Txdigest.com

PAUL
As the Islamist militia group ISIS gains new ground in Iraq, capturing four more towns near the Syrian border and barreling towards Baghdad, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding strong to his belief that the United States should stay out of the conflict in the region.

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Paul ruled out ground troops in Iraq and said that as president, he would ask Congress before getting involved at all.

Paul also responded Sunday to some of Obama's critics in the Republican Party, who say he should have overthrown Syrian President Bashar Assad following evidence that he used chemical weapons on citizens last year. Paul said we need less involvement in the region, not more.

"We went into Libya and we got rid of that terrible Qaddafi, now it's a jihadist wonderland over there," Paul said, referring to Libya's former dictator. "There's jihadists everywhere. If we were to get rid of Assad it would be a jihadist wonderland in Syria. It's now a jihadist wonderland in Iraq, precisely because we got over-involved."

Paul said he does not believe ISIS currently poses a national security threat to the U.S. It's going to be a civil war, he said, in which the U.S. military has no business being involved.

"You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves?" Paul said. "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

CHENEY
Former Vice President Dick Cheney strongly disagreed with Paul on Sunday.

"Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist," Cheney said on ABC's "This Week." "He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world. I think it's absolutely essential. One of the things I worried about 12 years ago -- and that I worry about today -- is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/2 ... 19287.html

It appears that this weekend there was a major sheeplejack propaganda blitz going on beyond just Cheney's BS.. Here's some more garbage that was cast out there as opinion.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, described ISIS on CBS’s Face the Nation as “the number one threat to the homeland, the number one national security threat since 9/11.” McCaul thinks the Obama administration should take preemptive action against ISIS now, with “targeted airstrikes” that avoid collateral damage to Iraqis not engaged with the group.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chair of the Republican Policy Committee, echoed his colleagues, calling ISIS, “the richest, the most powerful and the most savage group of terrorists in the history of mankind. He continued, “I see ISIS as a direct threat to the United States. They have the capacity, and I believe they have the intent. They have stated it.”

Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers described the group, which now occupies large swathes of Iraq and Syria, as “Al Qaeda-minded individuals that now have an army.” Right now, Rogers said, “is as dangerous a time for an Al Qaeda threat to the United States as I have ever seen.”

So, the neocons are definately on the warpath again. I'm sorry, make that "on the beligerence trail". I don't want to loose my trademark.

Paul seemed somewhat credible until he said this:


"You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves?" Paul said. "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

This kind of emotional sensationalism identifies him as someone that is unable to do what might be the right thing, if it could hurt him personally.

People like that should not run for President.

GFB wrote:Paul seemed somewhat credible until he said this:


"You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves?" Paul said. "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

This kind of emotional sensationalism identifies him as someone that is unable to do what might be the right thing, if it could hurt him personally.

People like that should not run for President.

You want some emotional sensationalism, how about this: "there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters."

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:Paul seemed somewhat credible until he said this:


"You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves?" Paul said. "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

This kind of emotional sensationalism identifies him as someone that is unable to do what might be the right thing, if it could hurt him personally.

People like that should not run for President.

You want some emotional sensationalism, how about this: "there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters."

It's not "emotional sensationalism" in itself that renders a person unworthy to lead the nation, it's personalizing it and determining policy for the country based on the fact that he would be unwilling to fight a war that the country might need to fight based on his desire to keep his son out of danger.

It's not "emotional sensationalism" in itself that renders a person unworthy to lead the nation, it's personalizing it and determining policy for the country based on the fact that he would be unwilling to fight a war that the country might need to fight based on his desire to keep his son out of danger.

Presidents don't send their sons to war. They hide them out in places like the Champaign Unit of the Texas Air National Guard.

planosteve wrote:

It's not "emotional sensationalism" in itself that renders a person unworthy to lead the nation, it's personalizing it and determining policy for the country based on the fact that he would be unwilling to fight a war that the country might need to fight based on his desire to keep his son out of danger.

Presidents don't send their sons to war. They hide them out in places like the Champaign Unit of the Texas Air National Guard.

Well then..why did he bring it up?

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:

It's not "emotional sensationalism" in itself that renders a person unworthy to lead the nation, it's personalizing it and determining policy for the country based on the fact that he would be unwilling to fight a war that the country might need to fight based on his desire to keep his son out of danger.

Presidents don't send their sons to war. They hide them out in places like the Champaign Unit of the Texas Air National Guard.

Well then..why did he bring it up?

I don't think it's emotional or sensational to say you wouldn't send your son overseas to fight to save a foreign city when it's army throws down their weapons and runs away.
That's totally rational.
Paul did have something else to say that made a lot of sense. The ISIS is our guys!
“I believe that we firstly need to know how we came to this point. … I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria”.

planosteve wrote:

planosteve wrote:

I don't think it's emotional or sensational to say you wouldn't send your son overseas to fight to save a foreign city when it's army throws down their weapons and runs away.
That's totally rational.
”.

It's not irrational if our interest are more important to us..then their's are to them.