What position on Iraq has he shifted? He opposed invading Iraq, Hillary supported until it became politically unpopular, then she changed her position. How has his position on ISIS changed? When did he ever claim to put boots on the ground to destroy ISIS? He supports using air strikes to attack ISIS targets and has so from the beginning.
What is Hillary’s position? She won’t even take a position on TPP?
More like the American people had “bad intelligence”…we must have been stupid to fall for the flimsy,recurring commentary for the reasons for the war and complicity of the Corporate MSM in the vigorous pursuit of ???
Rand wasn’t even in the Senate when Iraq War happened. He had no decision capababilities and it’s easy for him to talk about what he would have done after the fact.
Now Bernie Sanders opposed it and he was in a position to something about it which he did so you are right when you mention him. But please stop being disengenuous in lumping Paul in with him.
Not sure why you’re bringing Hillary into now, particularly since you didn’t mention her in your first post regarding this unless your goal is to 3rd grade-like switch the subject with “BUT MAAAA!!! SHE DID IT TOOOOO!!!” [quote=“justamarine, post:21, topic:20471”]
How has his position on ISIS changed?
[/quote] Did you read what I already posted?
Rand was against intervention. Then he was for it. Then he waffled. Like with Israel. And drones.
Shapeshifter.
Paul’s new position challenges his longtime reputation as a champion of non-interventionism. His brand of foreign policy generally rests on avoiding conflicts abroad, ending foreign aid, and an intense skepticism toward international institutions.
Paul’s newly announced grand plan to stop ISIS doesn’t sound too far off from what the White House is already doing. Aside from calling on Obama to seek Congressional authorization for military action more quickly, most of the recommendations Paul lays out in the op-ed are already being pursued by the administration, including arming Kurdish forces in Iraq, attempting to recruit allies in the region as well as NATO to the anti-ISIS cause, and protecting Israel by upgrading its Iron Dome anti-missile system.
Nor is it clear how the imaginary Paul administration would more effectively entice allies to join his anti-ISIS coalition, especially after the U.S. eliminated all foreign aid and withdrew from the United Nations as Paul has proposed in the past. One of the nice things about bragging about how you would have prevented a foreign crisis is that there’s no way to test the theory in hindsight.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-epic-isis-flip-flop[quote=“justamarine, post:21, topic:20471”]
She won’t even take a position on TPP?
[/quote]
LOL!!! I have heard that there are people on the right attacking Hillary from the left and here you are doing just that!
Sorry. I’m pretty ambiguous on this issue so your concern troll question is wasted on me. But it is interesting to see - here - the tactics used by the right wing that were specifically mentioned in a recent article:
“The idea is to make her life difficult in the primary and challenge her from the left,” said Colin Reed, America Rising’s executive director. “We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed from the left, so if we have opportunities — creative ways, especially online — to push her from the left, we’ll do it just to show those folks who she needs to turn out that she’s not in line with them.”
Nice try though.