Rand Paul: Bolton was working against Trump

Rand Paul: Bolton was working against Trump


LOT TO DO WITH BIGGER ISSUES AND NO ILL WILL TOWARD THE PRESIDENT. THAT WAS THEN. THIS IS NOW. KENTUCKY REPUBLICAN SENATOR RAND PAUL, GOOD TO SEE YOU. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS?>>I THINK THE THREAT OF WAR AROUND THE WORLD IS GREATLY DIMINISHED WITH BOLTON OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. I THINK HE HAD A NAIVE POINT OF VIEW FOR THE WORLD THAT WE SHOULD TOPPLE REGIMES EVERYWHERE AND INSTITUTE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS AND WE WOULD MAKE THE WORLD PERFECT OR REMAKE THE WORLD IN OUR IMAGE AND FRANKLY DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. THERE’S A LOT OF HISTORY OF GETTING RID OF STRONGMEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND HAVING THEM REPLACED BY VACUUMS OR CHAOS. OR ACTUALLY MAKING THE PLACE MORE HOSPITABLE FOR TERRORIST TRAINING. I THINK HIS IDEA THAT THE WAY YOU DEAL WITH IRAN IS TOPPLE THE GOVERNMENT OR THE WHALE — THE WAY YOU DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA IS TOPPLE THE GOVERNMENT. THE PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING REGIME CHANGE AND FINDING A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION OF SOME OF THESE CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT DESERVES TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO’S HIS NATIONAL SECURITY VISOR WHO ACTUALLY WILL TRY TO FURTHER HAS POLICY AND NOT TRY TO STYMIE IT.>>Neil: CENTER, YOUR COLLEAGUE TED CRUZ DIDN’T QUITE FEEL THE SAME WAY. HE SAID I SINCERELY HOPE IS LEAVING REFERRING TO BOLTON DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DEEP STATE FORCES AT STATE AND TREASURER WHO BEEN FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO PRESERVE THE OBAMA IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL HAVE FINALLY CONVINCED THE PRESIDENT TO GO SOFT ON IRAN. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF IT?>>I THINK IT’S MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN INTERVENE EVERYWHERE AND WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE REGIME CHANGE AND WHETHER WE SHOULD TRY DIPLOMACY. WHETHER WE SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS AND TRY TO WORK WITHIN THE WORLD AND ENGAGE WITH PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD OR WHETHER WE SAY OH, WE MUST HAVE A PERFECT THOMAS JEFFERSON LEADER IN EVERY COUNTRY. THE PROBLEM IS IS WHEN PEOPLE LIKE BOLTON’S AND WE ARE GOING TO TOPPLE QADDAFI AND MAKE LIBYA INTO A GREAT AMERICAN-STYLE REPUBLIC, THEY DON’T ELECT THOMAS JEFFERSON. THEY ELECT ANOTHER RELIGIOUS LEADER WHO BECOMES AN AUTOCRAT IN PLACE OF ONE RELIGIOUS LEADER OR AUTOCRAT. I THINK THE MIDDLE EAST IN MANY PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN RULED BY STRONGMEN, THE ANSWER ISN’T MILITARY REGIME CHANGE AND I THINK BOLTON WAS VERY WRONG AND I EVEN AS A WORLDVIEW. I’M GLAD TO SEE THEM GONE. I HOPE THE PRESIDENT CAN FIND SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY LISTENS TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS. THIS PRESIDENT IS EXTRAORDINARY. IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION, HE’S HAD GREAT NATIONS DON’T FIGHT PERPETUAL WAR. HE’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT THAT DEFIES THE ORTHODOXY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT FOREIGN POLICY IN WASHINGTON, AND SO THE PRESIDENT REALLY NEEDS TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO HAS THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO THE ORTHODOXY, NOT SOMEONE WHO IS PART OF THE SWAMP.>>Neil: ARE YOU CONVINCED THAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION? BECAUSE HE HAS NOW GONE THROUGH THREE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS. MICHAEL FLYNN, H.R. MCMASTER, NOW JOHN BOLTON. ALL FOR VARIOUS REASONS BUT THERE’S A HIGH TURNOVER PARTICULARLY IN THAT AREA AND FOREIGN POLICY. A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AND SAY WHAT DO YOU WANT? WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR?>>THE INTERESTING THING IS IF YOU LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP OVER THE LAST DECADE OR MORE, ONE OF THE CONSISTENT THEMES THAT YOU WILL HEAR HIM SPEAK OF MAY BE FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS IS THE IDEA THAT REGIME CHANGE DOESN’T WORK. HE SAID FOR A LONG, LONG TIME THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISTAKE AND WE EMBOLDENED AROUND BY GETTING RID OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THERE WAS A COUNTERBALANCE AND HAVING SADDAM HUSSEIN THERE THAT THAT VACUUM ALLOWED ISIS TO GROW AND THEN VACUUM, AND SO REALLY I THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN VERY, VERY CONSISTENT.>>Neil: YOU MENTIONED ISIS, SENATOR . ISIS WAS ON THE RUN, ISIS WAS DEFEATED. FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS URGED HIM TO COOL IT ON THAT KIND OF TALK BECAUSE IT EMBOLDENED THE ENEMY. SURE ENOUGH, ISIS POPPED UP IN OTHER LOCALES. DOES HE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH HIS WORDING?>>I WOULD SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS VERY AND VERY CONSISTENT BELIEVING IN A MORE REALISTIC FOREIGN POLICY AND LESS OF A NEOCONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY. SOME OF THE PEOPLE HE’S PICKED HAVEN’T BEEN PEOPLE WHO’VE AGREED WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT I CAN GO BACK TO REAGAN’S ADMINISTRATION WHERE ALL OF US CONSERVATIVES LOVED RONALD REAGAN AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE WAS APPOINTING SOMETIMES PEOPLE WHO WE DIDN’T THINK FRANKLY WERE CONSERVATIVE OR FULFILLING REAGAN’S VISION. I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN EVERY ADMINISTRATION, BUT MY ADVICE AND MY HOPE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL PICK SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY LISTENS TO WHAT HE SAYS AND WANTS TO FURTHER HIS GOALS. I THINK THE PRESIDENT COULD DO SOMETHING REALLY HEROIC AND DRAMATIC IN GETTING US OUT OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND I THINK HE WOULD IF HE DIDN’T HAVE PEOPLE WORKING FOR HIM WHO WERE CONTRADICTING AND COUNTER MANDATING HIS ORDERS AND HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA.>>Neil: WOULD THAT INCLUDE, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE TOLD MR. BOLTON RAISED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT MEETING WITH THE TALIBAN AT CAMP DAVID NO LESS, AND THAT AT THE VERY LIST THE OPTICS DIDN’T LOOK GOOD AND THE TIMING SO CLOSE TO 9/11, DO YOU THINK THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPRESSING CONCERNS AND BEING DEEMED NOT A TEAM PLAYER?>>I THINK THE THING IS ABOUT THE TALIBAN, WHETHER WE NEGOTIATE WITH THEM, HOW WE LEAVE, ALL WARS ULTIMATELY END AND THERE ULTIMATELY IS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER LIKE AFTER WORLD WAR II WITH JAPAN OR GERMANY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR REST OF THE WARS AND WITH NEGOTIATIONS.>>Neil: WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN FOR THOSE TALKS WITH THE TALIBAN?>>HERE’S WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT IT. IT’S A CONFUSING SITUATION. I THINK THE TALIBAN NEEDS TO NEGOTIATE BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD NEGOTIATE DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN. THEY HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO. PART OF ONE WHITE THAT WE END THE WAR AS WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IN A LESSENING FASHION THROUGH MONEY AND ARMS THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN AND WE HAVE THEM STEP UP. REALLY IT’S THE OBLIGATION OF THEM TO BE STRONG ENOUGH THAT THE TALIBAN WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. RIGHT NOW THE TALIBAN DOESN’T BELIEVE THEY ARE STRONG ENOUGH SO THEY NEGOTIATE WITH US AS A PROXY BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE TALIBAN AREN’T RELIABLE. THEY ARE VIOLENT AND, AND CONTINUE TO COMMIT VIOLENCE. THE PEOPLE NEGOTIATING WITH US MAY NOT HAVE THE STRENGTH OF ORGANIZATION TO CONTROL ALL ELEMENTS OF EVERYBODY ELSE IN AFGHANISTAN.>>Neil: SO GIVEN THOSE DYNAMICS, YOU WOULD NOT BEFORE PUTTING TALKS BACK ON? THE PRESIDENT SAID THIS ATTACK THAT KILLED A U.S. SOLDIER, THAT HE WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN IT, SAYING THE TALKS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. DO YOU AGREE?>>I THINK THE TALIBAN NEEDS TO HAVE A CEASE-FIRE NEED TO QUIT KILLING AMERICANS. HOWEVER, PEACE COMES WHEN WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT WE DECLARE VICTORY AND WE COME HOME AND SHOULDN’T BE DEPENDENT ON THE TALIBAN. I DON’T THINK THE TALIBAN FRANKLY ARE TRUSTWORTHY, NOR DO I THINK THE PEOPLE NEGOTIATING HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE OTHER FIGHTERS IN THE FIELD BUT NEVERTHELESS I WOULD COME HOME BECAUSE THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO CONTROL LAND AROUND THE WORLD TO PREVENT TERRORISM IS A FALLACY. THERE’S LAND EVERYWHERE. THERE IS CHAOS IN AFRICA. THERE IS CHAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THERE’S ALL KINDS OF PLACE ARE TERRORIST TO BE. IT’S A FOOLISH NOTION TO THINK AMERICA HAS TO BE ALL THOSE PLACES POLICING ON THOSE AREAS TO PREVENT TERRORISM. WE SHOULD BE VIGILANT ABOUT WHO COMES TO THE COUNTRY. THE PEOPLE ON 9/11 CAME HERE LEGALLY. WE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO WOULD COME TO OUR COUNTRY. WE SHOULD HAVE STRICT RULES ON WHO COMES INTO OUR COUNTRY. WE SHOULD HAVE GREAT INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE WORLD. IT DOESN’T MEAN WE HAVE TO OCCUPY EVERY ACRE.>>Neil: ‘S MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ECHO SOME CONCERNS THAT MR. BOLTON HAD THEN WE ARE LEARNING, SENATOR, THAT THERE’S BEEN AN EXPLOSION IN THE AFGHAN CAPITAL NEAR THE U.S. EMBASSY TECHNICALLY ON 9/11, THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 THEIR TIME. ISN’T THAT THE SAME KIND OF THING MR. BOLTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AND WORRY THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT?>>IF YOU SET THE GOAL THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NO VIOLENCE BEFORE RELIEVING THAT THERE WILL BE NO RADICAL JIHADISTS IN AFGHANISTAN, WE WILL NEVER LEAVE. YOU SHOULD ASK THE OPPOSITE QUESTION. WHAT IS THE MISSION? IS IT NATION-BUILDING AND SPEND $50 BILLION A YEAR, 45 MILLION ON GAS STATIONS, ROADS AND SCHOOLS, IS THAT OUR MISSION? IS THE MISSION TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY? WHAT’S THE MISSION? THERE’S NOT ONE GENERAL WHO CAN TELL YOU WHAT OUR MISSION IS. IS IT THE VIETNAM MISSION, TO TAKE ONE MORE VILLAGE, GET A BETTER NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT? IS THAT WITH THEIR — WE ARE THEREFORE? THERE IS NO NATIONAL SECURITY REASON TO BE THERE. THERE IS NO AL QAEDA. ALTHOUGH LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN DESTROYED. THE TALIBAN ARE FIGHTING AGAINST FOREIGN FIGHTERS. THE TALIBAN ARE INTO THIS INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT’S GOING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES. PEOPLE FIGHTING HISTORICALLY FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS EVERY TIME FOREIGN FIGHTERS COMPARED>>Neil: THE WAY THE PRESIDENT HANDLE THAT, HE’S FREE TO HIRE AND FIRE WHOEVER HE WANTS. THEY SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. HE OFTEN DOESN’T TELL THEM DIRECTLY. MR. BOLTON SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY. REX TILLERSON WHO FOUND OUT VIA TWEET THAT HE WAS OUT, THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T DIRECTLY SEEM TO TELL THEM.>>IF YOU’RE GOING TO WORK THE PRESIDENT, YOU NEED TO WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT AND TRY TO FURTHER THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA. MY OPINION IS THAT I SAW JOHN BOLTON WORKING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA. HE HAD HIS OWN AGENDA. THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA AND YOU HAD BOLTON SAYING WE SHOULD TRY THE LIBYAN SOLUTION WHICH MEANS WE SHOULD EXECUTE THEIR LEADER. THAT’S NOT VERY HELPFUL TO ANY KIND OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH NORTH KOREA OR ANY COUNTRY.

Author:

100 thoughts on “Rand Paul: Bolton was working against Trump”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *