Rand Paul 2009: How come Cheney changed his mind on invading Iraq after working for Halliburton?

posted at 2:01 pm on April 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via WaPo, the key bit comes at 6:45. I wonder how many clips like this of Paul from his, shall we say, “rawer” days have already ended up on hard drives owned by Team Rubio and Team Cruz. I remember another clip of him on the trail in early 2009 fielding a question about Gitmo detainees and spitballing that they should either be sent back to their countries of origin or dropped back off in Afghanistan(!) because at least then it’d take them a long time to get back to the U.S. Think you’ll see that in any ads next year?

This bit below about Cheney is actually a nice illustration of the difference between Rand then and now. Today I think he’d be just as eager to cite Cheney’s mid-90s skepticism about invading Iraq but would leave the last little bit, suggesting brainwashing or collusion involving Halliburton, off. Whether you think that’s because he’s sincerely changed his mind since then about the priorities that drove the last Republican administration or because he’s simply trying to hide his Ron-nier impulses from mainstream righties depends on how well disposed to him you are generally. If you like him, probably nothing short of him saying that “Dad and I agree on everything” will scare you away. (Speaking of 2009, he apparently told the one and only Alex Jones in May of that year that he and his father are “very, very similar” on policy but disagree sometimes on how to present their message. That was in reply to Jones asking him if he’s a “chip off the old block.”) I confess, though, I have zero sense of how all of this play with the “somewhat conservative” voters who tend to swing GOP primaries. Do they care that Paul dumped on Dick Cheney five years ago? Even if they dislike the conspiratorial imputations involving Halliburton, I bet in hindsight most would have preferred Paul’s dovish approach to Iraq than Cheney’s. Maybe they’ll cut him some slack for that.

Never mind them, though; there are two threats clips like this pose to Paul’s candidacy and neither involves swing voters. One is that they create more of an opening for Cruz with tea partiers. If you like both Paul and Cruz and are intent on supporting a conservative in the primaries, this sort of thing may be the tiebreaker. That’s not necessarily fatal to Rand’s chances but it makes life harder. The second threat is if he shocks the world and ends up winning the nomination. Democrats aren’t going to hammer him for dumping on Dick Cheney, but I wonder if Republican hawks, having gorged on a diet of anti-Paul oppo in this vein in the primaries, will decide that they can’t in good conscience support the GOP this time. There may even be prominent Republican defections to help further move the Overton window towards staying home or voting Democrat.



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

…I like him…but don’t trust him!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

500 comments easy. Not nearly the magic that a Palin thread draws, but, you work with what you got.

butch on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

For the leftist thugs – Halliburton is the biggest contractor under obama, often exclusively, with no bidding.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Why did Cheney change his mind?

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Koch Industries is the new Halliburton.

Good Lt on April 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Well, RWM if Cheney was like me he changed his mind after 9/11 & realized that the only way to prevent terrorism was to try to change the Middle East. That containing the murderous, megalomaniac in Baghdad was failing…. that might have something to do with it. I certainly always knew we’d have to go to Baghdad one day. What do YOU think it was Halliburton?

Again, wouldn’t it be nice it his really bright, telegenic, articulate one-term Senator were to run for something, oh like Governor of his state, before running for POTUS? But our guy will be different than their guy…. or not.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

…I like him…but don’t trust him!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

I don’t trust any of them. What’s new?

rhombus on April 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Good Lt. More like the new Emanuel Goldstein.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I mean sure, ideally I don’t want the next president to be an Alex Jones conspiracy loon. The current president is buddies with a terrorist so you know, it’s all relative.

But go ahead and convince me you’re not that please, Mr Paul.

Dash on April 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

In the immortal words of Dick Cheney …. “So?”

Firefly_76 on April 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Also, RWM in the 1990′s Cheney was part of an Administration that had NOT gone to Baghdad & was taking or had taken flak for that… so he’s playing Team Ball. In the 2000′s he was a part of an Administration that was INCLINED to go to Baghdad, so he, again, played Team Ball.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

When it comes to foreign policy and national security neither Paul is on the right side of sanity. They are isolationists and appeasers. Not that Paul will say it but he agrees completely with what Obama is doing in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Kochiburton

portlandon on April 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Halliburton? I thought they went bankrupt. You never hear about them since the dems took over the admonistration.

No. I didn’t mis-spell that.

trigon on April 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM

War is a Racket

Firefly_76 on April 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Obama won against Hillary in the primaries because he was more anti-(Iraq)war than her. Judging from that, maybe Rand can go for the Democrat nomination

thebrokenrattle on April 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Well, RWM if Cheney was like me he changed his mind after 9/11 & realized that the only way to prevent terrorism was to try to change the Middle East.

How’d that work out for ya?

That containing the murderous, megalomaniac in Baghdad was failing…. that might have something to do with it.

Maybe so.

I certainly always knew we’d have to go to Baghdad one day.

I didn’t.

What do YOU think it was Halliburton?

Hell if I know.

Again, wouldn’t it be nice it his really bright, telegenic,

articulate one-term Senator were to run for something, oh like Governor of his state, before running for POTUS? But our guy will be different than their guy…. or not.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Paul is bright and articulate, but I wouldn’t exactly describe him as ‘telegenic.’

So, I guess you oppose Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio running in 2016, too.

I know! We can nominate Jebbie or Christie Creme! /

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Firefly_76, written by a guy who had NO problem with the “racket” UNTIL he didn’t make Commandant of the Marine Corps… we call that Sour Grapes…& his arguments though popular were actually undercut by the actual economic facts of the era…. but hey if it makes you feel better to think War is a Racket, drive on.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Here we go. BOOOOSH!

Where the hell are the attacks aimed at Dem/Leftie/Progs?
More polarization from our side on “our” side. If someone wants to do that, can they at least not use the same chants as the people trying to destroy the country? Is it to save money…just buy the leftover bumper stickers from Moveon.org?

Mimzey on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

I just noted this earlier today concerning why we can’t get a good conservative candidate as our nominee… while Rand would be a great candidate and a great President, he will be destroyed by the GOP establishment and the purists.

They’ll scour the trash bins looking for anything to derail him.

I haven’t supported a winning candidate for the GOP nomination (in contested races) since I could vote. I still think Steve Forbes would have been a great president.

Hell, I’m more hawkish than Rand, but the guy is smart and practical. He’d make a heckuva president on both the domestic and international fronts. But, alas, the establishment will scare the base away from him (and from whomever is next) until we settle for Jeb.

mankai on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

500 comments easy. Not nearly the magic that a Palin thread draws, but, you work with what you got.

butch on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Somewhere in the HA vault, I am sure there is a emergency thread for “the big one” when they need to generate comments at the speed of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. It will be Palin commenting on gay illegal aliens.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Also, RWM in the 1990′s Cheney was part of an Administration that had NOT gone to Baghdad & was taking or had taken flak for that… so he’s playing Team Ball. In the 2000′s he was a part of an Administration that was INCLINED to go to Baghdad, so he, again, played Team Ball.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

I’m not really interested in ‘team players.’ Bob Gates and Petraeus were ‘team players’ even though they didn’t really think the policy/ies was/were correct.

Take Gates. I would have a lot more respect for him if he had resigned rather than waiting to criticise Obama in a book after he retired.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

I just don’t care. I just don’t care about Iraq or even Afghanistan any more. I care about American jobs and American freedom and a respite from American government. Maybe Rand Paul’s the man, maybe he’s not, but this? I just don’t care about this.

Caiwyn on April 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Anybody who chooses to be a guest on the Alex Jones Show should be automatically disqualified from the presidency.

Mark1971 on April 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Halliburton? I thought they went bankrupt. You never hear about them since the dems took over the admonistration.

No. I didn’t mis-spell that.

trigon on April 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Instead of Halliburton, let’s talk about the bankruptcies of Solyndra and that battery plant. Let’s talk about GM’s going bankrupt. And all the federal dollars that somehow got laundered to Obama supporters through those events. Far more compelling than old tape of Rand “I’m not my crazy daddy” Paul commenting on even older tape of Dick Cheney.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

War is a Racket

Firefly_76 on April 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Foreword by Jesse Ventura. Nice.

thebrokenrattle on April 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Halliburton? I thought they went bankrupt. You never hear about them since the dems took over the admonistration.

No. I didn’t mis-spell that.

trigon on April 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Halliburton became a toxic word to the Democrats a few years ago, after several things happened:

1. Leftist billionaire George Soros bought $61 million worth of the firm.

2. Many Halliburton employees-including a Senior Vice President-donated to O’bama in 2008 and again in 2012 (source: OpenSecrets.org)

3. O’bama gave Halliburton no-bid work in Iraq, but then cancelled it because he was (rightly so) afraid of the optics.

Bill Clinton also gave Halliburton no-bid work, during his own War of Choice.

And then of course there are decades of Democrat Lyndon Johnson being in bed with Halli, but those stories alone would fill an entire book.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

There is something about Rand Paul which evokes a sense of… not outright distrust but an unease, if you will. He says all the right things in his stands for liberty & the constitution but he also endorsed McConnell. He says he’s against amnesty but he’s ok with making 11 million new legal residents. He’s a fence sitter, in my opinion, about some very serious issues and has a finger testing the political winds at all times.

jffree1 on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Or we could nominate Scott Walker, Rick Perry or Sarah Palin….RWM…and YES I don’t like nominating Our Barack Obama… one term Senators with absolutely NO Executive Experience…

As to Iraq, I think it may work out… Korea wasn’t a democracy for 30 years…Kwangju Massacre ring a bell?

Well I called it the Fire Next Time… Hussein wasn’t quitting, & so yes, just like Germany, we had unfinished business that one day we’d settle in Baghdad…. just like in 1919 we had unfinished business that led us to Berlin 1945.

But if you can even THINK it was Halliburton, though I think you are a bright woman, I’m afraid your tin-foil is on too tight… Uh Bush outlined 16 reasons for war in the AUMF, which Congress OK’d…I don’t think Halliburton was on the list. It wasn’t oil per se, or Halliburton in Iraq of Conoco pipelines in Afghanistan.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Thread to nowhere. Just like Rands sweater vest in the posts photo.

Bmore on April 7, 2014 at 2:29 PM

8m ago
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., compares GOP senators to NASCAR cars; says their suits might as well display ‘Koch Industries’ logos – @kasie
end of alert

This man needs to go.

Murphy9 on April 7, 2014 at 2:29 PM

They’ll scour the trash bins looking for anything to derail him.
mankai on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Of course, if he’s left a pile of kookoo nuts in the trash bin you really can’t blame anyone for pointing them out.

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 2:29 PM

It’s hard to tell if Rand is more of a panderer than a conspiracy loon, but I’m starting to wonder. I actually don’t mind the pandering from him so much because when he does it is usually in an attempt to find common ground with new people that he’s trying to bring into the fold. It isn’t a wholesale renunciation of his beliefs to draw some cheers from certain audiences. He tailors his message to his current audience and will say what he can say within his ideological framework to draw people into the fold.

He went to Berkeley and spoke almost entirely about government spying for what, an hour? This is a problem, but this administration is so rife with corruption, I don’t see how that’s tops on the list. Will it bring in some new voters if he’s the nominee? We’ll see, but I worry that things like this will cost us more voters than we’re gaining. OTOH, we’ve lost 2 straight presidential elections, so maybe it’s worth the gamble.

This is the first time I’ve heard him really go off the deep end – granted, I haven’t followed him that closely. It doesn’t cost him my primary vote, but it does have me more receptive to the message of others.

crrr6 on April 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM

I’m sure there are more bombshells like this, but I don’t think this is the stuff that will do him a lot of damage. The Cheney wing of the party is not all that influential these days.

The stuff I worry about more is him possibly having stepped on his schwantz regarding civil rights laws. He stepped into it shortly after his election in 2010, but managed to put it behind him fairly quickly. If there’s some stuff that sounds like Daddy’s old newsletters, all bets are off.

DRPrice on April 7, 2014 at 2:32 PM

But if you can even THINK it was Halliburton, though I think you are a bright woman, I’m afraid your tin-foil is on too tight… Uh Bush outlined 16 reasons for war in the AUMF, which Congress OK’d…I don’t think Halliburton was on the list. It wasn’t oil per se, or Halliburton in Iraq of Conoco pipelines in Afghanistan.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I didn’t say that I think it was because of Halliburton. I asked why Cheney changed his mind.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Well RWM, I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately Team Players are necessary… now you may operate a singleton law firm, so YOU are your team, but ultimately larger organizations only function when we play as a team…. Yea, I wish Robt. S. McNamara or Gates had voiced their opposition to their President’s in office, HOWEVER, I’m also not too keen on the CIA deciding that they would derail the Cowboy Boooosh from attacking Iran with a bogus NIE. I’m ambivalent about Snowden……

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM

“very, very similar” on policy but disagree sometimes on how to present their message.

That is exactly my view and why I don’t trust him. He hides his crazy while pops embraces his.

Southernblogger on April 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM

There is something about Rand Paul which evokes a sense of… not outright distrust but an unease, if you will. He says all the right things in his stands for liberty & the constitution but he also endorsed McConnell. He says he’s against amnesty but he’s ok with making 11 million new legal residents. He’s a fence sitter, in my opinion, about some very serious issues and has a finger testing the political winds at all times.

jffree1 on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I feel the same way. I’d like to trust him, I want to trust him, but,….there is this nagging worry.

butch on April 7, 2014 at 2:36 PM

& RWM I gave you reasons why, none of which relate to Halliburton… Occam’s Razor might be your best guide here, rather than falling back on progressions of ignorance & asking questions….

In the 1990′s Cheney was defending his (former) POTUS & policy… in the 2000′s he was Veep of a DIFFERENT Administration with different policies…. also, HE HAD SOLD HIS HALLIBURTON STOCK BY THE TIME HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT!!! So, he didn’t make any money from Halliburton, the Democrat’s had already raise the issue, prior to 911.

So there are a host of reasons, none of which involve War is a Racket/Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Talking Points, of either the Raimondo / Rothbard /Progressive Left

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM

He hides his crazy while pops embraces his.
Southernblogger on April 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM

He lost me when he openly embraced amnesty. It reminded me of pops line in the 2012 debates about what a border fence would be for is to keep Americans from escaping the US.

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out he supports open borders. I would be inclined to support him but open-borders in the modern world would be the end of American notions of freedom and liberty that Rand claims to espouse. You can’t get any weaker on national security than open-borders/unlimited-immigration.

Apparently Rand Paul recently said the following, (I’m not familiar with the web site):

But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.”

http://www.vdare.com/posts/rand-paul-to-texan-whites-capitulate

FloatingRock on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

That was a classic.

Southernblogger on April 7, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Big Deal!

How many times did Senator Obama say one thing and do another once he got elected?
And this has hampered him how exactly?

Sure we want to hold “our guys” to a higher standard than that Liar in the White House. But the GOP REEEEEELY needs to stop destroying itself right now. Let it go. People and their opinions change, hopefully not for purely political reasons, but for being more informed.

Not gonna change my opinion of Rand. He’s The Man!

Pelosi Schmelosi on April 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM

The September 11th attacks changed a lot of minds about what the world was/was not willing to tolerate in the Middle East.

wren on April 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out

That phrase seems to be on a lot of people’s lips.

thebrokenrattle on April 7, 2014 at 2:51 PM

We had a saying back in 2001-2004: “Nine-eleven changed everything.” No doubt it did for Dick Cheney.

Look, the way to defeat terrorists is not by playing defense. It’s by playing offense. American forces should make terrorists spend 95% of their waking hours worrying about their own survival, rather than plotting the next attack. Saddam was an advocate for, and a sponsor of terror. (He offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.) He had a nuclear weapons program. Though coalition forces may not have found stockpiles of chemical weapons, he used them in Halabja against the Kurds.

Bush and Cheney concluded that mere defense was insufficient. They decided to play offense. I’m glad they did.

Steelweaver52 on April 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM

I think, based on his relevant experience and qualifications for high executive office…or more accurately total & glaring lack thereof…Sen Paul has no business whatsoever running for Potus. None.

Ditto Senators Cruz and Rubio. None of these three is yet qualified to run for/serve as President, especially in light of the domestic and foreign disaster of the empty-suited, empty-headed Obama.

Cruz and Rubio have promising futures in national office and I like them both so far as their very early careers have shown. But like Rand Paul they’re not even close to fully cooked yet.

10,000 quatloos says Rand Paul will not be on the GOP ticket in 2016, nor should he be. Rubio might be a VPNom.

Cruz has made too many enemies with his inability & unwillingness to work and play well with others. Yes he’s whip smart and i want to see him grow in stature and accomplishment, but he’s also annoying as all get-out sometimes due to his “I know it all and you’re less worthy than i because you don’t know it all” attitude.

Sacramento on April 7, 2014 at 2:58 PM

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I didn’t say it was because of Halliburton. I asked why he changed his mind. Now, many may say that it was because of 9/11 and, perhaps, it was. But, if that is the argument, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia, which played a much larger role and has been exporting the most extreme form of Islam around the world for decades?

Don’t confuse my position on the Middle East and war with some sort of pacifism or Ron Paulianism concern for the people there. Honestly, there is no one in the Middle East worth a single drop of American blood. If they want to live in the 7th century, fine…as long as they are contained there. If they ever decide that they want to leave the stone age and join the rest of us in modernity, I will welcome them with open arms.

I certainly will NEVER support fighting wars with the aim of ‘winning hearts and minds.’ If you go to war, go in, win, and come home. I’m not interested in rebuilding madrassas and mosques where hatred of the ‘infidel’ and the West is preached and people are indoctrinated.

I opposed the Iraq War for the same reason that I opposed the Libyan misadventure and the near-miss we had with Syria. If they want to kill each other, let them.

The Mo Doctrine

(For those of you, who are unaware, “Mo” is a nickname of mine)

1) The United States should only get involved in conflicts abroad where there is a direct and imminent threat to the nation and its security.

2) The United States should stay out of civil wars.

3) If war is declared upon us, CRUSH, and I mean C-R-U-S-H, the enemy.

As the ever-helpful MarshFox reminded me:

“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”

- Conan the Barbarian

4) Fight to win or stay home.

5) The United States has an abysmal record of siding with despots, arming radical extremists and terrorists, and propping up tinpot dictators. Know your enemy, your “ally,” recognise self-determination, and MYOB.

(No installing new governments then “finding out who or what is in it”)

6) Unless the United States is under attack or imminent threat of attack, the President must get Congressional approval for all actions involving military operations abroad pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11 and the War Powers Resolution Act.

7) When people want to kill each other, let them.

And…

“So Long Muslim World, And Thanks For All The Fish!”

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Pelosi Schmelosi, so you’re a Low/No Information Voter? Rand’s your guy, no matter what? Well that’s going to make you a fun guy, these parts about…

Me, I’m ambivalent… my preference order is Palin-Perry-Walker-Cruz-Paul… I’d vote for any of the five, well almost any GOP candidate over Shillary, but these are my Top Five. But Paul is certainly not my first choice….

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out

…he stole the drapes from my grandmother’s living room and made a sweater vest out of them.

I mean, really. How much does your wife have to hate you to let you go out in public wearing something like that?

dreadnought62 on April 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out he supports open borders. I would be inclined to support him but open-borders in the modern world would be the end of American notions of freedom and liberty that Rand claims to espouse. You can’t get any weaker on national security than open-borders/unlimited-immigration.

Apparently Rand Paul recently said the following, (I’m not familiar with the web site):

But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.”

http://www.vdare.com/posts/rand-paul-to-texan-whites-capitulate

FloatingRock on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I totally agree.

VIDEO: Rand Paul shows his utter contempt for amnesty opponents and those who support immigration law enforcement:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

bluegill on April 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Good Lt. More like the new Emanuel Goldstein.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM

No, Palin is Goldstein. Koch Industries is East Asia.

Occams Stubble on April 7, 2014 at 3:05 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out

…he stole the drapes from my grandmother’s living room and made a sweater vest out of them.

I mean, really. How much does your wife have to hate you to let you go out in public wearing something like that?

dreadnought62 on April 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Bwhaha!

thebrokenrattle on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Well RWM,
1. Hussein had invaded areas that contained or bordered on over 60% of the world’s proven oil reserves, guess that counts
2. But how about Korea? So you’re saying that it’s OK if the Kim Family destroyed a US ally?
3. We DID CRUSH the Iraqi military… the Chinese have a great saying, you can conquer from a horse, but to rule you have to dismount. Unless you have some vision of destroying everything in Iraq/Afghanistan with nuclear weapons, well there comes a time where you have to rebuild, you might have forgotten Germany, Japan, Korea & Taiwan.
4. “Winning” has many definitions, not one… had we defeated the Wehrmacht in 1945 & “gone home” we’d have been back in Europe in a generation
5. Well we sided with Stalin… sometimes you don’t get to pick & choose your friends, sorry international relations aren’t like that.
6. Well thankfully both in Iraq ’90, Iraq ’03 & Afghanistan Congress did JUST that…
7. Sometimes, & sometimes not…. in the case of Somalia, Afghanistan & Lebanon what took root there decided to attack us, too. In Zimbabwe, Rwanda, or the Congo, no & we don’t have to be concerned.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Occam’s Stubble, well done….

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Never had much respect for Cheney. Did everything possible to avoid the military during Nam. Five deferments and then knocked up Lynne when all else failed. Then, he becomes “super hawk.”

Cheney is typical of what is wrong with the GOP – primary interest is helping big business buddies.

Can anyone name anything conservative Dick Cheney ever did? Being a neocon and nation building is NOT conservative.

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Once, just once I want Hotair to have an article about Rand Paul, good or bad that is not just bait to talk about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz threads are all about Ted, but Rand blogs have to include Ted.

Is Ted incapable of getting traction without Rand Paul? Inquiring minds want to know.

coolrepublica on April 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Mr Paul,
Politicians change their minds on policy decisions all the time once those politicians acquire executive positions and are responsible for the results of their actions.

Obama did this on Guantanamo for example, I’m sure you remember.

Those of us who plan to vote for you for President fully expect you to do the same thing when you get into office and your primary responsibility is to protect us.

Because if you can’t make that transition then you are most likely a babbling mutt just like your dad. And we never, ever wanted him anywhere near the White House.

Get my drift, Preppy-boy?

chuckh on April 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM

I don’t know Coolrepublica, commenters have mentioned Cruz, TWICE, so far & that only in relation to where Cruz stands on MY preference list… so NO, Cruz can get traction w/o Rand, or rather this Rand thread IS a Rand thread, not a Cruz one… sorry if you guy, is taking flak.

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Halliburton – One of only 4 companies in the entire world who do what they do, they just happen to be the best at it and the only one based in the U.S.
No bid, no brainer.
I get that it’s not so much “Halliburton is still eeevil” but “look at what GOP hopeful Rand Paul said.”
The drip drip drip of wacky things Rand said has just begun and to be honest I need to hear it.

Buttercup on April 7, 2014 at 3:38 PM

I liked Rand Paul until I found out he supports open borders.
FloatingRock on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I believe that, with a few exceptions (e.g. 9/11), the US has always had open borders. I think a better, more accurate term for what the Amnestybots want would be “no borders”.

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Once, just once I want Hotair to have an article about Rand Paul, good or bad that is not just bait to talk about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz threads are all about Ted, but Rand blogs have to include Ted.

Is Ted incapable of getting traction without Rand Paul? Inquiring minds want to know.

coolrepublica on April 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

You’re the one bringing up Ted Cruz.

Buttercup on April 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM

I still remember talking to a guy back in ’06 or ’07, knew he voted for Bush and supported going into Iraq, but while we were talking a Halliburton truck came by and i made a joke about it expecting him to laugh but he went off on a rant about Halliburton and all the stuff you’d expect if he was a dem. So while this may be a deal breaker for some i doubt it’s a deal breaker for as many as you’d think.

clearbluesky on April 7, 2014 at 3:47 PM

You’re the one bringing up Ted Cruz.
Buttercup on April 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM

In this entry AP actually brought up Cruz first, anyway:

I wonder how many clips like this of Paul from his, shall we say, “rawer” days have already ended up on hard drives owned by Team Rubio and Team Cruz.

I guess it’s verbotten to mention Rubio, too?

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Not gonna change my opinion of Rand. He’s The Man!

Pelosi Schmelosi

And you are a mental patient.

Meanwhile, I wonder how long before Rand starts talking about 9/11 being an inside job as he reminds us that fire can’t melt steel? Of course, the mental patients won’t care, but what are you gonna do? They’re mental patients for a reason.

xblade on April 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Oh PUHLEEZE, Halliburton’s then subsidiary lost a ton of money in Iraq and had to be spun off or take the company down.

We ain’t talking about LBJ and Brown & Root here folks with all their contracts for Thailand and Vietnam.

Kermit on April 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Never had much respect for Cheney. Did everything possible to avoid the military during Nam. Five deferments and then knocked up Lynne when all else failed. Then, he becomes “super hawk.”

Cheney is typical of what is wrong with the GOP – primary interest is helping big business buddies.

Can anyone name anything conservative Dick Cheney ever did? Being a neocon and nation building is NOT conservative.

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Actually, Cheney got his first two deferments before the Vietnam war had even ramped up-one in March of 1963, the other 3 months later. LBJ didn’t sign the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution until late summer in 1964.

As for Cheney’s “conservative” credentials, just remember that prior to becoming VP he was a member of Congress for 11 years, and his conservative voting record as such speaks for itself.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Sigh..

Too bad, I guess the nut really doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Rand is quickly dropping in my preferences for nominees. All my conservative friends feel the same way. Seems like each time we bring up Rand now it comes with a reason not to support him.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Jeb catches heat from the right due to his recent comments on immigration.

WaPo comes out with an article bombing Rand Paul for comments about Dick Cheney.

Jeb cannot attack Paul on immigration since their policies aren’t in stark contrast of each other, so this is what we get instead.

I read the WaPo article as the Bush Dynasty circling the wagons for Jeb.

airupthere on April 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM

This is a Democrat. Right?

Bartrams Garden on April 7, 2014 at 4:14 PM

And you are a mental patient.

Meanwhile, I wonder how long before Rand starts talking about 9/11 being an inside job as he reminds us that fire can’t melt steel? Of course, the mental patients won’t care, but what are you gonna do? They’re mental patients for a reason.

xblade on April 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Let us know when this happens.

airupthere on April 7, 2014 at 4:17 PM

If you like both Paul and Cruz and are intent on supporting a conservative in the primaries, this sort of thing may be the tiebreaker.

Paul already lost many of us with his weaseling out of commitment to social conservative causes.

“Intent on supporting a conservative”?
Jindal is much more formidable than Cruz.
Cruz would alienate centrists.
Jindal turned a blue state red.

itsnotaboutme on April 7, 2014 at 4:45 PM

He asked the same question I have been asking myself for ten plus
years.

Who paid? The taxpayers.
Who made huge profits? Any guesses?

Come on; it is simple math. And don’t kid yourselves; happens
on both sides of the aisle.

American citizens getting screwed. Politicians and their cronies
getting rich.

At least he had the guts to say what many have been thinking; at
least those that have the capability to think.

Amjean on April 7, 2014 at 4:54 PM

I didn’t say that I think it was because of Halliburton. I asked why Cheney changed his mind.

[Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 2:33 PM]

Are you looking for evidence of Cheney basically answering the question or are you inviting speculation or opinion on why he changed his mind?

Dusty on April 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Or we could nominate Scott Walker, Rick Perry or Sarah Palin….

JFKY on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Sarah Palin violates your four year requirement.

Scott Walker violates your telegenic requirement.

Rick Perry…? Hey, maybe there are second chances in American politics…

JohnGalt23 on April 7, 2014 at 5:14 PM

…I like him…but don’t trust him!

[KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM]

I want to remain an optimist on Rand Paul, so I’ll say I like him and I trust him to be lightheaded and superficial in his analyses such that he has a good chance of being wrong in his conclusions.

But he has to stop pushing the envelope in the frequency department on this or I’m going to be where you are.

Dusty on April 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM

For the life of me, I can’t understand WHY Rand would want to run for President anyway…if he’s as smart as the Libertarian wing wants us to believe, he could accomplish a lot more in the Congress as Majority Leader.

That being said, I still can’t support a Paul presidency…Libertarianism (as espoused by the majority of Libertarians today) won’t cut it with the country as is….the closest 3rd party choice right now would be a Tea Party candidate like Ted Cruz…

BlaxPac on April 7, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Bye Rand.

Meremortal on April 7, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I am a hawk, and I trust Paul more than Cheney…

That is how much the neo-con movement has messed up the hawk community.

William Eaton on April 7, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Also let me add…

I could care less about his work a Halliburton and care more about his ties the Saudi Arabian and UAE regime.

Saudi Arabia and UAE, along with Pakistan, are the biggest supporters of Sunni Jihadist groups on earth. If you want to know who was most responsible for 9-11 and the rest of crap we have had to deal with from the islamic world, with exception of Iran (who back Shia Jihadist groups), than look no father than the Arabians and Pakistanis.

Cheney, like all Bush people, are just too close to those countries to make a honest and sound decision in America’s best interests. Same goes with the Clintons.

William Eaton on April 7, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Kuffar on April 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

He didn’t ‘knock Lynne up’.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 7, 2014 at 5:52 PM

The Paul clan are certifiable paranoiacs.

V7_Sport on April 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM

I didn’t say it was because of Halliburton. I asked why he changed his mind. Now, many may say that it was because of 9/11 and, perhaps, it was. But, if that is the argument, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia, which played a much larger role and has been exporting the most extreme form of Islam around the world for decades?

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM

I’ll admit that even the ‘good guys’ in the Middle East are pretty bad. But surely this is not a serious question, but a rhetorical one.

Bush was hardly going to declare war on the whole Middle East. I believe they basically told Middle Eastern countries after 9/11 that they would have to choose sides, and Saudi Arabia chose our side, at least officially. Pakistan was also given a choice, and decided to cooperate.

On what grounds do you go after Saudi Arabia? They’re officially an ally, and while I believe they promote terrorism, they’re crafty enough to keep that promotion on soil foreign to them. I would love to see ‘justice served’ to them, so to speak, for their underhanded promotion of terrorism. But for us to adopt the position of doling out justice would be an attempt to serve as the ‘World Police’ in genuine fact, rather than the usual rhetorical excess. It would be the opposite of a humbler, more circumspect foreign policy.

Pakistan would have been the better target, since they actually support the Taliban that gave Al Qaeda the support needed to launch their terrorism. But Pakistan is a nuclear power, and made a show of cooperation after 9/11. They were rewarded not just with a lack of hostility, but with financial aid in suppressing their own radicals.

You start by saying that you will no longer turn a blind eye to nations that support terrorism, then you advance that statement of will by foreign policy. If you hang back and wait for a nation to attack us, then these Middle Eastern nations will go back to the old game of pretending to be neutral while tacitly encouraging terrorists to attack.

The real difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 foreign policy is that now we hold nations responsible for promoting terrorism, rather than letting them say, “it’s just some radical elements who are violent, not us.

Nominally, that is. Whether that policy will be carried out consistently across administrations is a separate issue, and not one easily addressed. We’ve seen the Obama administration step up their use of drones while avoiding making any real commitment.

The Iraq invasion was won quickly and easily, as was Afghanistan. Occupying a foreign country, though, is messy and ugly and takes a long time before you can withdraw. It’s hard to blame an administration for thinking that withdrawing too soon could mean they have to come back again in a few years.

The bungling of the withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan both have virtually guaranteed that we will have to return to at least one of them — probably Afghanistan.

It’s fine to criticize the handling of foreign policy, but let’s not pretend that doing nothing until we’re actually attacked is a real alternative. There are far too many ways for terrorists and hostile foreign governments to arrange for us to be attacked while avoiding direct blame for it.

Peace through strength requires strength, and the willingness to use it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 6:13 PM

The crime is not eeeeevil Halliburton, it’s THAT SWEATER!

EWWWWWW!

That sweater alone is enough to convince me he can’t be President. Talk about Dork Central.

jclittlep on April 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Excellent analysis.

thebrokenrattle on April 7, 2014 at 6:40 PM

The crime is not eeeeevil Halliburton, it’s THAT SWEATER!

jclittlep on April 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

My first thought.

His sartorial decisions have undeniably improved…

JohnGalt23 on April 7, 2014 at 7:12 PM

I remember Bush making it quite clear that he had Saddam in his cross-hairs during the campaign prior to his presidency. 9/11 merely hastened action. I can’t see what the hell Cheney has to do with it. Maybe Paul is saying Cheney should have refused the VP invitation rather than go along with regime change in Iraq.

Buddahpundit on April 7, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Like father like son. Paul presents a danger to our national security.

Lee Jan on April 8, 2014 at 7:10 AM

Is it REALLY so outlandish to suggest a POLITICIAN would do something merely for money and power? What? Did you think Cheney was somehow above all that?

This argument must be settled and hopefully the GOP can become the non-aggression party once again.

fatlibertarianinokc on April 8, 2014 at 1:03 PM