Ted Cruz, Iran hawk: This Geneva deal on the Iranian nuclear program is a disaster

posted at 7:01 pm on November 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

I wanted to write something contrasting his views on the deal with Rand Paul’s to explore how “tea party” foreign policy, such as it is, differs from libertarian foreign policy. But unless I missed it, Paul hasn’t uttered a word about Geneva since the terms were announced Saturday night. Nothing on his Twitter feed as of this writing, nothing from his Senate press shop. He’s been conspicuously silent while Cruz, just as conspicuously, has rushed to get out in front on it. Which, come to think of it, is a meaningful contrast.

Here’s Cruz in Foreign Policy sounding about as hawkish as Rubio, likening the Iran deal to the deal Clinton reached with North Korea in the early 90s that ultimately led to a NorK bomb:

We should have demanded preconditions from the Iranians before any direct meetings took place, and we can at least do so now before additional negotiations begin. We can start by reclaiming the moral high ground and demand the Iranian regime immediately and unconditionally release the three Americans they are unjustly detaining, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Robert Levinson. American citizens are not bargaining chips, and there should be no further discussion while they are languishing in prison.

In addition, Iran should affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The noxious rhetoric in which Israel is referred to as a “rabid dog” that is “doomed to failure and annihilation” should be utterly unacceptable to the United States. Tolerating such verbiage on the eve of the Geneva negotiations sent a dangerous signal to Iran that the Obama administration was more eager to get a deal than to stand with Israel.

Finally, the United States should be crystal clear that to gain any further sanctions relief, Iran must take concrete steps not just to pause the nuclear program but to dramatically scale it back by, for example, ceasing the enrichment of uranium, exporting any remaining stockpiles of enriched uranium, and permitting full and unconditional inspections of the Arak nuclear facility. The burden should be on Iran, not the United States, to demonstrate it is a good-faith negotiating partner.

Below you’ll find video of him (recorded before the deal was reached, I think) arguing that Congress should impose more sanctions on Iran to make them cooperate, not relax the ones already in place, and celebrating a prospective Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke facilities as something that would improve U.S. national security. That’s as hawkish as it gets short of calling for the U.S. itself to start bombing — which is not to say that Cruz wouldn’t support that too. Remember, back in June as the debate over Assad’s chemical weapons began to warm up, he called on Obama to send the military into Syria (“The United States should be firmly in the lead”) to secure or destroy Assad’s WMD and then to get out. All of that’s consistent with tea-party foreign-policy principles — strongly pro-Israel and contemptuous of O’s perceived weakness in dithering on red lines and reaching out to Islamist regimes like Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libertarian foreign-policy principles are different, of course — supportive of diplomacy with hostile regimes as an alternative to war and basically indifferent (at best) towards Israel. They think O’s big problem on foreign policy and counterterrorism is that he’s too aggressive, not that he’s not aggressive enough. Cruz, by scrambling to bash the Geneva deal, is not only burnishing his tea-party brand before the 2016 primaries, he’s aiming to look prescient if/when the deal falls apart and Obama’s left looking like a stooge. Which, in fairness, seems a safe bet:

[An] Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement.

A little more from Twitter this afternoon:

The reason Paul’s been quiet since Saturday, I assume, is because all of this puts him in a tough spot and he needs to get his response just right. He probably wants to back the deal as an example of the “jaw jaw, not war war” approach the U.S. should try more often, and under normal circumstances I think he would. But these aren’t normal circumstances: This bears directly on Israel’s national security, and if Paul is perceived as weak on that — however consistent it may be with his overall approach to foreign policy — he’s in trouble in 2016, especially with evangelical-heavy electorates like Iowa’s. If you believe the NYT, Cruz has already started whispering to Republican donors that Paul’s unelectable because of his father’s views. If Paul sides with Obama on the Iran deal and then it goes south, Cruz will point to it as “proof” that Paul’s as blinkered and naive as his old man and can’t be trusted to make the hard choices needed to protect the U.S. or to help Israel protect itself. Paul needs to find a way to show conservatives that he won’t abandon Israel as president while somehow reassuring libertarians that he won’t turn into a “neocon” if he wins.

One thing he could do is sign on to the idea that Congress should pass tougher sanctions that’ll take effect if the new six-month negotiation period ends without a final deal. Let the two sides keep talking; if it doesn’t work out, there’ll be time for action then. Kick the can for now. (He could even argue that the deal is better for hawks than it is for doves.) The problem with that is that if the deal does fall through, Israel might seize the opening to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before a new deal is put in place. Cruz is already on record as supporting that. Would Paul? I think he might, reluctantly: Remember, one of the ways he likes to sell U.S. disengagement to righties is by arguing that it could give Israel more leeway to act militarily, not less. When he visited the country, in fact, he told his audience, “I don’t think you need to call me on the phone and get permission to stop missiles raining down from Gaza.” The IAF bombing Iran over U.S. objections would be the ultimate test of his sincerity. But there’s a problem there too: If he supported or even stayed agnostic about an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke facilities, I think it’d spook his libertarian base. He’d have met the threshold litmus test of opposing U.S. involvement in foreign wars, but merely condoning foreign wars waged by key U.S. allies — especially when that ally is Israel — would be too close to “warmongering” for comfort. Anyway, he’ll speak up about all of this soon. Stay tuned.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The reason Paul’s been quiet since Saturday, I assume, is because all of this puts him in a tough spot and he needs to get his response just right.

He was questioned by the panel on Special Report a few days ago in the “Center Seat” segment. Rand did everything he could to squirm and squiggle away from questions regarding military action as a last resort when it comes to Iran getting the bomb.

Stoic Patriot on November 26, 2013 at 7:10 PM

If you believe the NYT, Cruz has already started whispering to Republican donors that Paul’s unelectable because of his father’s views.

I don’t need Cruz to point out such an obvious fact. Don’t get me wrong, I like Rand Paul but I don’t want him attempting a run for the Presidency. He’s as much of an isolationist as his daddy and I think that is a fundamentally flawed approach that was discredited in the years leading up to WWII.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Look, Ron Paulism is rite with antisemitic stuff. These people, many of them, wish Auschwitz was still open.

Rand Paul has that lurking in his background, so any support of Israel isn’t going to fly with that crowd. On the other hand, the sane crowd that supports Israel for multiple reasons is much larger. Cruz is smart to go for that one.

Vanceone on November 26, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Where and when was that video shot? Obviously it was a Jewish centric event but I don’t recall hearing about him addressing such an event.

dforston on November 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM

One man with courage, and integrity, in the U.S. Senate…..
Pinch Me!

Another Drew on November 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM

White hispanic getting uppity again.

Bishop on November 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM

He probably wants to back the deal as an example of the “jaw jaw, not war war” approach the U.S. should try more often

Yup, but that’s impossible when the President you have does nothing but “Lie, lie”.

Dusty on November 26, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I gather from those ‘tweets’ up above, that Hassan Rouhani is VERY happy over this deal. So, what’s the problem?

.
.
.
.
.
Oh … I forgot the “/sarcasm” thingy. Not everyone here knows me, yet.

listens2glenn on November 26, 2013 at 7:25 PM

I gather from those ‘tweets’ up above, that Hassan Rouhani is VERY happy over this deal. So, what’s the problem?

.
.
.
.
.
Oh … I forgot the “/sarcasm” thingy. Not everyone here knows me, yet.

listens2glenn on November 26, 2013 at 7:25 PM

The lib scumbags score another victory for our enemies. great.

VegasRick on November 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM

If he supported or even stayed agnostic about an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke facilities, I think it’d spook his libertarian base.

This is a failed understanding of libertarianism. Other countries are free whatever they need to do to protect themselves. Just don’t guilt trip us into cosigning it.

rndmusrnm on November 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM

MeanWhile,..this just popped up:
================================

Iran nuclear program deal
1m
New Reuters/Ipos poll: Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin – @Reuters
read more on trust.org
======================

REUTERS/IPSOS POLL-Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin
Source: Reuters – Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:09 AM
Author: Reuters
****************

WASHINGTON, Nov 26 (Reuters) – Americans back last weekend’s nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

The findings were rare good news in the polls for President Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have dropped in recent weeks because of the botched rollout of his signature healthcare reform law.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva, and 22 percent oppose it.
(More…)
=========

http://www.trust.org/item/20131126235538-r4aja

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Also I love how all these Ted Cruz stories turn into Rand Paul stories. Who’s the front runner again? Keep fighting that rising tide Allah.

rndmusrnm on November 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Mission Accomplished (this time with an image.)

BKeyser on November 26, 2013 at 7:31 PM

One man with courage, and integrity, in the U.S. Senate…..
Pinch Me!

Another Drew on November 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM

…in previous years…we could call him a man with….BA11S !

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Hopey Chamberlian:……..”LeaderShip”

Iran
1d
====
Obama discusses Iran deal in San Francisco,

says this is what he vowed as a candidate;

‘I said it was time for a new era of leadership in the world’ –

@JimAcostaCNN
read more on twitter.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Lurch has a message:
====================

7h
=====

Video: Secretary of State Kerry releases message on the Iran nuclear deal reached in Geneva – via @StateDept
see original on youtube.com
===========================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7-TudQ9xA&feature=youtu.be

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:42 PM

…in previous years…we could call him a man with….BA11S !

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyOw9yXt_CM

VegasRick on November 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM

It Reeks!!

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM

REUTERS/IPSOS POLL-Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:29 PM

These polls are meaningless. I don’t mean this to sound arrogant but most Americans don’t have the background nor do they follow the issues well enough to have a valid opinion about any sort of deal with Iran.

I was living in the upper Midwest during the opening years of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was astounded how many very nice, well-educated, people would spout nonsense about foreign policy. Then it dawned on me that it simply has never been an issue in their lives. So, of course, talking is better than not talking. The problem here is that Iran gets billions and gives up nothing. How many Americans would understand that with the superficial way this story has been reported?

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyOw9yXt_CM

VegasRick on November 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM

…LOL !….you’re quick Rick !

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Also I love how all these Ted Cruz stories turn into Rand Paul stories. Who’s the front runner again? Keep fighting that rising tide Allah.

rndmusrnm on November 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Oh! I think Allah is pitting Cruz against Paul to help his real favorite. A certain NJ governor who stays in on Thanksgiving to avoid false reports about breakaway balloons from the Macy’s parade.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:29 PM

These polls are meaningless. I don’t mean this to sound arrogant but most Americans don’t have the background nor do they follow the issues well enough to have a valid opinion about any sort of deal with Iran.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Happy Nomad: Probably polled the LIV’s!:)

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I never thought I’d see a day where I believed Marziyeh Afkham and not a President of the United States. I need a friggin drink……

Renee on November 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM

If he supported or even stayed agnostic about an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke facilities, I think it’d spook his libertarian base. He’d have met the threshold litmus test of opposing U.S. involvement in foreign wars, but merely condoning foreign wars waged by key U.S. allies — especially when that ally is Israel — would be too close to “warmongering” for comfort. Anyway, he’ll speak up about all of this soon. Stay tuned.

Allah, you are more than a little confused. We libertarians are not pacifists. We just don’t think the USA needs to be the World Police. We cant afford to be the military arm for the rest of the world.

paulsur on November 26, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Reality Check:

Israel already has nuclear weapons. They will protect themselves without regard to any political “perturbations” with Obama. Israels decision to nuke Iran will not be subject Harry Reid bringing it (or not) to the floor of the Senate, and Obama can’t veto it.

In the wise words of Q from ST TNG:

The hall is rented, the orchestra engaged. It’s now time to see if you can dance

Israel is going to attack, and possibly use nuclear weapons against, Iran. And Saudi Arabia will give them cover to do it. And Obama will make a speech about the lawlessness of Israel.

Obama can’t dance.

BobMbx on November 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM

If you believe the NYT, Cruz has already started whispering to Republican donors that Paul’s unelectable because of his father’s views.

Something every Texan knows.

Rand Paul doesn’t have a chance as long as his daddy’s around…Cause his Daddy loves the spotlight.

workingclass artist on November 26, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Paul is quiet because he and his anti-Semite daddy hate Israel and are apologists for the islamo-fascists!You can be against intervening everywhere there are no national interests involved but it is clearly not in the interests of this nation to allow Iran to develop nukes!

redware on November 26, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Also I love how all these Ted Cruz stories turn into Rand Paul stories. Who’s the front runner again? Keep fighting that rising tide Allah.

rndmusrnm on November 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

.
Is RINO-ism a cause of ADD?

Is ADD the cause of RINO-ism?

Seriously, if a 10th grader turned this in as an essay answer on a test, they’d be lucky to get a C-

“You started coherently but then lost focus and went off theme.”

PolAgnostic on November 26, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Israel is going to attack, and possibly use nuclear weapons against, Iran. And Saudi Arabia will give them cover to do it. And Obama will make a speech about the lawlessness of Israel.

Obama can’t dance.

BobMbx on November 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM

BS Bibi does not even have enough support in his own cabinet for something that foolish.

lexhamfox on November 26, 2013 at 8:25 PM

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Add to that mix a total lack of knowledge as to the salient (key) details of the agreement.

The average LI/disengaged Voter only hears… ‘we have an agreement’ on the 18:30 news, and little less.

Inside their little personal, self-absorbed bubbles, the matter has been settled

…until reality pops that bubble.

This ‘agreement’ guarantees the worst possible outcome.

CPT. Charles on November 26, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Israel is going to attack, and possibly use nuclear weapons against, Iran. And Saudi Arabia will give them cover to do it. And Obama will make a speech about the lawlessness of Israel.

Obama can’t dance.

BobMbx on November 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM

.
I agree with your statements. I think attacking without American participation will require Israel to use nuclear weapons.

I worry the Saudis will use their missile site targeted at Iran to deliver a nuclear coup de grace to Tehran after the Israeli sorties are completed.

I think DURING the attack the Saudi Ambassador will deliver a simple message to Obama:

“You will say nothing negative regarding this action YOU forced us to take. Any criticism will result in announcement that in 30 days Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states will only accept payment for oil in euros.”

Killing the petro-dollar would cause an irrevocable economic depression for America.

PolAgnostic on November 26, 2013 at 8:33 PM

BS Bibi does not even have enough support in his own cabinet for something that foolish.

lexhamfox on November 26, 2013 at 8:25 PM


Ahhhh, the irony
… the same assessment was made by American analysts just prior to the Six Day war.

PolAgnostic on November 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Happy Nomad: Probably polled the LIV’s!:)

canopfor on November 26, 2013 at 7:54 PM

.
We know for certain they didn’t poll the Israelis or the leaders of the Gulf States.

PolAgnostic on November 26, 2013 at 8:37 PM

It would be nice if Tea Partiers would reconcile their insistence on maintaining the $1T national security state, its desire for more Middle Eastern wars, and their concerns for the budget. Something has to give.

antifederalist on November 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

We had this problem with Yasser Arafat, who told American negotiators one thing in English and told his followers the opposite in Arabic.

Does anyone really know what Rouhani is telling his countrymen in Farsi?

Steve Z on November 26, 2013 at 8:46 PM

What I back is the U.S. assisting Israel in whatever they wish to do. If they wish to attack Iran then the U.S. should help them. I also would not mind the U.S. taking part in the air campaign. However I will be opposed to the U.S. getting into any protracted conflict with Iran at this time, and I am opposed to the U.S. using ground forces in Iran, or anywhere else in the Islamic world at this time.

The reasons are simple:

(1) Political. The GOP cannot be seen as being for another Middle East war at this time. It is politically bad and will cost us another national election.

(2) Strategic. Right now you may have not noticed but the Chinese are getting rather aggressive in Asia. We are going to have to keep the vast majority of our military planning and forces occupied with that problem which is going to be a long term one similar to the cold war. Anything that takes significant military assets away from Asia now is bad for American national security.

I will never again support a policy that involves U.S. ground troops removing and rebuilding another Muslim country. Our national leaders, including Cruz, are not willing to be cruel enough to change a Muslim nation into a civilized one, so therefore there is no need to try. Bomb and declare victory or nothing at all…it is that simple.

William Eaton on November 26, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Israel is going to attack, and possibly use nuclear weapons against, Iran. And Saudi Arabia will give them cover to do it. And Obama will make a speech about the lawlessness of Israel.

Obama can’t dance.

BobMbx

Attack they may, but with nukes? No way.

xblade on November 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM

antifederalist on November 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Oh dear, you don’t think its a trill a year, do you??

blockchords on November 26, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Allah, you are more than a little confused. We libertarians are not pacifists. We just don’t think the USA needs to be the World Police. We cant afford to be the military arm for the rest of the world.

paulsur on November 26, 2013 at 8:00 PM

You are isolationists which is worse than being pacifists.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Oh dear, you don’t think its a trill a year, do you??

blockchords

He thinks a lot of things that aren’t true, lol.

xblade on November 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM

If you believe the NYT, Cruz has already started whispering to Republican donors that Paul’s unelectable because of his father’s views.

Paul and Christie are the only two candidates in the running who could cobble together winning coalitions.

Punchenko on November 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Punchenko on November 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I at least see where your going w/ Paul, but a large amount of the base won’t vote for Christie.

Seriously folks, unless there are events that effect the national dialogue the Party of Free Stuff is gonna win out and all we have are low turnout elections.

Point being, all we have is to make a substantive case, b/c appealing w/ ‘likability’ isn’t gonna work anyway.

blockchords on November 26, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Didn’t Christie do the Medicaid Expansion?? Why then is he not contemptible? Aren’t there a dozen other reasons too?

I’m not gonna vote for someone that implemented the ACA Medicaid Expansion after SCOTUS said it was optional.

blockchords on November 26, 2013 at 9:17 PM

xblade on November 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Teh Won is holding back the ‘bunker-busters’ it had promised earlier.

Several of the key nuke installations are buried too deep for the usual ordinance, ‘sealing up’ the entrances will only buy a couple of months (at best); and, too well-defended for a commando raid to work, without ‘enhancement’ (e.g. — CWs, which Israel cannot use).

That leaves only one other option… tac nukes.

And don’t think it’ll be over after the raids… leaving the current Iranian power structure intact after such a act is, IMO, suicide.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

CPT. Charles on November 26, 2013 at 9:19 PM

This is very good of Cruz. A good way of making up for lack of executive experience is getting in the front on FP issues.

thebrokenrattle on November 26, 2013 at 9:21 PM

You are isolationists which is worse than being pacifists.

Happy Nomad on November 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Spoken like a devotee of Woodrow Wilson…

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2013 at 9:57 PM

To believe obama or Iran?

Mh, what a choice!

Schadenfreude on November 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Can you find Truth by catching a liar in a lie???


This is the game both Iran and Obama are playing. It’s probably a game with no winners.

…and it’s a three-dimensional game, because we’re pretty sure that Kerry lies to both Iran and Obama!

landlines on November 27, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Attack they may, but with nukes? No way.

xblade on November 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM

+1000

I am sure they have other means. And using nukes would send a “wrong” message. Although an appropriate one to Hizbollah and Lebanon.

riddick on November 27, 2013 at 1:07 AM

Paul and Christie are the only two candidates in the running who could cobble together winning coalitions.

Punchenko on November 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Really? Any combo of Cruz, Jindal, Walker or West will do.

riddick on November 27, 2013 at 1:08 AM

So when the deal falls apart in 6 months, and the US bombs an Iranian facility, will any of the voters remember Obamacare?

percysunshine on November 27, 2013 at 4:02 AM

And apparently, breaking on drudge is that Iran claims Obama is lying about the agreement to the American people…this is UNREAL. I now believe Iran over our own President. Lying….again?? What does it take to get impeached…Nixon puts a glass to a wall in a cheesy hotel and he gets ramrodded.

malkinmania on November 27, 2013 at 7:34 AM

So when the deal falls apart in 6 months, and the US bombs an Iranian facility, will any of the voters remember Obamacare?

percysunshine on November 27, 2013 at 4:02 AM

The US is never going to bomb Iran until at least 2016. Obama is either so dumb he believes Iran won’t act on its threats to nuke Israel, or else he wants Israel wiped off the map.

It would be nice if Tea Partiers would reconcile their insistence on maintaining the $1T national security state, its desire for more Middle Eastern wars, and their concerns for the budget. Something has to give.

antifederalist on November 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

If Israel is nuked and Saudi is invaded/overthrown/goes offline, the hit to the global economy is going to be a lot higher than the cost of strikes on their nuclear facilities. Libertarians are never willing to think about the potential consequences of their isolationism.

Doomberg on November 27, 2013 at 8:19 AM

antifederalist on November 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

I think you are wrong with your analysis. One, we don’t pay a trillion, but we do pay alot – I know that. Our lifeblood is international trade – our investment in defense supports our economic engine.

I am happy to stop all the nation building garbage – W made a mistake there. I am not willing to put my head in the sand.

My concern for the budget is more importantly focused on things which have limited payback, and actually have negative impacts on our society – like the modern welfare state and its business enablers who like the govt teat to honest winning of business. The wealth transfer from young to old is appalling and the transfer from the upper and especially middle classes to the welfare classes at any level is destroying the nation.

Once we resolve that we will be fine.

Zomcon JEM on November 27, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Glad to see Ted Cruz’s statement. I am leaning strongly toward supporting Ted Cruz as the next GOP nominee for President.

Phil Byler on November 27, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Despite the hoopla over a “deal” having been reached with Iran, the reality is that there is no deal, yet.

US now indicates Iran interim deal wasn’t quite finalized
‘Technical details’ have yet to be worked out, State Department says, meaning six-month countdown to permanent deal hasn’t started and Iran isn’t bound by any new terms
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-enjoying-pre-implementation-window/

As the Times of Israel piece notes:

Psaki’s statements largely confirmed speculations by former State Department official and ambassador Elliott Abrams, who argued in his Council for Foreign Relations blog earlier Tuesday that the language used by the White House to discuss the Iran interim deal was largely “aspirational,” suggesting that much of the touted P5+1 deal with Iran had yet to be hammered out.

While Senator Cruz has taken a very hawkish stance on the “deal,” it is understandable why Senator Paul has not said anything at this juncture.

john.frank on November 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM