Rand Paul Discusses His Change in Support for Mike Pompeo…

Good honest explanation by Senator Rand Paul and why he changed his position on supporting Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Military, President Trump, Rand Paul. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Rand Paul Discusses His Change in Support for Mike Pompeo…

  1. EV22 says:

    “I want to make sure the people around him share [POTUS’] vision.”

    What a pompous ass Rand Paul has become.

    Liked by 12 people

    • I didn’t detect any ‘pompous ass’ attitude coming from him, but I do think the pro-Trump politics in Kentucky absolutely did weigh on his decision in deciding to back Pompeo. He couldn’t have changed his mind while saving face at the same time, any better than that. LoL

      Liked by 25 people

    • Bastiat says:

      People really need to get over the primaries. I find it kind of ridiculous that people are holding grudges against other candidates that were trying to win as well. Not like Rand even did anything wrong then. He has been fighting for the American people for years, and so has his father.

      Liked by 19 people

      • abstain says:

        I agree, Bastiat.

        Liked by 2 people

      • like..I was a supporter of his before he dropped out. I supported Trump because his foreign policy was the least interventionist of the remaining candidates. And Rand just said that.

        Liked by 7 people

        • Striker Dad says:

          Rand Paul’s support of McConnell when it mattered really turned me off. I am about integrity and Rand brands himself as anti-establishment, small government conservative. I hope when Trump’s Presidency runs its course, we aren’t left with Rand and nobody else decent to choose from. Trump is strong. He makes mothers feel safe at night. Rand. . . he’s like the conservative version of John McCain. Just when you think you can count on him in a big vote, he does the same old thing and votes wrong.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Striker Dad says:

            I want to clarify that my comment about Rand and integrity mean that supporting big government McConnell lacks integrity. Rand supporters will say my later comment on his maverick votes are proof of his integrity, but what I mean is that you can be right in the small battle perspective and refuse to go along with the battle plan, but in the end you’ll be standing there watching if not helping your enemy eviscerate your fellow soldiers.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Old Codger says:

            Guess you’re missing the signaling that Pompeo is rapidly moving up the ranks as a candidate for POTUS when Trump calls it a day!

            SecState is much more valuable experience than cooling your heels as VEEP! Especially if you can notch the denuclearization of N Korea and end of the Korean War as part of your resume! Funny how Pompeo was dispatched to meet with Whoa Fat, rather than Pence…..or not! Trust the plan!

            Like

      • EternalVigilanc3 says:

        Hi there, seems you’re new here. There is a handy and useful search bar to the right. I would recommend using it to find out why treepers have a nasty taste in their mouth about Rand.

        Here I found an article by Sundance to help you get started. Its from 2015. Its about the GOPe using a strategy called “the splitter” strategy.
        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/22/tripwire-alert-evidence-now-exists-to-show-benefit-of-gope-road-mapped-splitter-strategy/

        Also I would suggest you look up the Missouri election involving Chris daniels and what role Rand played to sabatage that election.

        Liked by 8 people

        • EternalVigilanc3 says:

          I forgot to add the peeps who liked your comment and responded I suggest you also look up “battered conservative syndrome” cause it looks like y’all are suffering from it.

          Liked by 2 people

        • deepdivemaga says:

          Wow, thank you for this! This is an amazing article, thank you!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Bastiat says:

          So you’re trying to say Rand Paul really didn’t want to be president, he just jumped in so the “Splitter Strategy” would help all of those GOPe Republicans who just LOVE him so much.

          Give me a break.

          Everyone in that race wanted to be president. The way the GOPe moved them around doesn’t mean they were all in on some conspiracy. They took the opportunities they were given.

          Were some of the candidates, such as Jeb in on it? I’m sure.

          You still don’t have a logical reason for your hatred other than 2 years ago some guy ran against the guy you supported. Between that and your passive-aggressive/patronizing attitude, safe to say you have some growing up to do.

          Liked by 1 person

          • KBR says:

            Bastiat,
            Ad hominem attacks are never the best way to go.

            Apparently your personal perspective is that everyone at CTH that dislikes Rand Paul, even for reasons they feel are valid, are immature people who “have some growing up to do.”

            But to me, now in my 67th year, and truly all grown up both mentally and physically, it sounds as if it is Bastiat that has “some growing up to do.” And some work on relationships with others who do not share every jot and tittle of your own highly self-esteemed OPINIONS.

            I capitalize opinions because you should learn that your rant is all about your own opinions, your own personal perspective, and does not give anybody any respect for having their own perspectives and opinions. If you are not mentally ill with a condition known as narcissism, you might comprehend that you are WAY out of line claiming your opinion to be “the grown up opinion” by stating that anyone with an opposing opinion has “a lot of growing up to do.”

            Say that to a mirror. Repeatedly. Then come back and apologize, or else kiss up to your own reflection. When you grow up you can come back to CTH without the schoolyard-bullyboy, or jr high-mean-girls-clique attitude you have just displayed.

            We have enough of that sort of thing with trolls and the like.

            Liked by 1 person

            • maiingankwe says:

              KBR,
              “But to me, now in my 67th year, and truly all grown up both mentally and physically,…”

              KBR, I just have to say, I absolutely love you and that line.

              Be well,
              Ma’iingankwe

              Like

            • Bastiat says:

              Apparently your personal perspective is that everyone at CTH that dislikes Rand Paul, even for reasons they feel are valid, are immature people who “have some growing up to do.”

              No, I talked about everyone in the primaries. The attacks on candidates and anyone who still respects other candidates in that race are uncalled for and immature. I see it constantly here.

              And some work on relationships with others who do not share every jot and tittle of your own highly self-esteemed OPINIONS.

              Pointing out that other people are not respecting other people and other people’s opinions is now my problem in relationships? I thought only progressives thought like that?

              Then, you have the gall to claim I am narcissistic whilst berating me for ad hominems (which were nothing but me standing up to myself against a patronizing bully, which you call me a bully for)?

              I honestly don’t know how to help you. You weren’t part of the conversation, but you felt the need to interject with straw men, hypocrisy and ignorance. The good news is, at 67, you still have quite a few years left to work on that.

              Like

              • KBR says:

                Lol, I need no help from you, child.

                You just self-identified as narcissistic, because I said “if you are not then you might comprehend that you are out of line.” You are the one who claimed the title by failing to comprehend why your attack was out of line, I did not lay it on you. Try rereading that particular statement.

                As far as the bully-boy ATTITUDE statement, I also called your ATTITUDE (not you) a jr high-mean-girl-clique attitude. (Wouldn’t want you to miss that part.) You need to learn to read more carefully.

                You need to work out your issues Bastiat. People DO have a right to disagree with you, and to dislike any politician they wish to dislike for their own (sometimes quite sound) reasons.

                Getting others to agree does not start with calling them immature.

                Your calling others immature that you have not even met and whose rights (to believe what you do not believe) you refuse to respect appears very immature, in that you try to “catch flies with vinegar instead of honey.” Old saying, but still clear enough.

                You cannot make arbitrary rules about what is and what is not mature without sounding immature yourself.

                You are angry with me only because you know I am right about your attacks against people who do not see Rand Paul as you see Rand Paul. You cannot convince people to see things your way by insulting them. Try a more mature tack.

                Now, as for me, I care not a whit whether you see any political thing my way or not. In fact for all you know, your posts might just have alienated a Rand Paul fan. Lol.

                You should thank me for good advice, but I won’t expect it from you until you get more mature.

                Keep posting your rants, Bastiat. So others can see it too. It is educational for others to see what such rants can and cannot do.

                Further posts to me however are a waste of time, because I can clearly see that you are a waste of my time and my advice. Like “Pearls before swine,” I suppose.

                Bye now.

                Like

        • simicharmed says:

          Excellent article!!!! Thank you for sharing that. The article was published a few months prior to my discovery of The Last Refuge…

          Like

    • Benson II says:

      Can’t agree. He’s allowed to have his own opinions and judge those he’s voting for accordingly

      Like

      • davidb says:

        He should vote according to his constituents. Too many, if not all, seem to vote according to their personal wants and needs….and as the deep states orders. Over 60% of the nation did NOT want Obamacare, and they ignored us to line their own pockets, control our life, and tax us to death.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Orygun says:

          The problem over the years is trying to figure out who is the constituency. The socialist media has been driving that discussion and it is just recently we have found out that the silent majority does exist.
          The media would have you think it is the most annoying and obnoxious is the constituency. They are the only ones the media gives a voice to.

          Like

    • mariner says:

      It’s up to POTUS to make sure his nominees share his vision.

      It’s up to Senators to either share and support President Trump’s vision, or not.

      Like

    • Roberta says:

      I tried to like this…My immediate thought upon listening to Rand, was “How dare you tell us you want to be certain POTUS nominee is essentially on the same page with PDJT?” POTUS told us that when he nominated the man. Rand learned quickly how to be a politician. Some think that is a strength. Not I.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Hillyard says:

    Rand Paul’s explanation was as pro-Trump as anything I’ve heard in the past 14 months. There was a very solid basis for Paul making Pompeo commit to the President’s ideas for the middle east. Especially that there will not be a military solution in Syria.

    Liked by 23 people

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      I sold Trump to a LOT of people on his stance on the Iraq War. It was one of my absolute most effective arguments with Democrats and Independents. I would tell the tales of Trump running around trying to talk GOP politicians out of folly, and people not listening to him – those Dems and Indies would have voted for Trump RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT.

      We can SEE that Trump feels that way, and has to maneuver away from one neocon TRAP or another almost monthly. Rand sees it, too. I think Rand knows that Trump is being boxed in by various groups of snakes, and that Trump may have to act to get out, but he really doesn’t want any more wars fought based on bad premises and manipulative intelligence. POTUS may have to drop a bomb here or there – some on solid intel, some because he’s being scammed. But I think Rand knows where Trump’s HEART IS, and that Trump is driving, not anybody else.

      Liked by 28 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “has to maneuver away from one neocon TRAP or another almost monthly. Rand sees it, too. ”

        That is what I attribute that action in Syria to. I am sure that our President is having to make some decisions that he is not happy with. However, that is the reality of governing, especially when you have inherited a mess of a government that is infiltrated with Moslem traitors left by the previous administration.

        Liked by 4 people

        • davidb says:

          As in Syria, its obvious that Trump warned all the parties involved and gave them time to evacuate the targets. Even Russia offered to coordinate the targets (probably to intercept the missiles). Trump satisfied the deep state MIC and the little faggot Lynda Grabassgraham with the response. It seems there was not a lot of casualties if any at all. Im sure he will keep his word and eventually replace our troops with the Saudi’s.

          Liked by 2 people

      • cozette says:

        Lol. President Trump is NEVER scammed although the Swamp/Neocons keep trying. Both of his Syria strikes were deliciously amusing trolls and FUs to the bastards despite what the low info schreechers believe happened. Sadly, they just missed out on the fun because they’re so easily triggered.

        Liked by 8 people

        • Sentient says:

          Israel has made multiple strikes in Syria. They may try to draw us into a war they, so the president will have to be ready to tell them “no”.

          Liked by 1 person

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            Yes – this is where I think we need to be firm on America’s stance and strategy. Syria is in many ways a DISTRACTION from Iran, and Iran knows this. As long as we’re focused on the proxy, we can’t focus on Iran. Israel is too close to see that, IMO – at least, THEIR version of the neocons, who believe in the stupid of another Iraq being a winning move – even for Israel. Iran manipulates the controlled opposition with Russian help to keep the focus on Syria, so we never get to Iran, buying them time. People like McMaster are correct at the same time – impossible to deal with Iran from a half-azzed stance – don’t fall for that, either. But that keeps Iran a conundrum – Iran wins. I really feel like TRUMP is the person with the best handle on how to mix short and long-term strategies to win.

            One of the things that shows just how much of a toxic tangle Syria is – and how Iran is likely pulling big strings in it – is the fact that it’s almost impossible for US to tell the intention of Israel’s strikes, in particular versus everybody’s Iranian strategy. Three MORE of the top theories (besides a simple draw-in) of the most recent strikes all seem plausible, and I cannot settle on any of them. (1) Israel struck to protect the fakery of the White Helmets garbage, which many thought immediately (for whatever reason, including both drawing us in or throwing disinfo to help Trump), (2) Israel struck to take ADVANTAGE of the confusion to strike Iranian actors and assets – my favorite, and (3) it’s proxy kabuki to make it LOOK like Israel wants us in Syria, so Iran keeps thinking whatever it’s thinking.

            Obviously a mess – JUST LIKE IRAQ WAS when Iran blind-sided us there, with a GOOD STRATEGY to make us regret going into Iraq. Bottom line – don’t add a Syrian version of the Iraq campaign to that mess, or IRAN WINS AGAIN.

            Neocons want the simple solution – Trump knows war is the last resort of the incompetent, and is one of the few who has the competence to deal with the situation.

            Throw into this whole mess the Achilles heel of the neocons – the HUBRIS of their certainty that we have some kind of automatic superiority and control of the more subversive and wily elements of BOTH Sunni and Shia Islam – that these are not DIRECT THREATS to the United States – both abroad AND on our home turf. They turn up their noses at the Awan brothers and the like, thinking “don’t worry about such things – we have this”. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The BAD side of Islam – not only violent but INFILTRATING, MANIPULATIVE, NON-VIOLENT, but 100% TOXIC to freedom – is SCORING BIG.

            There is only one kind of Muslim that’s really safe for American citizenship – AMERICA FIRST on issues of state. Christians and Jews of a different time and outlook built that state – one that has PURPOSE of religiously agreed secularity to protect religious freedom for all. If people come here and don’t buy into that and work to protect it – big trouble. Religious freedom is very important, but perhaps more important is the how and why, so people can see that Muslim immigration was classically RESTRICTED FOR A REASON.

            Liked by 2 people

      • Ditch Mitch says:

        Wolfie, spot on about Rand. He may have had hurt feelings after the primaries, and may be pompous (higher moral standards by appearing independent). However, Rand has been spied upon over the years, been attacked by a left wing wacko neighbor (leaves my a$$).

        Liked by 6 people

        • mopar2016 says:

          I don’t buy Rand’s excuse for changing his mind.
          But I think it’s a very good excuse to use.
          This looks like posturing and strategy to me.
          Nothing wrong with that.

          Liked by 4 people

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            I thought the same thing, though I think from the intensity of the discussions that SOMETHING was negotiated. I was surprised that Rand pulled those particular points of disagreement out of the bag, when I had suspected OTHER things first.

            So I’m agreeing with you, and going with strategy – something that Trump, Pompeo, and Rand all now feel comfortable about, let Rand feel like he could give Pompeo a chance to be good on his word.

            Liked by 3 people

      • Jim in TN says:

        Does anybody have a handle on why our adversaries ramp up their activities immediately after we say we are going to leave but before we leave?

        To gain an edge over anybody who waits until we are gone?
        To make it look like they caused us to leave?
        To give us a black eye?
        To try and make us stay?
        Do they just not believe us?

        I just can’t help wondering why Assad wouldn’t just stay under Putin’s protection and not use any WMD when the USA wants to leave? Once we are out, it is much harder to re-engage, And a big loss of face if we do. Why not be good until we are out of their country, then return to their crimes?

        A similar thing happened in Iraq under Obama. The terrorists ramped up their terror the moment he said he was going to pull out. And Saddam kept up an elaborate illusion that he had WMD. Enough so that he fooled both his people and the world’s intelligence agencies. Bad mistake on his part.

        Anyways, we need to get out from under our own logic and learn how these scum think so that we can predict their choices.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Toenail says:

          I am not sure which “scum” you are referencing but I believe some of those scum might be in those “world intelligence agencies”. If the agencies were so easily fooled maybe we should label them “world unintelligent agencies”.

          Liked by 1 person

      • maga2004 says:

        Wolfmoon1776, I just don’t understand Paul’s mindset to vote against Trump’s nominee in committee. If Pompeo is good enough for Trump, why was he not good enough for Rand Paul? You say he supports Trump; l would say supporting his nominees would be a part of that.

        Liked by 2 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          This is explained by the complexity of the Trump base. I know this sounds very counter-intuitive, but Rand actually HELPED Trump while appearing to be oppositional. This is TOTAL Art of the Deal.

          Rand actually believes what he believes, and represents a STRONG and CRITICAL part of the Trump base that is very non-swamp, but which the establishment prefers to keep out, and keep away from Trump, because it’s easier to ignore them. This DESPITE the fact that they’re needed BIGLY in 2018. That part of the base gains no representation or even just admission to the adult table without Rand demonstrating and USING its power. Blind support for Trump feeds Establishment plans, including those who would prefer to LOSE THE HOUSE, and actually creates a WEAKNESS in the coalition.

          But TRUMP can use all the help he can get to STRENGTHEN him with that part of the base, against smug swampers who keep it at arm’s length. Now Trump can point to the Rand base and say “Look – they did us a HUGE favor – let’s not blow this, guys – we need them to win in 2018 – don’t lose them.”

          In an odd way, Rand Paul dropped the bomb on NANCY PELOSI, not Trump. Even there, the Dems pick up scraps on their less devious STATED agenda by Trump gaining traction to stay out of wars. If the Dems were actually HONEST and not just oppositional, they would admit that Rand helped them, too.

          This is explained by conspiracy theory (the science, not the abusive accusation). Trump, Pompeo, and Rand Paul all need something, and they can all win bigger by doing it this way, whether they verbalize the conspiracy in any way or not. Even the Dem who let Pompeo happen got something out of it – we may never know exactly what that was.

          Trump’s anti-war base needed to assert itself, Trump needed them to assert themselves, and even Pompeo benefits in less obvious ways from them asserting themselves (gotta love Pompeo). WIN-WIN-WIN. Trump is the MASTER of this stuff!!!

          Liked by 6 people

      • Orygun says:

        Thanks Wolf! As Trump tiptoes through all the flak you can see him freeing one country after another from the cabal. He is trying his best to play this just right so they don’t do something really ugly.
        Too many people are chasing the shiny object when Trump is just maneuvering for position.

        Liked by 5 people

      • tampa2 says:

        Wolf: I believe there was more to the “multiple conversations with the President” than ME wars. Consider this possible brilliant strategy posted on another thread by “Hmmmm”… Pompeo serves as CIA Director. As such, he undoubtedly knows who the CIA moles are in the State Department. If confirmed as Secretary of State, these “Deep State” CIA operatives will be summarily removed from the State Department. I’m certain Pompeo unceremoniously dismissed quite a few of these types from the CIA, too.

        Liked by 1 person

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          I agree. There HAS to be more.

          There are THOUSANDS of reasons for Pompeo to go to State – what you’re talking about is definitely in the top, top tier. If there are rogues and moles in State, then sending in a tunnel rat may indeed be what needs to be done. I don’t know if such things could even be HINTED at to Rand – thus making sense of the PHYSICAL moving of Pompeo to State. Trump could probably at most give Rand assurances that part of Pompeo’s mission is to “deswamp State”, but I doubt he could be specific beyond larger assurances.

          But yes – there may be some interesting departures from State. They won’t be the innocent Hillary girls allegedly crying in their cars. They will be the key origins of trouble who got the innocent Hillary girls to cry in their cars, and made sure the media got that story.

          Liked by 3 people

      • tonyE says:

        To win a war, sometimes you have to walk away from battles.

        Marshall your resources and come back to fight another day.

        I’m no president, but I’ve been married for a looooong time. Same thing really, you don’t always have to be right. Just let the other person “be right” and then when it’s really important, then you can come in strong and get your way.

        Liked by 1 person

    • filia.aurea says:

      Deploying the U.S. military to placate and enrich the evil ones amongst us will not be of benefit to the American people. I applaud Rand Paul for his choice to support our President.

      Liked by 9 people

  3. citizen817 says:

    White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short predicted on MSNBC on Monday that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would change his mind to supporting Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo.

    “I think it’s incredibly hard for Senator Paul to go back to Kentucky and say that he voted for John Kerry to be secretary of state but wouldn’t vote for Mike Pompeo to be secretary of state,” Short said.

    Liked by 21 people

  4. citizen817 says:

    From September 2015:

    Liked by 2 people

  5. trapper says:

    Rand is a politician, and milked this for a little camera time for himself and sound bites for his campaigns. No problem. That’s the game. Gotta spread it around and give everyone a taste in order to get things done.

    Liked by 8 people

    • I agree. Did you notice how hard his dad whined and whined about the Syria incidents?

      Liked by 1 person

      • filia.aurea says:

        The Syrian bombings were whine-worthy. “Incidents”, gmab.

        Like

        • cozette says:

          If you think the Syrian bombings were whine worthy then you werent understanding what was going on. On the other hand, as President Trump intended, the whining FINALLY elevated the term false flag into public consciousness and made it mainstream to question the public narrative, at least when it comes to gas attacks in Syria. This should make it very, very hard for McCains buddies to pull off another stunt like that when Trump really does intend to pull out of Syria. God they are STUPID. They don’t have a chance going up against our Art of War devotee and VSG.

          Liked by 6 people

          • Ditch Mitch says:

            Not to mention the bombing had very few if any casualties which meant the MSM dropped the story aftre the could not find any women or children casualties.

            The mission was to eliminate the gas so nobody could use it. PDJT just played along with the narrative.

            Liked by 3 people

            • SW Richmond says:

              The “Syria Gas Attack” narrative has fallen apart almost as completely as the “Russia Collusion” narrative.

              The lives of American servicemen and servicewomen are the most precious resource we have to use in defending American liberty. They are to be put at risk and “expended” only in the most dire circumstances. When one accepts the “American national interests” standard for military action, we wind up with what we have now: a globally deployed military acting as world policeman, and more reprehensibly we come to view our military members as pawns to be pushed around on a board. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia come immediately to mind.

              Our military are not pawns, they are not police, and they are not “nation builders’, they are a sledgehammer to be used as a last resort.

              Liked by 4 people

              • From 2014: “Is there any doubt that the United States of America is the military arm of the New World Order (NWO), as it has been since World War I?

                Just as the City of London has functioned as the world headquarters for the financial arm of the NWO, and Vatican City has functioned as the religious headquarters for the NWO, Washington, DC has functioned as the military headquarters for the NWO.”

                http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=6115

                Liked by 1 person

            • Jim in TN says:

              Minor correction. We did not try to eliminate all the gas. We felt some storage was likely to cause casualties if destroyed. (Review the military briefings if you want to double check this.)

              We did try to setback their gas program, including eliminating some gas. And we succeeded in not causing deaths.

              There is some question about whether it is possible to eliminate production via aerial bombing campaigns.

              Airfields get quickly rebuilt after bombing. Planes can be destroyed on the ground, but pilots can just hop in the next plane Syria buys.

              For all the factories we destroyed in Germany, the production was kept up. Both Japan and Germany moved essential production into caves. The costly raid on the Ploesti oil facilities didn’t have a significant effect because we only took out half the production capability and the plants were only at half capacity.

              Some feel that the major contribution of our air campaigns was to keep heavy artillery and air planes off of the Russian front, in the same way that the Italian campaign kept troops off of the Russian front. We also did a great job of attritioning the enemy air forces. Hardly any German air force was able to help defend on D-Day but it wasn’t permanently eliminated. And you don’t need a skilled pilot to fly a bomb into a ship, and only slightly more skill to fly one into a bomber.

              Technology is improving our abilities. We can find and close down openings to caves and other underground facilities. We are so good in the air that the Iraqis fled, flying their planes out of country, and we took out their command and control structure.

              But people are resilient, resourceful and determined. They adapt their strategies to circumstances and keep fighting as long as possible. Air campaigns allow them to do so.

              Like

          • filia.aurea says:

            You are entitled to your opinion, which is misguided in the minds of many avid Trump supporters, including myself. Don’t kid yourself about Netanyahu, Houses of Saud & Windsor, mini-Rothschild & EU proponent Macron or Erdogan’s ability to pull more fake flags. Talk is cheap, but bombs rained on a sovereign country without proof or provocation is unconstitutional. POTUS could have “covered his downside” in a number of alternative ways. Not “looking like” Obama shouldn’t have entered into the equation. The possibility of human error is always present, and not all the Generals & Admirals support our President, because war is their MIC masters’ life blood, obeying buys them a sack of gold at retirement. I trust my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not any man or representation of man/men by using the letter Q. Why do you call the assault on Syria an “incident”? How would you like over 100 “incidents” raining above your head? Repeating a Q idiosyncrasy was unnecessary – but from it I will assume you’re a Qcultist. Your right, of course. I will end with this advice from the Art of War: ‘He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.’ It’s important to properly assess your opponent without prejudice or assumption. Clearly, our opinions differ significantly.

            Like

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      It’s good drama. This is kabuki I can actually stand – especially when everybody gets their part right, and it all has real meaning. Rand just helped Trump shore up his base with a part that the left has been DESPERATELY trying to wedge off. They BOTH did each other a big favor.

      Liked by 18 people

      • dgc says:

        Could be. But I think that Sen. Paul realized that he overplayed his hand one time to many, especially if you consider he had no problems voting for Kerry for Secretary of State under the last President. Let’s also not forget that he has caused a large number of problems for President Trump and his agenda by always publically announcing his opposition to critical legislation, even to the point of causing it to fail to pass, e.g., repeal of Obamacare. At some point you have to show you support this President if you are as serious as he is with addressing the problems this nation is facing. Rigid and doctrinaire philosophies, no matter how appealing in theory, don’t work when you have to come up with real and achievable solutions. They only serve to buttress those who want the President to fail.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Tom F says:

          Nice thing about CTH……….both your (Wolf & dgc) points of view are valid.
          Been here a while now and it gets better and better.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Apollo says:

            I hope this remains true! I’ve seen an awful lot of “enforcer” type behavior in the comments, especially when opinions differ on people like Rand Paul, Sessions, Rosenstein, etc.

            It’s a shame and doesn’t contribute to the discourse. We are all here to #MAGA and the discussion about how, and whom, does it is worthwhile.

            Liked by 2 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          Yes – Rand has to steer very carefully. I think he did come dangerously close to not just overplaying, but backing himself into a corner. Still, I’m glad he raised the issues – it’s helpful in the long run for Trump, IMO.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Moondance says:

      Paul, Graham, McCain also deserve the moniker “Liveshot” that John Liveshot Kerry adorns. So much camera time, so many words….so little accomplished.

      Like

  6. LoL, Campaigner Trump did fight hard, and hard enough to beat every ‘republican’ that they can throw at him.

    Liked by 10 people

    • filia.aurea says:

      President Trump knows all about working hard, and his accomplishments (against all odds) prove it.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Ditch Mitch says:

      Showed Campaigner Trump was the ONLY one that could beat HRC. The others would have bowed to everything Queen Killery threw at them. And just imagine how they would have caved to bad policies like they do in Congress every day. Maybe even complicit in.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ken says:

        Agreed. The rest Rand included would’ve Rick Lazioed their way out of the presidency.

        Like

      • Benson II says:

        Not one of them could have accomplished even a quarter of what Trump has accomplished in just a little over a year even if they been inclined to. They didn’t have the know how or guts to do it In fact there’s no one else who does. Makes me fear for the future because there is no Trump II.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ditch Mitch says:

          Absolutly Benson! PDJT is “there” by Divine Providence. The Divine is infinite so there will be more when needed.

          I remember wondering who would come after eight years of Reagan. Took 28 years and then we got Trump!

          MAGA!

          Like

  7. more deplore says:

    I know Rand Paul tries hard to hold to his values, but damnit these are dark days and Trump needs Rands support and he needs his vote. I believe Rand is a good friend to Trump. And he did not let Trump down. Right now there is a war between republicans and dimms.. But it is really a war between Trump and the dimms. And Rand (and all the other republicans) just need to support Trump no matter what cause he is the President of this nation.

    Liked by 4 people

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      Agreed. But the nice thing here is that by playing hard-to-get and extracting concessions to his own wing of the GOP and independents, Rand just helped Trump solidify the base. Trump really elicits smart play from those around him – except of course for No Name and a few of his Flakey buds.

      Liked by 6 people

      • filia.aurea says:

        Not forgetting Mr. parliamentary McConnell. He being the ‘leading’ source of many issues the President has to overcome. Sick and tired of parliamentary games and hand-picked committees. 51 votes in all but constitutionally decreed circumstances is a majority.

        Liked by 5 people

        • thesavvyinvester says:

          Bingo Filia. It is time for a soup to nuts overhaul of all Senatorial procedures to bring it in line with best practices found in the business world. Their is it faster cheaper quicker ( yes pick two 🙂 ) or your competitors will eat your lunch. Their is no Deming, Kaizen, Taguchi in any of their procedures, we deserve way better than this…

          Liked by 1 person

          • filia.aurea says:

            Absolutely agree. The Congress uses their procedural processes as a shield, which consumes 80% of their available time. The Leaders of both the House and Senate have lost sight of what they’re meant to be producing.

            Like

        • abstain says:

          The way the Senate runs itself is a nightmare.
          The House too.
          The internal procedures of both houses needs to be streamlined, and not just to facilitate the passing of burdensome legislation.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Benson II says:

            Streamlining only works if what they’re doing is for our good. Slow going is to our benefit even if it is frustrating when the good takes so long to accomplish.

            Like

          • filia.aurea says:

            Absolutely agree. The Senate leader uses parliamentary procedures as an excuse to achieve nothing.

            Like

    • farmhand1927 says:

      “But it really is a war between Trump and the dimms.”

      There is, indeed, a war, ‘more deplore’, but IMHO it’s not just President Trump against the communists, its ALL of us against them.

      They direct their hate, sedition and obstruction against the President, but it’s the 60+ million of us they truly hate. He takes the hell fire that they really want to direct at us. They think if they fill the news wires 24/7/365 with examples of their rabid hatred, eventually they’ll bring us to heel and we’ll denounce this Administration, board up our churches, tear down our American flags and quietly submit.

      They don’t know us at all, do they?

      Liked by 5 people

    • sat0422 says:

      Translation: RINOs are good-for-nothing because their character is flawed. Dems stick together through thick and thin and don’t criticize each other openly.
      RINOs are nothing but self serving show boats and don’t show loyalty to the Republican camp and would not last long in the Dem camp either.

      Like

  8. grlangworth says:

    This is good news: for my money, Pompeo is a head-and-shoulders improvement over Mr. Tillerson who was simply too corporately global by half.

    Liked by 3 people

    • trapper says:

      Each has/had their own job to do. Trex provided the secret word and handshake to open the door to the Saudi kingdom and get Trump into the sword dance. He also provided the “who sent you” introductions around the world that now has Trump as BFF with Xi, King Saud, MBS, Macron, Moon, Abe, Modi, Bibi, and so on. Now it is on to the next phase. Trex was great. Pompeo will also be great. I have every confidence.

      Liked by 12 people

      • pyromancer76 says:

        It’s great to give credit where credit is due. Trex provided some gravitas and entree just where our President needed it at the time. I have a hard time crediting Rand Paul with anything, but commenters have persuaded me.

        Liked by 4 people

      • filia.aurea says:

        Unfortunately, Mr. Tillerson allowed Condy Rice to run the Department of State.

        Like

        • Tom F says:

          Another circular firing squad?
          Who opened the door for President Trump’s energy independence and gas/oil/coal sales around the world?
          The ‘economy’ had to be first.
          Mr. Tillerson did his job. Next.
          Hello Mr. Pompeo. Please drain this sewer.

          Liked by 6 people

  9. citizen817 says:

    Trump expressed confidence in Paul’s support for Pompeo April 18 when he said Paul had “never let [him] down.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/23/rand-paul-mike-pompeo-trump-assurances/

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Anonymous says:

    Iraq was a big mistake. We didn’t find WMDs there and we embarrassed ourselves with the UN, claiming they were there. Screwed the country up and started a war for no good reason. We can’t be the World’s policeman. There were a lot of “vote for anything with an R on it” conservatives making a big deal out of supporting Bush and the failed war. But Rand Paul and before him Ron Paul had huge support from American servicemen. (P.s. Done my time. Active during the first Gulf and deployed. Reserves and not called up second. Ready to go still. But we should go for good reasons. Not mistakes.)

    Liked by 5 people

    • lurker99 says:

      Not sure if the UN’s record is free from embarrassment in terms of American values though…

      Like

      • Rhoda R says:

        The Brits and French were also claiming WMDs in Iraq as well. Don’t forget that Russian convoy from Iraq into Syria that was rumored to be carrying the bulk of Hussain’s WMDs.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Rhoda R says:

          Actually, now that I’m casting my mind to back then, weren’t the WMDs only one of eight reasons given for our invasion? I seem to remember something about Hussian giving support to terrorists and even training grounds, including fuselages from passenger a/c. Weren’t there also worries that he was working on nuclear stuff as well.

          Liked by 2 people

  11. Pyrthroes says:

    Days back, Sundance made the usual prescient observation: Having unanimously confirmed Pompeo for CIA Director, anti-Semitic Deep State embeds and their Mueller-tainted Congressional allies work to avert a pro-Israeli State Department head with personal knowledge of the Brennan-Clapper-Comey axis’ machinations to sabotage American policy vis-a-vis Iran.

    Who knows… but this does bear on Trump’s recent reconnaissance-in-force against Assad, as well as on Putin’s naval presence in the English Channel plus evacuation of Russian students from Great Britain, deferring their advanced degrees at least a year. In context of possible Iran hostilities, blocking the extraordinarily well-qualified Mike Pompeo deflects American institutional support of Israel to Teheran’s geopolitical advantage.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cozette says:

      Now that NK is a done deal except for the political theater and photo ops Trump has moved on to Iran. Low infos will schreech about war just as they did over NK. Some with glee, others in a panic. Ultimately Iran will be handled just as NK was. Without the war Neocons crave. Boo hoo. And we will wind up aligned with Russia. Finally.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sentient says:

        Hope you’re right, but there are those in Israel who won’t rest until they can goad the US into war with Iran. The ‘ol “let’s you and him fight” approach.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Sneaky Pete says:

    A good example of why the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. Each Senator is a country unto himself. In this case, Paul channels McCain. Get in the middle of something, anything, get on TV, and publicize your brand.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “why the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.”

      That was anther construct of the international bankers to weaken the checks and balances put in place by the founders. The Federal Reserve and the federal income tax were other banker’s schemes to further their dream of controlling the entire world.

      Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

      Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sneaky Pete says:

        I’m serious. Trump has really inspired me to do the “impossible.” I think we ought to work to repeal the 17th! If things like gay marriage and legalized marijuana can go from being considered lunatic impossibilities to the law of the land, I don’t think repeal of the 17th is out of the question. One thing I’ll give leftists, they think much bigger than we do. We conservatives, in the process of “conserving” and careful deliberation before making sweeping change, may have lost a bit of daring when it comes to actually making change!

        Liked by 4 people

  13. There are multiple reasons why Paul should have voted yes.
    One of the biggest is that Trump has been proven right to many times to vote against him.
    I understand his single concern. But if you don’t understand what President Trump stands for by now on certain issues, then you’re just not paying attention.

    I firmly believe it’s more than past time to give this POTUS the tools he needs to get his job done.
    The hypocrite Democrats have been playing games with the peoples business long enough.
    The never Trump crowd needs to get in line and back this President.
    It’s long past time for Congress to put on their ” big boy pants” and do the job they were elected to do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cozette says:

      You do know Rand voted yes, correct? Rand played this perfectly from a political stand point. By being a last minute hold out he got all of the attention focused on him with tons of media coverage. This was red meat for his fans and footage for future campaigns. The suspense created great theater and finally it allowed him to get media coverage to explain why he decided to support POTUS after all. Rand did an AMAZING job of using that opportunity to shore up Trumps bono fides with the anti war/anti interventionist segment of Trumps base that had been shaken by the strike in Syria. (Wrongly I might add.) Well played Rand. Well played VSG POTUS.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Moondance says:

        Does a Rand Paul vote ever not include drama and public soul searching?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Yes.
        Just think there should have never be a question about how he was going to vote.

        And yes again it was all drama for his fans.
        But the same thing could have been accomplished by talking more about his yes vote from the beginning and the reasons why.
        It’s time to support the President. Get his people in place and his picks.

        Lets just say I believe he could have said this all week. And gave the President a weeks worth of good press.

        Like

      • Apollo says:

        In many ways it’s similar to techniques Trump himself has used to troll the media for maximum #MAGA attention.

        Like

  14. tdaly14 says:

    Rand tweeted yesterday, he talked with President Trump several times and met with Mike Pompeo. I’m glad he did. Don’t agree with Rand on everything, but at least he has the fortitude to discuss policy without the backstabbing comments that the others do to our President. President Trump actually appreciates that and doesn’t expect agreement on all issues.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. MIKE says:

    By cracky, I think Senator Paul is beginning to see the wisdom of the TRUMP DOCTRINE, where some of his views naturally overlapped. I’m with him when he says “bring our troops home’, but stunned at his lack of interest in the WAR WITHIN THE STATES, especially as he stood probably less than 90 feet away from Rep. Steve Scalise as he took those SKS rounds to the leg and abdomen. That should have shaken him to his core, as well as the kerfuffle with his uber-tolerant neighbor. Welcome to the party, pal!

    Liked by 2 people

  16. L. E. Joiner says:

    Re Iraq, I don’t agree with the President or Rand Paul: The Iraq occupation was mishandled, leading to the consequences we all know (ISIS, Iraq becoming a satellite of Iran, etc.), but the war was inevitable and necessary. We were unable to keep Saddam bottled up with sanctions and no-flight rules; he was shooting at our planes, and harboring nuclear ambitions. It was just a continuation of the earlier war to liberate Kuwait, which General Powell stopped at the gates of Baghdad, letting Saddam survive. That was the mistake that led to the 2003 invasion.

    However, I am delighted that Senator Paul is vocally supporting President Trump. It is too bad all of his 16 primary opponents can’t get together and, even at this late date, declare their support for the President and his policies (yes, that means you, Jeb! and you, Marco!).

    We can all agree on ‘no more wars’, but we must adhere to Ronald Reagan’s dictum: Peace Through Strength. Fortunately, Mr Trump does.

    /LEJ

    Liked by 1 person

    • Orygun says:

      The same group that hid the murder of JFK are the ones that gave us all the reasons we should have a war with Saddam. At the time, I thought it was the only rational thing to do which shows you have effective the media collusion had become.

      Most of the reasons for the Iraq war have been debunked. The Kuwaiti incubator story told from a poor Kuwaiti girl who we find out later is a daughter of a diplomat. Much of what we thought was news is turning out to be theater and not very good theater at that.

      We ended up creating a refugee crisis they needed to flood the EU with Muslims and terrorists. All of this helps to create a police state in order to protect the citizens from the threat they just created by importing refugees that refuse to assimilate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • L. E. Joiner says:

        Saddam was selling oil under the table; even the Europeans were openly defying the sanctions. He sent nuclear inspectors packing. He was harboring terrorists. He was brutalizing everyone who wasn’t Sunni Arab. He was developing chemical and biologcal weapos. He was becoming a threat to Israel. The war that Colin Powell had interrupted had to be finished. You don’t need a conspiracy to justify it. /LEJ

        Like

  17. Bob-o-link says:

    Rand Paul reads great source material. It should be on everyone’s MUST READ list. That said, he cannot undermine himself through grandstanding, because he makes people think what he does he gets from what he reads! He doesn’t! If he could get off his Maverick kick, and become a Missionary for what he reads, converting instead of bashing, the Senate would slowly become a better place, and all of DC would become a better place. What Rand Paul reads is geared towards the smallest government feasible. It is a winning argument, and it needs more people who think that way. But, Rand Paul is simply a contrarian, and that’s no good!

    Like

  18. treehouseron says:

    I dunno, I think this is how politics is supposed to work. He had a problem with Pompeo, President Trump told him that’s not really a problem because I’m Pompeo’s boss and he does what I tell him to do, Rand changed his mind.

    We need more politicians willing to change their mind if the evidence bears out it deserves it.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Everett Miller says:

    Rand Paul is principled–when you compare him to Chuck, Nancy, or Paul Ryan; but, beyond that his peacock posturing seems pretty transparent to me. He wanted to get his name in the news, just like most politicians, and milk a situation to the maximum extent possible. Fortunately, he is also somewhat pragmatic and caved to logic and the VSGDJT. Unfortunately, he helped cast unneeded and unproductive shadows over a great man, Mike Pompeo, who is on the side of Justice and the Rule of Law. There is never a good excuse for giving the Lefties any talking points. Never. What a shame this politician is so blinded by “principles” that he can’t see bigger principles.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Mike diamond says:

    Chuck the schummmmerrrr, and the demo- rats, need to stop acting like spoiled brats and approve President Trump appointments!!!!!

    Like

  21. John Rawls says:

    yet, trump has increased troop numbers in afghanistan, so what’s the deal there? seems like it would have been a good question to ask.

    Like

  22. All American Snowflake says:

    Rand Paul’s change in support for Mike Pompeo just goes to prove that VSGPTDJT knows how to persuade. Proud of that, I am.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s