sensible and not just a political ploy."

    The trick is to figure out which one it is.

    1. I hate to say it, Jerry, but if a politician does it it's more than likely the latter.

    2. Jerry, I've seen a lot of opportunism from Rand P. So your question is a very good one. Even though Rand is the leading political figure on the stage today questioning disastrous policies and trends...

      Even if too much of the time he is a disappointingly partisan Republican.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.