What’s one thing that Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul all agree on? That we all live in The States? Nope, this time, it’s an actual solid issue: Saying ‘no’ to the Iran hawks and, yes, to diplomacy.
There’s been a lot of tension regarding the Iran sanctions and, rightfully so, the words “nuclear” and “weapons” don’t exactly bring up visions of bright futures. (True, nuclear war can be ‘bright’ too but I can’t guarantee you’ll see anything after that first hit.) We finally have Iran at the table talking but members of Congress have been pushing for a tighter collar, even though it could jeopardize our current agreement with Iran.
Traditionally a hawk, Hillary has ‘no illusions about Iran’ but for now she’s joining with Paul in the push for diplomacy first:
“…we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed, while keeping all options on the table,” she wrote in a response to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
It’s not everyday one can say that Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul are standing side-by-side on something. We all know he’s critical of her politics. Heck, just mention Benghazi and who doesn’t look at her critically? And we’re not even going to touch that so-called ‘War on the Clintons.’ Just one note on that though, if someone brings up serial killers, then you’re probably going to mention serial killers when you respond. You don’t really think Paul randomly decided one day when the sky was particularly blue that he was going to bring up the Lewinsky scandal, do you? Go back to the original interview. Someone in the newsroom was already gunning for a controversial soundbite.
Ahem. Back to Iran… Unlike Hillary, Paul voiced his concerns back in November about the Iran hawks potentially breaking the current Iran deal. It’s one of those topics where Paul stands out from the rest of the GOP. He’s one of the rare Republicans, possibly one of only two, that doesn’t support more sanctions, well, not during negotiations anyways. As he puts it, it’s a lot like sticking your finger in someone’s eyes when you’re trying to trade baseball cards with them. What’s going to happen? It’s not hard to guess.
However, don’t think he’s soft on Iran. He’ll vote for more sanctions if Iran doesn’t keep their end of the bargain up.
On the other hand, if he could change one thing, it would be the following:
“However, the one thing I would have done differently than the president,” Paul told Wolf Blitzer on CNN, “is I would have delayed the release of sanctions until after we had compliance. So, I would have had at least several months’ delay where we can see that we’re getting compliance…”
Would that have work with the Iranians? It’s a question Wolf brings up, but there’s no way to know for sure now.
The sanctions bill might be ‘on ice’ at the moment, according to HuffPost, but all that means is that it’s been stalled. The Iran hardliners are waiting for once, maybe it’s the threat of a Presidential veto, maybe it’s Hillary Clinton speaking up, but who knows how long the Iran hawks will stay quiet?
Where do you stand? Are you with Paul on this one? What about that whole “War on the Clintons” mess? If you’ve seen the original interview, don’t you think they were baiting Paul? Let us know in the comments below or on Facebook.
Finally someone on Capital
Hill is willing to speak out and
stand firm for our personal
freedoms, our God-given
rights and all man's equality.
Here you can keep up with the
latest insights and events in
Paul World, helping our hero
restore the Constitution...
and take our country back!