Rand Paul and His Foreign Policy
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “So you get to the end of that and you hear: I don’t think President Obama has done enough for national defense. Exactly how much is enough then? The amount of money that has been trimmed, if you want to even use that word, which I think is offensive, that has been trimmed from what is spent on “national defense” or on defense is negligible as opposed to what President Bush spent in the eight years prior to President Obama becoming president. How much do you need to do? How much needs to be spent? How large is large enough?” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Let’s play radio talk show host for a moment, shall we? I’ve been doing this for eleven years and ten years prior. I have a little bit of experience at this. Most of you have similar experience at different occupations. You do my occupation for a moment and tell me what you would do. Do you have the Rand Paul clip ready?
Eric: I do.
Mike: I’m going to play you this digital media file from Senator Rand Paul. The part you are listening for is toward the end of the conversation with, I guess it’s with Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, correct?
Eric: It is.
Mike: The part you are listening for is, near the end of this particular exchange, you’re going to hear Senator Paul say something to the effect, and I’m paraphrasing here, even though I’ve heard it three times, something to the effect that he doesn’t think President Obama has taken national defense seriously enough or put enough energy into it or whatever he says.
This is from a president whose transgressions in this area are well known to you people. If I’m to take the advice of the people who are haranguing in my ear and the rest of the talk radio mafia, what I’m supposed to do is pretend as though I didn’t hear that part and that I only heard the first part. In other words, I’m supposed to ignore the part about foreign policy and America acting as though we ought to be swinging our weight around the world. That’s what I took it to me. Perhaps someone else would take it to mean something else. What am I supposed to do with that? According to some of you, I’m supposed to not say anything about it and shut up because I might damage Senator Paul if I do. Then I will have damaged our last, best hope on earth. There are about four of you out there screaming right now, [mocking] “You’re supposed to tell the truth.” You, my friend, are in the minority. Roll the digital media file.
[start audio file]
Chris Wallace: Let’s put it up on the screen. “Though the Cold War is largely over, I think we need to have a respectful sometimes adversarial but a respectful relationship with Russia.” That’s how President Paul would deal with Vladimir Putin, respectfully?
Senator Rand Paul: Well, you know, I see my foreign policy in the same line as what came out of probably the first George Bush. Henry Kissinger wrote something in the “Washington Post” two days ago which I agree with. I see it coming out of mainstream of the Republican position.
But the interesting thing is that I opposed, with real fervor, the involvement of us in Syria, and that became the dominant position in the country, both Republican and Democrat. There’s not one Republican who is saying we should put military troops into Crimea or into Ukraine. So I think I’m right in the middle of that position, and I think those who would try to argue that somehow I’m different than the mainstream Republican opinion are people who want to take advantage for their own personal political gain.
I’m a great believer in Ronald Reagan. I’m a great believer in a strong national defense. In fact, what Ronald Reagan said in about one sentence sums up really a lot of what I believe. He said to our potential adversaries, he said, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.” People knew that with Ronald Reagan. They still need to know that with the United States.
And part of the problem is, I think this president hasn’t projected enough strength and hasn’t shown a priority to the national defense. That is something that, were I in charge, I would.
[end audio file]
Mike: So the Reagan statement, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.” Okay, fine. I believe Reagan actually did say that. I don’t have the quotation right here in front of me, although I have heard it quoted many times before. I don’t know that’s the exact verbiage. I believe what he’s referring to, if I recall correctly, was when Reagan spoke at the D-Day memorial, one of those anniversaries, maybe even the 40th in 1984 and he was at Normandy. He was telling Gorbachev: You think we want war. We don’t want war. We want peace with you, Mr. Gorbachev. But don’t mistake our reluctance for war, as Senator Paul just said.
So you get to the end of that and you hear: I don’t think President Obama has done enough for national defense. Exactly how much is enough then? The amount of money that has been trimmed, if you want to even use that word, which I think is offensive, that has been trimmed from what is spent on “national defense” or on defense is negligible as opposed to what President Bush spent in the eight years prior to President Obama becoming president. How much do you need to do? How much needs to be spent? How large is large enough?
According to some of you, what is supposed to happen here is, I guess, I’m supposed to just assume that what he means is — I’m supposed to just fill in the gap here rather than listening to the entire argument and concluding that there’s a subtle change happening here and it has been recognized that you have to win-over decepticons.
You have to win-over war hawks in order to get the Republican nomination these days, and this is what I’m going to have to do in order to win-over the war hawks. That doesn’t mean he’s actually going to act upon that. If that’s what is being said and that’s what decepticons and others are going to expect of him, should he find himself in the position that he is the nominee, and then maybe even the president someday, I would think that politically speaking you have to deliver on some of that. So he’s supposed to sign off on and endorse that as well?
I think the more true position is as I told someone yesterday. I’d rather be a John Taylor of Caroline or St. Thomas Becket and say: I don’t want an alliance with any of you clowns, none of you. I’d rather be in the minority. In other words, if you win, great, more power to you. I am now in the minority, meaning I’m not opposed to you, but when you take the two fingers and point them toward your eyes “I’ve got my eyes on you, buddy. I’m watching you.” I think that’s what the vigilant citizen should always be. Isn’t that what we’ve all been talking about all these years, or has all this been, [mocking] “Once we get to where we’re in position, we’re going to be people of principle.” Yeah, unless we have to get those people on our team. [mocking] “Then we’re going to be people of principle.” Think of me on the team, too. [mocking] “But I’m not bending on one more principle. What? Who? Man, all right, all right. Yeah, they can be on the team, too.” How much better are you then than the people that you just removed from office? [mocking] “But you’re doing less damage.” I don’t know if that’s what I want to put on my tombstone. “Here lieth Dude. He did less damage to his children and grandchildren than his neighbor did to his children and grandchildren.”
End Mike Church Show Transcript