Rand: ‘If You Want Another Iraq War You Know Who [To] Vote For’
Rand Paul is benefitting from the stumblebums who can’t answer a direct question about Iraq, and who think the war was worth fighting.
“We’ve had the same question repeatedly: is it a good idea to go in and topple a secular dictator and try to build a nation?” Paul said. “Every time we’ve toppled a secular dictator in the Middle East we’ve gotten something worse and less stable…
“It shows some differences between the candidates,” Paul continued. “If you want another Iraq War, you know who they can vote for. If they want somebody who will only go to war when it’s the last resort, when we have to defend America or American interests, there are going to be some other alternatives.”
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
8 responses to Rand: ‘If You Want Another Iraq War You Know Who [To] Vote For’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gina May 19th, 2015 at 12:42
First time I agree with him…
allison1050 May 19th, 2015 at 12:43
Umm. could he possibly mean Girlfriend Lindsay?
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker May 19th, 2015 at 19:35
I know the answer and flip flopping, weather vane Randy doesn’t want to hear it.
The correct answer is….(drum roll)….. anyone running with an R after their name.
Robert Kennedy May 19th, 2015 at 20:32
If they want somebody who will only go to war when it’s the last resort, when we have to defend America or American interests, there are going to be some other alternatives.”
Yeah, any Democrat.
pignose4.0 May 19th, 2015 at 22:01
“It shows some differences between the candidates,” Paul continued. “If
you want another Iraq War, you know who they can vote for. If they want
somebody who will only go to war when it’s the last resort, when we have
to defend America or American interests, there are going to be some
other alternatives.” he’s getting as bad as Palin all these words and he said nothing that makes sense.
Gadea May 20th, 2015 at 01:21
Chris Matthews – 5/19/2015 – Iraq war: Mistake, or crime?
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball
“Put aside every other aspect of the
war we fought with Iraq in 2003.
Focus on one incontestable reality.
People at the top of the Bush Administration
said that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon.
They said he not only possessed a nuclear weapon,
but had the ability to deliver it over vast stretches of territory.
We know, everyone listening to me now, know why they made that claim.
Why they said Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon.
Why they had the ability to threaten the United States with it.
That reason was to get this country into war.
They made the claim, to get the United States to attack
another country on the other side of the world a country
that had nothing to do with 911 and had not attacked us.
They made unsubstantiated claims in order to push GWB into
war on which long ago they had set their hearts
Gadea May 20th, 2015 at 19:36
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/edward-r-matthews
A few weeks back Chris Matthews of MSNBC went on a tear against
the “neocons and the piggish money behind them” in response to a scare
ad saying that Sen. Rand Paul’s support for
a nuclear deal with Iran is “dangerous.”
In an angry populist speech, Matthews said:
The cloth-coat regular Republicans who send their kids
to war are not the ones who pay for these ads. They are totally
different people. The ones who send their kids to war and come home
maimed, and wondering what they hell they were doing it for — those
people are not impressed by these goddamn ads.
Matthews was roundly blasted by neoconservatives for
sounding such a populist message. But Matthews isn’t going away. Now
that the Iraq war is being reviewed and re-embraced, he is taking on the neoconservatives hammer and tongs. Last night he was at the porcine theme again, talking about big “pig” donors who “want wars.”
robert May 20th, 2015 at 19:55
i give rand an incomplete for his answer
He didn’t follow through by saying don’t vote for the gop but it was a good subliminal answer