John Kerry Makes Rand Paul Look Foolish And Naive!

Secretary of State John Kerry “cleaned the clock” of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul in yesterday’s hearing on Syria in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggesting that Paul attend secret briefings and become “informed” about the Syrian matter, rather than spout isolationist propaganda.

Anyone watching had to be impressed by Kerry, and appalled by the ignorance and pure stupidity of Rand Paul, who has this vision of being our President!

The fact is that Rand Paul would face vehement opposition within the GOP if he runs for President, and if he, somehow, became the nominee, with his bankrupt libertarian ideology, he would lose in a massive landslide, which might actually be the only way to wipe out of national politics the delusional, crazy ideas not only of Rand Paul, but also of the “godmother” or libertarianism, Ayn Rand, who is also “loved” by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate in 2012.

13 comments on “John Kerry Makes Rand Paul Look Foolish And Naive!

  1. Jane Doe September 4, 2013 10:54 am

    I second that!

  2. Eugene September 4, 2013 1:27 pm

    I always find it amazing how the left disdains the Founding Father. Paul was only citing Madison and the Federalist Papers.Yet that seems ridiculous to the left. So according to the new Obama/Kerry doctrine, evern when the threat to national security is not imminent the President has the authority to attack.
    Even Alan Grayson, with whom I hardly ever agree, pushed back when an MSNBC “reporter” tried to push the official narrative. On a side note, it’s embarrasing how some in the press bend over backwards to defend Obama. It’s amazing how this host tries everything to get him to support Obama! LOL!

  3. Rustbelt Democrat September 4, 2013 1:55 pm

    As a humanitarian hawk, I disagree completely with Rand Paul’s isolationist agenda.

  4. Ronald September 4, 2013 3:40 pm

    I agree with you, Rustbelt Democrat, but again do NOT like the word “hawk”! LOL

  5. Jane Doe September 5, 2013 9:15 am

    This is why I’m so frustrated with some of the political pundits on TV:
    The thing is what Obama is suggesting isn’t a war. I think that it is an over generalization to suggest that Obama is suggesting war. Obama is suggesting something more in line with what Clinton did in Bosnia. The problem is that our country can’t see the distinction because of lies Bush told that got us into a real war in Iraq.

  6. Ronald September 5, 2013 9:31 am

    Jane Doe, I am in ABSOLUTE agreement with you, that this is more like Bosnia or Kosovo, NOT Iraq! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, are haunting us every day in more ways than just foreign policy! What a difference it would have been if Al Gore and or John Kerry had been our President in the first years of the 21st century, and we are paying the price for what happened, and will for a long time, regrettably!

  7. Eugene September 5, 2013 7:02 pm

    I see it’s Bush’s fault again. This is like a broken record. Anyway, I hope people realize that it is very arrogant to think we could initiate hostilities and somehow conclude we can control the chain of events that could follow afterwards. What will we do if Syria retaliates against Israel? What would we do if Russia defends its ally and shots down one of our Tomahawks? What if Iran retaliates against Israel? The chain of events that may follow can get out of control. Sria already called for its allies to commit to the pact. Iran said it would defend Syria. Then what? Unless this is all done with the clear objective of getting Iran to move in so that then we and Israel can finally have the legal excuse to once and for all take down Iran’s nuclear capabilities, I really don’t see the logic behind this Syrian adventure. I hope that if this goes forward it is because of Iran, and Syria’s chemical weapons is just the perfect “legal” excuse. This would be the logical explanation. After all we have been in an undeclared war with Iran since they took the embassy back in the Carter years and Iran is less than a year away from the bomb. But to risk the unraveling of certain chain of events that we cannot control over 1000 victims of sarin gas, of which we still have no hard evidence that it was the responsibility of the Assad regime and when over 97,000 have already died in the last year, is insane. Unless the real objective is Iran.

  8. Ronald September 5, 2013 7:09 pm

    Eugene, I would say that Iran is the center of all this, but with still some hope that with the new “moderate” President, that playing tough might move Iran forward on the nuclear issue. I am glad to see you have stopped name calling as on the other entry, and are talking legitimate points, and I hope you will continue that way in the future!

  9. Jane Doe September 5, 2013 7:56 pm

    I am becoming so conflicted over this. I just heard on TV that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution passed last night. In an attempt to appease John McCain, the resolution includes a regime change provision. What ever happened to just striking at chemical weapons capacity?

    And this comes as Syrian rebels engage in horrendous human rights abuses, as a recently smuggled out video demonstrates.

    Those are not exactly the kind of people you want in charge nor the kind that wouldn’t use chemical weapons themselves.

  10. Ronald September 5, 2013 8:04 pm

    Jane Doe, I am not happy over this situation either, but I still contend the use of chemical weapons, with indications becoming stronger that Assad used it, require a response, as to do otherwise would mean we are endorsing the breaking of the 1925 international treaty. But we must not back forces that are anti Western and anti democratic!

  11. dave martin September 6, 2013 2:39 pm

    As one who has seen way too much of Kerry over his less than impressive puplic life, the word nausea best discribes my feelings when I hear his haughty voice.

  12. Ronald September 6, 2013 3:13 pm

    And Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush do not nauseate you? You must have envy of a smart individual who has real principles! And what was impressive about W in his public life, that he had a smart dad who had a wild kid who should never have been Governor, let alone President?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.