Mediaboss Marketing

The Taliban is extending an invitation to Sen. Rand Paul,Kentucky Republican,to their political office in Doha, to discuss possible peace plans to end the 17-year Afghan war.

The invitation, proposed on the terror groups social media accounts under the moniker of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, was extended in response to Mr. Pauls recent comments on the status of the war.

We invite the respectable U.S. Senator Rand Paul, in his official capacity to visit our political office in Doha for mutual talks, the Twitter post by the Information Committee of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan read.

Well prove to Mr. Rand Paul, the immediate US withdrawal from [Afghanistan] will bring peace to our country & will enhance international security, the group added in the social media post.

During an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Sen. Paul lambasted Washingtons continued investment in the Afghan conflict, with no clear endgame in sight. The war in Afghanistan is costing us $50 billion a year Its time to come home. There is no military victory there, Mr. Paul said.

Mr. Paul is one of several lawmakers who have voiced opposition to the war in Afghanistan, as the White House looks to implement a more aggressive military strategy in the country.

President Trump expressed overt support for negotiations with the Taliban, and its potential political role in a postwar Afghanistan, during a primetime address to the nation unveiling his new strategy for the region in August. But Mr. Trump walked back support for talks last month after a series of deadly attacks in the Afghan capital of Kabul.

I dont think were prepared to talk right now. Its a whole different fight over there. Theyre killing people left and right. Innocent people are being killed left and right, Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House at the time.

Nearly 14,000 American forces are on the ground in Afghanistan as part of the White House surge of an additional 3,900 troops into the country a key element of the administrations new war plan.

The Trump White House also expanded commanders authority to conduct combat operations against the Taliban or other extremists in the country, as well as abandoning the Obama-era withdrawal deadlines for a conditions-based approach.

Original post:
Rand Paul invited to peace talks by Taliban - Washington Times

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is slamming members of his party for being "hypocritical" for passing both tax cuts and spending increases. Paul's comments on CBS News' "Face the Nation" come just days after President Trump signed a $400 billion budget deal, ending a brief federal government shutdown on Friday that came after Paul held up a key vote in the Senate.

"I think if you're for tax cuts and for increasing spending that's hypocritical. But if you're for tax cuts and you're also for cutting spending a corresponding amount -- see, I would offset the tax cuts with spending cuts, and there are a few of us that would actually do that," said Paul on Sunday.

Paul voted for the tax cut package last year that experts said would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

"I voted for the tax cuts and I voted for spending cuts. The people who voted for tax cuts and spending increases -- I think there is some hypocrisy there and it shows they're not serious about the debt," he added.

Paul, who was instrumental in derailing Senate leaders' plan to drive the budget agreement quickly through the Senate by repeatedly blocking a Thursday vote, says he thinks lawmakers should "draw attention to the fact that we're spending so much money."

"I'm still against deficit spending just because Republicans are doing it doesn't make it any better."

The budget agreement reached between Republicans and Democrats is married to a six-week temporary funding bill needed to keep the government operating and provide time to implement the budget pact. Paul held up the vote late Thursday for as long as he was able to under Senate rules.

Once Paul's time was up, the measure, backed by the Senate's top leaders, sailed through the chamber by a 71-28 vote. The House approved the legislation with a 240-186 vote hours after the Senate OK'd the deal.

Paul told CBS News' Major Garrett on Sunday that he's "very worried" about military spending increases. The budget deal raises the spending caps on defense and domestic spending by $300 billion over the next two years.

"I think one of the questions the Republicans, I think, are not willing to ask themselves is, can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending?" said Paul.

The president hailed the boost in military spending on Friday, tweeting, "Our Military will now be stronger than ever before. We love and need our Military and gave them everything and more."

But Paul said Republicans are "unwilling to confront that they want more, more, more for military spending and so to get that they have to give the Democrats what they want, which is more and more and more for domestic spending. "

The senator said while some welcomed the bipartisan agreement reached between the two parties, he said it's "exploding the deficit."

"I'm not so sure that's the kind of bipartisanship we need," he added.

Paul also took issue with the military's mission abroad, saying it's "beyond what we need to be."

"We're actively in war in about seven countries, and yet the Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now," Paul said.

He added, pointing to the war in Afghanistan, "We're spending 50 billion dollars a year. And if the president really is serious about infrastructure, a lot of that money could be spent at home. Instead of building bridges and schools and roads in Afghanistan or in Pakistan."

2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Visit link:
Sen. Rand Paul criticizes GOP "hypocrisy" on debt ...

Sen. Rand Paul is holding up a vote on the Senate budget deal, demanding more debate on the bill which will add $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Lawmakers are facing a midnight deadline to pass the legislation. (Feb. 7) AP

Republican Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul (center) poses for a picture with Republican Representative from Kentucky Thomas Massie (right) and Republican Representative from Michigan Justin Amash (left) as budget negotiations continue in the U.S. Capitol(Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo, EPA-EFE)

WASHINGTON Sen. Rand Paul, a conservative Kentucky Republican and one-time presidential contender, temporarily blockeda Senate vote ona sweeping bipartisan budget deal on Thursday a move that could force Congress to miss a midnight funding deadline and triggera partial government shutdown.

The bipartisan budget deal would lift strict budget caps and pave the way for lawmakers to spend an extra $300 billion over the next two years on defense and domestic programs. It seemed poised to easily clear the Senate until Thursday afternoon.

Thats when Paul objected and said he would only allow the budget bill to advance if GOP leaders gave him a vote on an amendment to restore the budget caps, set in 2011 to rein in deficit spending.If Paul got an amendment, then every senator would want one. And ifany amendment passed, it would blow up the budget agreement.

All Senator Rand Paul is asking for is a 15-minute vote on his amendment to restore the budget caps, Pauls spokesman, Sergio Gor, said in an email Thursday. He is ready to proceed at any time.

By Thursday evening, the White House was preparing for alapse in appropriations. The federal Office of Management and Budget told federal agencies to plan for a "limited shutdown" of perhaps a few hours.

How could one senator potentially cause a government shutdown? Two reasons: the Senates arcane rules essentially invite such mischief-making;and congressional leaders waited until the very last minute to unveil their deal, leaving them vulnerable to legislative glitches.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., filed a motion to end debate on the budget deal late Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, lawmakers must wait an intervening day before they can vote to cut off debate, unless they get an agreement from all 100 senators to speed up the clock.

McConnell and Schumer figured theyd get that agreement. But they were wrong.

Pauls objection, if he sticks with it, wouldforceMcConnell to wait until 1 a.m. to vote to take up the budget bill and then another 30 hours fordebate before final passage. Federal funding for most government programs runs out at midnight.

"I can keep them here until threein the morning," Paul said on Fox News.

Paul said he wasn't pushing for a government shutdown. But he also wasn't interested in keeping the government open for a "reckless" spending deal that busts the budget caps.

"Nobody wants to have it pointed out what an eyesore this deal is and how obnoxious it is to conservatives," Paul told Fox.

Looking exasperated and irritated, McConnell begged his home-state colleague to stop his dilatory tactics and offered to let him make his point with a procedural vote.

"Funding for the government expires in just a few hours," McConnell noted. "I would argue that it's time to vote."

ButPaul rejected McConnell's offer and held the floor for what could be an hours-long speech. He noted that the bill is nearly 700 pages long, nobody in the Senate has read it, and it will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit.

"I want peopleto feel uncomfortable" voting in favor of big deficits, Paul said.

If and when the budget bill does pass the Senate, it will go to the House where it faces an uncertain fate.

Liberal Democrats object to the deal because it does not include protections for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and whose Obama-era deportation protections will expire next month. House conservative have the same objections as Paul, arguing that it will pave the way for big spending and ballooning deficits.

Read more:

Nancy Pelosi's all-day marathon speech sets record as longest continuous speech since at least 1909

With shutdown looming, Senate poised to approve massive two-year budget deal, setting up fight in the House

As Paul Ryan turns to Democrats for votes, conservatives fume over budget deal

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2nOoG1n

Continued here:
Government shutdown: How Rand Paul could trigger it himself

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Feb. 8 opposed a bipartisan budget deal and delayed a vote on the measure in the Senate, calling the GOP "complicit in the deficits." (U.S. Senate)

The latest politico pointing out just how much the Republican Party has changed under President Trump comes from the inside.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delayed a Senate vote past midnight Thursday to mark his opposition to an estimated $320 billion addition to the federal budget deficit something he called Republicans out for supporting: If you were against President Obama's deficits, and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?

Paul, known for his libertarian leanings, said the budget deal breaks past Republican pledges to rein in federal spending.

After GOP leaders refused to allow Paul to offer an amendment, he chose to use a Senate rule that allows individual senators to slow down proceedings that require the consent of all.

I cant in all good honesty, in all good faith, just look the other way because my party is now complicit in the deficits, he said on the Senate floor.

[The Daily 202: Rand Paul's short-lived shutdown is ending, but his warning about GOP deficit hypocrisy reverberates]

Paul ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential primary, drawing attention to the presidents multiple bankruptcies as proof of his lack of a commitmentto fiscal conservatism. When Trump pulled out of a January 2016 Fox News debate becausethe network declined his request to remove Megyn Kelly as moderator,Paul claimed that Trump might be backing away because the former Democrat isnt a conservative.

He told CNNs Alisyn Camerota: Maybe [he's] afraid of the fact that he's never voted in a Republican presidential primary. For 70 years, he's been a progressive Democrat. I was wondering if maybe he's going to show up for the Democrat primary debate next time.

I think he does want to avoid difficult questions. And I think he's used to getting his way, Paul added.

Paul has since been seen buddying up with Trump on the golf course. But his strongest words late into the night Thursday were for his fellow party members who attacked President Barack Obama for increased government spending but are now are rallying behind a similar idea just because it's championed by Republican lawmakers.

Paul said: I ran for office because I was very critical of President Obama's trillion-dollar deficits. Now we have Republicans hand in hand with Democrats offering us trillion-dollar deficits. I can't in all honesty look the other way.

Congress ended a five-hour government shutdown early Friday morning after the House supported a massive bipartisan budget deal that adds hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. The funds will go to the military, domestic programs and disaster relief.

Trump signed the bill into law Friday morning.

Under Trump, fiscally conservative lawmakers supported increased government spending.

Under Trump, the Republican National Committee backed a candidate in Alabama accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls while in his 30s.

Under Trump, Christian conservatives have defended a thrice-married man against allegations that his lawyer paid a six-figure settlement to a porn actress who reportedly had an affair with the president not long after his wife gave birth to their son.

Under Trump, multiple veterans have backed a candidate with multiple draft deferments who as president has invoked the military while attacking other Americans who took a knee during the national anthem to protest racism and police violence.

Under Trump, Republicans who criticized the influence of high-spending donors in politics have gone silent as the billionaire president's private club hosts political fundraisers with tickets starting at $100,000.

Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman told the New York Times that people like her who boarded the Trump train called themselves Trumpublicans due to his unorthodox and unconventional approach to politics that seemed to have no place in the Democratic Party or the GOP.

But more than a year after Trumps inauguration, it is clear that his politics have found a home in the GOP. The majority of Republicans continue to give him high approval ratings despite scandals dominating headlines nearly every week. They point to the decisions that reflect a relatively traditional Republican presidency as reasons for their high support.

But a sizable group of Never Trump Republicans remains vocal and critical of his presidency. And it is not clear where these conservatives can go, given that Trumpism is becoming more of the dominant worldview of the GOP.

Paul is likely to continue to draw attention to what he sees as hypocrisies in the Republican Party, but the likelihood of conservative lawmakers pivoting away to the traditional vision of conservatism is low. The truth is conservative voters had a chance to choose between Paul and Trumps visions for America during the GOP primaries. The GOP chose Trump.

Read the original post:
Rand Paul calls out hypocrisy of GOP in the Trump era - The ...

A military parade in the nations capital?The last military parade in Washington was in 1991, after our victory in the first Iraq War.

Though the martial image of high-stepping soldiers is not one I tend to associate with our nations Founders distrust of a standing Army, Im not against a victory celebration. So I propose we declare victory in Afghanistan, bring home our 14,000 troops and hold a victory parade.

We defeated the enemy in Afghanistan. We killed or captured the terrorists who planned, plotted, or aided in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We killed the ringleader, Usama bin Laden. We disrupted the terrorists camps where they plotted and trained. We dislodged the Taliban government that aided and abetted bin Laden.

We just dont know how to appreciate a good thing. A big part of our foreign policy failures is not knowing when and how to declare victory. So, why not a parade? Bring the troops home and declare the victory that should have been declared years ago.

The only reason victory is elusive in Afghanistan is that presidents continue to have an impossible definition of victory. If victory is creating a nation where no real nation has ever existed, then no victory will ever occur.

If victory requires the disparate tribes and regional factions of Afghanistan to have more allegiance to a regime in Kabul than to their local tribal leaders, then victory will never come.

We spend about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. When quizzed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, undersecretaries of Defense and State could not answer the most rudimentary of questions concerning the war.

How many Taliban fighters do we face?Blank faces for an answer. What percentage of the Taliban are unrepentant terrorists unwilling to negotiate?Blank faces again.

The Taliban now control a significant amount of Afghanistans real estate. Are the Taliban open to negotiating, considering that they appear to be winning? Blank faces again, but with perhaps a touch of remorse, knowing that there really is no possible military solution in Afghanistan.

The neocons are unaccustomed to nuance in victory. They seem to have learned some lesson about unconditional and total surrender when America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II with the surrender of Japan, and they seem unwilling or unable to accept any other form of victory.

So, by all means, a parade yes! As long as it is a victory parade heralding an end to Americas longest war.

Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.

Follow this link:
Sen. Rand Paul: Bring home our troops and, yes, throw a ...