RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "Calling Hillary Clinton 'a war hawk,' Senator Rand Paul says that if the former secretary of state seeks the presidency, some voters will worry that she will get the US involved in another Middle East war."

Rand Paul. (photo: Jeff Malet/
Rand Paul. (photo: Jeff Malet/

Rand Paul Calls Hillary Clinton, "Gung-Ho ... a War Hawk"

By Associated Press

25 August 14


Republican senator and leading anti-interventionist predicts ‘transformational election’ if Democrats nominate Clinton

alling Hillary Clinton “a war hawk,” Senator Rand Paul says that if the former secretary of state seeks the presidency, some voters will worry that she will get the US involved in another Middle East war.

Paul is a leading anti-interventionist in the GOP and is considering running for president. Last year he opposed President Obama’s call for military action in Syria.

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Paul predicted a “transformational election” if the Democrats nominate “a war hawk like Hillary Clinton.”

“I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there’s gonna be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war,’” Paul said. “We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.”

As a senator in 2002, Clinton voted in favor of giving President George W Bush the broad authority to invade Iraq. She has said over the years that she regrets that vote, and in her new book Hard Choices wrote that “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

On the events that unfolded in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Paul said he found the war-like images disturbing.

“When I see things like that, and I see, like, a warzone, and I see bazookas and tanks and all of this stuff in American city, it offends me, because many of these people, some are rioting, and they need to be arrested,” he said. “If you’re committing a crime, arrest people. But if you’re standing up, and you wanna voice dissent, you know, it is really what America is about, is being able to dissent.”

Paul also suggested that race might not be a factor in the events in Ferguson and linked the unrest to the war on drugs.

“Let’s say you’re African American and you live there, let’s say none of this has to do with race. It might not, but the belief — if you’re African American and you live in Ferguson, the belief is, you see people in prison and they’re mostly black and brown, that somehow it is racial, even if the thoughts that were going on at that time had nothing to do with race.

“So it’s a very good chance that had this had nothing to do with race, but because of all of the arrest and the way people were arrested, that everybody perceives it as, ‘My goodness, the police are out to get us,’ you know? And so that’s why you have to change the whole war on drugs. It’s not just this one instance.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+17 # fredboy 2014-08-25 07:36
Yes. Both the Clintons, and Rand Paul, have vast military experience...
+47 # motamanx 2014-08-25 08:52
John McCain has vast military experience. Crashed five planes, blew up his own carrier, and spent several years being molested by Vietnamese. What a winning streak! No wonder he wants to bomb...well, everyone.
+3 # Nominae 2014-08-26 06:46
Quoting motamanx:
John McCain has vast military experience. Crashed five planes, blew up his own carrier, and spent several years being molested by Vietnamese. What a winning streak! No wonder he wants to bomb...well, everyone.

Dude ! I am no fan of John McCain, but I am a fan of accuracy.

I would seriously suggest that you check your numbers. McCain crashed three jets, never "blew up" anyone's aircraft carrier, and spent five years in a Vietnamese Prisoner of War Camp, along with Admiral Stockdale and many others.

I flew for the Navy during roughly the same time McCain did.

When you yourself have done so much as five days "being molested" under such conditions, you be sure to get right back to us regarding what a "lark" it all was.

Attack McCain's politics all you want, there is no shortage of target area there, but as to his military service, some actual research into the facts there might stand you in good stead.
+34 # Barbara K 2014-08-25 07:37
This is a Libertarian idiot who wants to take away our SS, Medicare, etc., and every other thing he can. Why should his lies and moronic opinion mean anything to us?

+30 # irvingwood 2014-08-25 08:01
But what about my Guns! Will he take my guns!!! If he took my guns I couldn’t bear it. Please don’t take my guns. It’s my only way I can feel like a man!
-30 # ctcarole 2014-08-25 09:14

you may have good reason to dislike Rand Paul but he is absolutely correct in that there is not one scintilla of evidence that that poor kid was killed because of racial hatred. In a town where the vast majority are black and the police department is primarily white, of course more blacks are going to be killed by white cops. Yes, this policeman may have been racist but also may have been frightened for his life and it may have been that he overreacted and should be punished. The truth has yet to be shown. This particular argument doesn't make Rand Paul a liar and a moron. Let's give it a rest and let justice take its course.
+33 # RMDC 2014-08-25 09:37
Does the fund raising for Wilson's defense by the KKK and neo-Nazi groups count as a scintilla of evidence. Don't these groups know a racist when they see one. Is this a case of "it takes one to know one."
+21 # margpark 2014-08-25 09:49
I don't believe I have ever seen a police office better protected by his department. They absolutely refuse to give us any idea of what happened. He is in hiding. They shut down his social channels. We simply have no idea what happened. Might be a bunch better if we had a clue what went on.
+22 # pbbrodie 2014-08-25 09:59
This IS satire, isn't it? "Not one scintilla of evidence that that poor kid was killed because of racial hatred," give me a break!
How are you frightened for your life by someone telling you he doesn't have a gun, with his hands in the air, and asking you to stop shooting? What have you been reading?
-18 # arquebus 2014-08-25 10:37
Hands in the air? Really? Go look in a mirror...note that your biceps face forward. Now raise your arms over your will notice that is the triceps that point towards the mirror. Yet, the parent sponsored autopsy said all the bullets entered from the front. I don't know what Brown was doing, if anything. But, unless he was a contortionist, doesn't look like he raised his hands over his head. Of course, that noted pathologist hired by the parents could have got it wrong.
+3 # ericlipps 2014-08-25 18:57
What contortionist? Raise your hands palms forward, or even inward toward your body, instead of backward--go on, it's easy.
+16 # Old4Poor 2014-08-25 13:18
But, would the Ferguson police have tear gassed white protestors? Tear gas is not allowed in war, yet we do it to our own? I note that the US did not drob an atom bomb on the Germans but had no trouble doing so to the Japanese - cities filled with civilians, too. Of course there is a racial component to all of this.
-4 # economagic 2014-08-25 18:07
Oh, bullshit.
+17 # ritawalpoleague 2014-08-25 10:06
Sorry, Barbara K, but, while agreeing with you that Rand Paul is anything but a 'liberty and justice for all' people server, re. Hillary Clinton, he is correct re. her 'endless war is needed for oil, oil, oil and $$$ into the bottomless coffers of the evil villainaire actual rulers' m.o.. I say this with a picture taken of Bill and Hill and me, at a mutual friend of ours home in D.C., in the fall of 2000, as Hillary was running for her NY based seat in the senate.

Since then, I have had to see the reality re. this so wannabe first woman president, i.e. her 'most expensive wedding ever' in the same post White House era in which she recently claimed she and Bill were 'broke', her scare over truth coming out, via WikiLeaks re. her corruption, and, when she was Sect. of State, her formal motion, at time of trial (Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.) to ban entry of a deposition of plaintiff Hon. Brigitta Jonsdottir, member of Iceland's parliament and supporter/prote ctor of WikiLeaks Julian Assange. Could not chance any additional truth leaking out re. her AIPAC activity, being so in favor of conned into war(s), et. al., now could she.

Last thing we need - yet another bought off pol..
+5 # ericlipps 2014-08-25 19:01
Okay, but if "endless war is needed for oil," how does that translate into "elect Rand Paul" as the Kentucky cuckoo clearly means it to do? How would electing a President Paul break our addiction to oil, except maybe by leading to a complete breakdown of industrial society into bands of "freedom-loving " barbarians?
+7 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-25 12:18
Quoting Barbara K:
This is a Libertarian idiot who wants to take away our SS, Medicare, etc., and every other thing he can. Why should his lies and moronic opinion mean anything to us?


Absolutely, Barbara! He is a phony 'Ophthamologist ', and a above all, a hypocrite, like his father, ostensibly standing for withdrawing 'government' from our 'private lives', unless, of course, you're a woman, in which case he is for the gov't. probing your 'lady parts'! and telling women what to do with their bodies!
+16 # MainStreetMentor 2014-08-25 07:52
Really? And how does Rand Paul analyze the statements and stance of Senator John McCain ... a "dove"?
+13 # MidwesTom 2014-08-25 08:13
Both parties now have "non-mainstream " potential candidates making noise and actually gathering a following; a true sign that the two party system that we have is weakening.
+9 # pbbrodie 2014-08-25 09:59
Tom, you wish!
+20 # tigerlillie 2014-08-25 08:20
It is truly amazing how the otherwise moronic Rand Paul can hit the ball of the park now and then. Kind of pretty too.
+13 # Bolduc619 2014-08-25 08:22
Isn't it though? Seriously. And wanting to kill the NSA? Awesome!
+2 # lfeuille 2014-08-25 20:51
Quoting tigerlillie:
It is truly amazing how the otherwise moronic Rand Paul can hit the ball of the park now and then. Kind of pretty too.

I don't know. I'm wondering if this anti-war posture is merely opportunistic, knowing that it will lull some progressives into thinking he might not be so bad, but I just don't buy it.
0 # RMDC 2014-08-27 07:39
\ifeuille -- good point. I wonder, too, if his anti-war is only opportunistic. I think his dad, Ron Paul, was pretty sincere in his anti-war, anti-foreign intervention stance. But I'm not sure about the son.
+30 # riverhouse 2014-08-25 08:24
Truth is that this nutter will find a lot of votes to cut off Israel (who gets vast billions from the US taxpayer each year) and to give up going to war in the Middle East. Hillary Clinton is a war hawk, without doubt, and a big supporter of Israel and there are a lot of voters out there who do not want more war and who do want to cut Israel off from the nearly $10 bil taxpayers give them one way or the other every year. Rand Paul would be a terrible president and world leader for the US, but he will attract voters with that kind of talk.
+6 # futhark 2014-08-25 09:20
Sounds like yet another occasion to support the candidate with an ethical, wise, and informed approach, one that is not beholden to power other words, neither Democrat nor Republican.
+1 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-25 12:21
Quoting futhark:
Sounds like yet another occasion to support the candidate with an ethical, wise, and informed approach, one that is not beholden to power other words, neither Democrat nor Republican.

What part of 'nutter' don't you understand? What part of 'hypocrite' don't you get?
+4 # Radscal 2014-08-25 14:04
I noticed that about a week ago, Paul backtracked on his long-standing call to cut aid ti Israel.
+5 # Citizen Mike 2014-08-25 08:39
How about a Rand Paul presidency with a Democratic dominated congress? That would be an interesting balance. Paul could steer us into isolationism and Congress would prevent him from cutting the domestic safety net: win-win!
+8 # futhark 2014-08-25 09:17
Might be worth a try. We could do worse, with a Democratic president subservient to the military-indust rial complex and a Republican Congress committed to obstruction of all progress on environmental and social issues. However, I'd rather have a Green president and Congress.
0 # margpark 2014-08-25 09:50
Sounds like a dream come true.
+4 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-25 12:22
Sounds like a dream ... not a realistic one either.
+1 # ericlipps 2014-08-25 19:08
Quoting margpark:
Sounds like a dream come true.

More like a hallucination.
+3 # lfeuille 2014-08-25 20:56
Quoting Citizen Mike:
How about a Rand Paul presidency with a Democratic dominated congress? That would be an interesting balance. Paul could steer us into isolationism and Congress would prevent him from cutting the domestic safety net: win-win!

But he would veto any attempt to increase it and at this point it is woefully underfunded, not to mention being totally tone deaf on race an women's issues. I just don't believe that he has outgrown is racist orientation,
-5 # tpm713 2014-08-26 07:08
What about the war on white men? White men need to walk on egg shells these days. We need a president who will stand up for everyone, not just women who get everything handed to them.
+1 # Salus Populi 2014-08-26 19:33
Are you for real?
+17 # Steve B 2014-08-25 08:51
The Democrats are the party of false hope, the final resting place for progressive votes. Their platform has been -- since the Clinton years -- vote for us, we're not as bad as the Republicans. As the old saying goes, "Where there is no vision, the people perish" -- and here we are. Time to "overgrow" the two party system with a people's "up-wising" where we wise up to "divide and conquer" and gather around the values that unite progressives and populists. Interesting that 43% of voters now identify as Independents (with 31% identifying as Democrats, and 25% as Republicans). We have the communications systems to create an independent voice and movement that challenges the oligarchy. May it be so.
+3 # ritawalpoleague 2014-08-25 10:59
As we'd say in Ireland, Steve B:
+12 # shawnsargent2000 2014-08-25 11:16
Right on! We Need a Reinvigorated Occupy Movement, a U.S. Demilitarize Our Police forces movement, and an End Global Warming Now Movement.
Time for a three or more party system for the 99% !
+3 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-25 12:24
Those with 'vision' seem to get knocked off by the 'shadow gov't'. like JFK. Any wonder Obama is so tentative?
-1 # Radscal 2014-08-25 14:20
Early in Obama's first term there was that strange news story about the couple who "crashed" a State Dinner. They even had pictures taken "putting hands on" the President.

I wondered if that was a hint to Obama from the Shadow Government. "Think you're safe? Look how easily we can put an assassin right in your face."

But, the bottom line for me is, if Obama is unwilling to face those threats and do the right thing, as JFK was beginning to do, then he should have resigned.

We need a President willing to be strong, not "tentative."
+5 # Docmc 2014-08-25 09:14
Sometimes he speaks with reason.
+6 # futhark 2014-08-25 09:14
Funny, when I was a kid in the 1950s and early 60s, the discussions among my playmates as we "played army" was almost always to the effect that if a Democrat was elected president, the country would find itself at war. The Republican Party was often cited as the peace party. The historical evidence at our disposal:

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat - World War I

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat - World War II

Harry S. Truman, Democrat - Korean War

Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Republicans - no major wars

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican - withdrawal from the Korean War

John F. Kennedy, Democrat - worked against our hypothesis by founding the Peace Corps and avoiding nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat - conveniently confirmed our hypothesis by escalating American military involvement in Vietnam by means of the Gulf of Tonkin hoax. A number of us were eventually personally and adversely affected.

I continue to regard identification of Democratic Party as the party of peace as a somewhat recent development and not necessarily a reliable constant.
+6 # wwway 2014-08-25 12:10
When Johnson signed the Civil Right's Act he said that he just turned the democratic party over to the Republicans. Have you heard of the Southern Strategy?
I agree that that in the last 40 years there has been a transition that doesn't necessarily follow a constant. Southern white racists have transformed and grounded the Republican party into an international war mongering and domestic legislative terrorist organization determined to gut our constitution and impose theocracy under a new religious constitution for right white men only (the Monarchy of old). The Democratic party has evolved to one grounded in the defense of civil rights and liberties and wise use of military operations.
+1 # ericlipps 2014-08-25 19:05
Actually, Johnson said he had just handed the South to the Republicans, "for a generation."

He underestimated the effect, and failed to note how such a "gift" would also turn the GOP over to the South.
+1 # Salus Populi 2014-08-26 19:41
As I remember it, the Democrats were the war party, and the Republicans were the economic depression party [aka in the pockets of Wall Street].

Now the Republicans are the war and economic depression party -- Wall Street and the MIC -- and the Democrats are Republican Lite, and there is no party at all that gives a tinker's damn about the Great Unwashed, aka the riff-raff that make up the 98 per cent of the population. At best, we have a "progressive caucus" that now and then brings up something about social justice, and gets figuratively shouted down by both the majority and minority leaderships.
+10 # RMDC 2014-08-25 09:40
Rand Paul and his dad Ron Paul are right about Hillary, Bush, Obama, and all the rest of the war mongers in the the US government. I don't like any of the Paul's social views, but it would be nice to be free from the war monger class for a while. Given a race between Paul and Hillary, I'd vote Paul anyday as the much lesser of two evils. A choice between the lesser of two evils is probably all we will ever get.

Let's talk up Elizabeth Warren. She would be the true progressive that Obama never turned out to be. Progressivism will win in 2016. Hillary and the banking/war party will lose to someone like Rand Paul.
-1 # Billy Bob 2014-08-27 06:11
The problem is that I don't believe him. He thinks the military is the only valid function of government. He also has a history of changing what he claims to think about his core philosophy, just to get elected.

Killary IS an evil warmonger...

...and I guarantee Paul will be one too.
+8 # reiverpacific 2014-08-25 10:22
Pity you're currently faced with the somewhat seemingly contradictory choice of an anti-war but also anti-populist Libertarian, or an uber-establishm ent, prayer-breakfas t, heavy-duty Christian war enthusiast.
This is a big, diverse country: SURELY you can do a BIT better!
How about young Julian Castro? He'd be a shoe-in for the increasingly vital and growing Latino/a vote, also more likely to be trusted by Blacks, Natives, Women, Youth and almost everybody but the shrinking, aging, Angry Good-ol' White Boy demographic as well as a direct counter to Jeb Bush if the Rethugs have the gall and manage to try and impose another of that nefarious clan (Klan) on the country.
Sorry but I think Eliz' Warren is doing good work where she is and should be in a key, influential financial oversight spot to keep the banisters in line or even get at least some of 'em jailed.
Bernie Sanders -personally I respect the hell out of him BUT he's too old and the owner-media would give him Hell.
That's a humble summary from a 'higgerant furrier who pays taxes but doesn't get to vote (not complaining or whining -just saying').
+7 # Old Uncle Dave 2014-08-25 10:31
Killary might start a war in the Middle East? Hell, she might start World War 3! Americans are getting fed up with eternal war. If the Democrats nominate her, she will lose.
-2 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-25 12:26
'Killary' , really? Why would anyone take your views seriously when you resort to such deplorable name-calling. NOT clever.
-1 # Radscal 2014-08-25 14:28
"Nutter," really?

If name-calling is "deplorable," then name-calling is deplorable.

If it's only "NOT clever" when used on your team...
0 # wwway 2014-08-25 12:24
If Paul insists Hillary is a war hawk does that mean he wants to be a peace dove sitting on a wire above a raging fire? Rand Paul is an idiot.
It was Bush's pre-emptive war foreign policy that got us into this mess. Americans are war weary because of an unnecessary war. This is tragic because Bush managed to cloud future decisions on when and when not to act. President Obama was wise to wait and see what the Arab World was going to do while re-assessing the situation. Hillary Clinton is probably the best advisor of foreign policy we have because she voted for the unnecessary war and then had to help manage a vision and an end to it.
The Arab world isn't doing anything constructive. Young people are restless. They'll join ISIL just like they'll join gangs.
+1 # Salus Populi 2014-08-26 20:00
It was Hillary who convinced a reluctant Obama to destroy Libya [on behalf of Israel]. It was Hillary who urged him to go to war against Syria a year ago, in response to a false flag gas attack. Hillary doesn't believe in international law [no president ever has] when it comes to our actions; and she believes in using total war to subjugate those who are too independent.

She would, like Obama, be a George W. Bush on steroids, with the added advantage that the entire "liberal" establishment and blogosphere would fall into lockstep with her policies, just as happened with Obama, as was predicted by a few iconoclasts.
+4 # Old4Poor 2014-08-25 13:22
And, again I agree with Rand Paul about something, I would never vote for him re so many of the social issues raised such as Social Security, etc., but Clnton alarms me for just this reason. Bring on Warren or Gillibrand! Sherrod Brown for VEEP. (I love Bernie Sanders, but that shift is not going to happen in my lifetime.)
+1 # Radscal 2014-08-25 14:30
Wow! Ms. Clinton draws some of the most twisted apologetics from partisans I've ever seen.
+1 # rockieball 2014-08-25 14:46
He want Liberia l and independent votes and will anything to get them Look at his congressional voting record and you will she where he really stands; BRING JOBS HOME ACT --Nay, PROTECT WOMEN'S HEALTH FROM CORPORATE INTERFERENCE -- Nay, STUDENT LOAD REFINANCING ACT --Nay, MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT -- Nay, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT-- Nay, PROTECTING ACCESS TO MEDICARE ACT -- Nay. The list goes on and on here is the link,

This shows he is not a man for the people except maybe rich white corporate people.
+7 # MsAnnaNOLA 2014-08-25 15:57
I thought she was hawkish in the last pres election which is why I picked Obama over her. What an Obummer that was. Little did I know he had no idea of changing any thing at all about Washington D.C.

I wish for a President that prosecutes crimes like: Torture, indefinite detention (I mean imprisonment without charges), extrajudicial killings ( I mean murder!) TBTF Bank fraud, numerous wall street crimes, oh and stops illegal unconstitutiona l spying on everyone.

That is the President I am waiting for. When this person comes along I will vote for them but anyone appearing to be for more war and more lawlessness is not getting my vote.

Can we start an anti-facist party someone? In my book a government that cowtows to corporations while taking our rights away is fascist. Now both parties have behaved this way. So where does that leave us?
+1 # Radscal 2014-08-25 16:47
I'm with you. Right now, the Green Party seems to be the most viable third party that shares our values.
+5 # walt 2014-08-25 16:16
Rand Paul is correct about Hillary Clinton. She is clearly a neocon war hawk and a pawn of that lobby.

The USA being pressured into wars in the Middle East is getting old, especially having invaded Iraq based on lies. We now live with both 4500 killed and a massive deficit with the same lobby pledging more unconditional support for Israel.

Opposition to all that could really benefit Rand Paul since we are all very tire of war.
-1 # AlWight 2014-08-26 18:42
As an Independent, Hillary's hawkish approach to foreign relations scares me. I think Rand Paul is correct that she would lose a lot of both Democratic and Independent votes. But the Republicans are even worse. They have shown us no one who has an iota of understanding in this area. McCain is a neocon moron. I say this as a vetern of two wars and the Cold War, in intelligence.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.