By The TRUTH HOUND “Stop the Presses” News & Commentary
On Sunday, Nov. 20, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) brought some logic to the table on the CBS “Face the Nation” weekly news review, by saying that, so far, it appears that President-elect Donald Trump is surrounding himself with cabinet picks consisting of people who believe in an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism and regime change.
Read on carefully here. This is a critical juncture for Mr. Trump.
Paul called for consistency and integrity, by saying he’s trying to help Trump stick to his stated view the American invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
On the campaign trial, Trump did indeed consistently say that America’s military entry into Iraq in March of 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in the post-9/11 “war on terror,” was a major blunder.
Yet, as Paul noted, Trump is strongly considering Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, an ardent believer in interventionism and toppling foreign leaders—for the position of CIA chief, no less.
Paul—himself a former 2016 Republican presidential candidate who bowed out early in the running—also told Face the Nation that Trump seems intent on naming either neo-conservative war hawk and regime-toppler John Bolton or former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State, when both seem way too hawkish for such a position.
I think the Secretary of State should be [someone] diplomatic,” Paul said. “Bolton would be better as ‘secretary of war.’ We don’t want a Secretary of State throwing bombs or seeking regime change.”
Indeed, several of the people apparently destined to hold high positions in the Trump presidency are what Paul calls “unrepentant” hawks.
While that includes Bolton and Giuliani, the situation regarding Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions is not altogether clear yet. But one thing that is clear is that Bolton and Giuliani, like Hillary Clinton, never learned the lessons of the folly of the interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. So, Paul reasoned that those who refuse to learn such harsh lessons should be the last people tapped for more high-level positions.
What Paul didn’t have time to cover is that those three countries are basket-cases littered with bodies, debris and torn by chaos. The supposed 9/11 “enemy,” al Qaeda, still stands. The Afghan Taliban, another stated foe of the West, still stands. The U.S. even has worked with al Qaeda in Syria in the wrong-headed, insane drive to use the ISIS threat, of which al Qaeda is a branch, as an excuse to pursue even more forcible regime-change by trying to topple Syria’s elected leader, Bashar al-Assad.
Meanwhile, Paul didn’t discuss Sessions, who’s being considered for attorney general. Ironically, Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney perhaps better suited for the AG slot, was initially mentioned for that post but the idea has faded into the background with little explanation.
Paul did add that Pompeo, if confirmed as head of the CIA, evidently would expand National Security Agency surveillance powers—which already stretch well beyond the imagination of a vast majority of Americans—and apparently would support torture in the never-ending war on terror.
Oddly, the Face the Nation online written report Nov. 20, about the televised interview with Paul that day, did not mention Pompeo nor did it reiterate Paul’s remarks about him, even though the question of who heads the CIA is arguably more crucial than the question of filling the Secretary of State seat currently held by former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
Kerry, for his part, has been rather hawkish in his own right in several instances. See this TRUTH HOUND report for more on that.
Pompeo, according to Paul, would likely support massive collection of Americans’ phone records and other meta-data as CIA chief—something that Paul said he’ll closely monitor when trying to defend the Bill of Rights in the Senate in light of Trump’s rather controversial nominations for such high-level federal positions.
There are lingering questions on whether Trump himself (who also used his campaign to say that he’d eradicate ISIS if elected president) will rule out torture such as waterboarding. Earlier Nov. 20th on Face the Nation, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence addressed this matter by saying it’s not wise to make blanket policy statements regarding war and intelligence tactics, otherwise you’re revealing too much information to the enemy.
Notably, Paul said that Pompeo reportedly supports waterboarding, even though the general consensus is that this virtual drowning process that’s been used on prisoners, sometimes in secret CIA interrogation facilities, is indeed torture. However, Paul noted that if America is truly as “exceptional” as everyone fancies it to be, then it should seek a higher moral standard.
We should telegraph to the world that we’re better than this, that we’re exceptional because we don’t torture,” Paul said.
But, to be sure, Paul seems a bit naïve in the sense that the CIA will likely administer torture to some degree in an unofficial capacity, regardless of what Congress says.
Americans too easily forget that the CIA is largely a government unto itself employed to make the world safe for select corporations and banks, to protect illicit profits and ensure access to raw materials and energy, which includes making way for oil pipelines and regime change whenever a foreign sovereign decides that his people come first and Western industrial needs come second.
Pointing to an important political reality, Paul added that given the Republican Party’s slim Senate majority, Trump may have trouble getting at least some of his nominations confirmed through the Senate.
“You know, it’s a very close vote. I mean, there’s 52 Republicans. Some of the people that have been put forward [for top cabinet posts] I think are not guaranteed to get any Democrat support,” Paul explained. “So they lose my support and a couple of other Republicans … so I think that there are several potential Republican votes against someone like a Bolton. Possibly Giuliani.”
Even 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is in the three-way running with Bolton and Giuliani for the top diplomatic post. Paul was asked by Face the Nation whether Romney, like the other two, is an unrepentant believer in military interventionism and regime change.
“I’m not sure I would call him unrepentant,” Paul replied. “I would say that he is somebody who has supported the Iraq war and I would want to hear more. I think we should ask—no matter what the stature of the person—‘What are your beliefs? Was the Iraq war a mistake? Are you for regime change?’”
Asked about other Secretary of State suggestions, Paul said it’s not up to him but he likes Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), whose name has also been mentioned for the post. “I also find him to be very reasonable, very knowledgeable with foreign affairs,” Paul said.
THE MOST CRITICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK
But the real question is whether Trump can stand by his call for better relations with Russia while at the same time possibly sending more U.S. troops into Syria to eliminate ISIS. Trump even used his election-acceptance speech to allude to a goal of better international relations, especially with Russia.
Yet, since Russia is Syria’s ally, and since Russian warplanes and other armed forces have done much more than the U.S. to kill ISIS fighters and make the mysterious terrorist faction back down, will Trump interfere by enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria and risk sparking a confrontation with Russia in the process?
Or would Trump work with Russia in going after ISIS and, in the process, leave Syria’s leadership intact and avoid needless regime change?
The answers to these questions will tell both Trump’s supporters and detractors a great deal. And Rand Paul’s words and actions, at a time when he’s asking the right questions, will be closely monitored accordingly.