Subject: [big campaign] Rand Paul: Deport terrorists to Afghanistan
From: Adam Blickstein <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:36:08 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Fyi...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/rand_paul_deport_terrorists_to.html
Rand Paul: Deport terrorists to Afghanistan

Forget the Civil Rights Act. What about Rand Paul's<http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Rand_Paul> views on foreign policy?

Just as his criticism of parts of the Civil Rights Act had been out there for weeks before exploding onto the national media scene, Paul has expressed foreign policy views that have yet to attract serious attention but also raise questions about his true core beliefs.

For instance: Paul has suggested deporting terrorists to Afghanistan and has said that it's not a threat if Iran has a nuke -- both views that smack of his father's staunch isolationism.

Paul's vanquished GOP primary opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, tried to make issues of these views but they attracted virtually no national notice.

For instance, the Grayson campaign pointed out that Paul said this in May of 2009 in a discussion of Guantanamo:

"If you're not going to convict them and you can't convict them and you're unclear, drop them back off in Afghanistan; it'll take them a while to get back over here."

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Grayson made an issue of this comment, but Paul denied he favors closing Guantanamo, insisting Grayson took the comment out of context.

Grayson also pointed out that Paul also said in 2008<http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100513/NEWS01/5130354/1071/NEWS0106> that the United States is "not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon."

During the GOP primary Paul also distanced himself from that comment, clarifying that "it's not desirable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."

Yesterday, Frank Rich noted<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23rich.html> that even on foreign policy he's a staunch isolationist: "when he says he is antigovernment, he means it."

Indeed, the above are two examples where Paul previously expressed views that he rushed to clarify once he became a major candidate for U.S. Senate. The point is that the national press has yet to explore Paul's foreign policy positions -- and who knows what bounty that will yield!

By Greg Sargent  |  May 24, 2010; 10:59 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010_elections/> , Foreign policy and national security<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/foreign_policy_and_national_se/> , Senate Republicans<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/senate_republicans/>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.