• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1467
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации57
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы495
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Рэнд Пол
Рэнд Пол
Рэндал Говард "Рэнд" Пол (Randal Howard "Rand" Paul, p. 7 января 1963 года, Питтсбург, Пенсильвания) — американский политик, сторонник либертарианских политических взглядов, сенатор от штата Кентукки, член Республиканской партии, один из активистов движения чаепития. С ...

Рэндал Говард "Рэнд" Пол (Randal Howard "Rand" Paul, p. 7 января 1963 года, Питтсбург, Пенсильвания) — американский политик, сторонник либертарианских политических взглядов, сенатор от штата Кентукки, член Республиканской партии, один из активистов движения чаепития. Сын Рона Пола, первый в истории США действующий сенатор, один из родителей которого является членом Палаты представителей США.


Рэндал Говард Пол родился 7 января 1963 года, в Питтсбурге, штат Пенсильвания, в семье Рональда Эрнеста Пола и Кэрол Пол (урожденной Уэллс). В семье третий ребёнок из пяти В подростковом возрасте стал верующим христианином.

В 1968 году, семья Пола переехала в Лейк-Джексон, штат Техас, где он вырос. Когда ему было 13 лет, его отец был избран в Палату представителей США.

В 1988 году поступил в медицинский университет и закончил его в 1993 году.

5 августа 2011 года вступил в должность сенатора США.

7 апреля 2015 года объявил о намерении баллотироваться на пост Президента США в качестве кандидата от Республиканской партии на выборах 2016 года.



Официальная страница на сайте Сената США

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
18 октября, 01:22

President Obama And The House Freedom Caucus Agree On Something

WASHINGTON ― As President Barack Obama closes out the final months of his presidency, with Donald Trump and his spectacularly offensive take on American politics dominating every news cycle, the president is noting a bit of a shift in the Republican Party. Obama keeps arguing that Trump is not an aberration of the GOP, but a product of it. And at an annual dinner for Ohio Democrats last Thursday night, Obama continued this theory by laying some of the blame on GOP leaders for “feeding their base all kinds of crazy for years.” While conservative members of Congress were not exactly willing to accept that narrative, they were, surprisingly ― on the record, off the record and on background ― willing to go along with some of Obama’s thinking about Trump, the House Freedom Caucus, and the changes in the Republican Party. In an interview with New York magazine earlier this month, Obama argued that early in his presidency, conservatives inside and outside of Congress vilified him so badly that they made gridlock and dysfunction with the president a staple of party purity, tainting his ability to work with Republicans for the rest of his terms. And Obama seemed to place much of the blame on one person: Sarah Palin. “I see a straight line from the announcement of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential nominee to what we see today in Donald Trump, the emergence of the Freedom Caucus, the tea party, and the shift in the center of gravity for the Republican Party,” Obama said. As Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp put it, “There’s a lot to unpack there.” Huelskamp is exactly the type of Republican Obama speaks of so derisively. He’s a member of the Freedom Caucus, as well as the current Tea Party Caucus chairman, and he was even recently defeated in a primary, in part because some Republicans thought he was too conservative. But for all the misgivings about a man who’s among the most hated Republicans inside of GOP leadership suites, Huelskamp is by no means out of the loop. He has a Ph.D. in political science from American University, and he read the New York magazine interview with Obama. “The section where he talks about the Democrats who were willing to die on the sword for Obamacare?” Huelskamp said, geeking out over the interview. “How many Republicans would do the same? I think you’d be hard-pressed to find 20 Republicans.” As fascinating as he found the piece, the one thing Huelskamp and every other Freedom Caucus member we talked to thought was totally off was that Obama would credit Palin for the populist backlash leading to Trump and their group. “Where Obama is wrong is this: This disdain for the mainstream Republicans among conservative voters ― it’s not new,” Huelskamp said. Most members don’t know when the anti-Washington animus imbuing their group meaningfully materialized, but they certainly would date it to before Sarah Palin ever arrived. “He actually needs to take that line back to the late ‘60s when the conservative movement actually began,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) told HuffPost. Huelskamp also seemed to roughly concur with that timeline, pointing to the backlash against so-called “Rockefeller Republicans” in the ‘60s and ‘70s (referring to liberal Republicans in the mold of former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who later served as vice president under Gerald Ford). Although other members weren’t willing to put an exact date on whatever has a rebalancing in the Republican Party, no one thought it was Palin’s doing. “The frustration with Washington predates any one group or politician but comes from years of failed promises from elected officials,” Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said. Still, the most surprising element about asking Freedom Caucus members to comment on Obama’s thoughts was not how much they disagreed with the president. (If you needed a reminder of how much disdain these conservatives have for Obama, Duncan wanted us to be sure to include a line from him asking, “Could you draw a line from Marx through Roosevelt to Obama?”) The shock was how much they saw in common between Palin, their group and Trump. Rep. Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who famously took down former Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary in 2014, sees similarities between the issues that brought him to Congress and the issues that brought Trump the GOP nomination. “It was definitely a precursor,” Brat said of his election. “I ran on similar themes that were narrower then but they’ve just blown up exponentially.” First among those issues, as anyone who ever heard Laura Ingraham talk about the Brat-Cantor race knows well, is immigration. Brat demonstrated in stark terms that GOP leaders were a bit ahead of their voters on wanting immigration reform, and Brat was able to seize on that anger to mobilize Republican primary voters. (There were certainly a number of other issues unique to Brat’s race, but immigration was the central issue.) Brat also thinks some of the anti-establishment themes present in his election are also dominant in the Freedom Caucus and Trump’s campaign. “I was going to go up and challenge the system,” Brat said, “but Trump is big enough that he can break the system.” Freedom Caucus members have garnered a reputation for their refusal to go along with GOP leaders, to say nothing of their distaste for working with Democrats and the president. But, as one Freedom Caucus member noted, the HFC has not been the most fertile ground for Trump support.  Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) was the only HFC member to endorse Trump before he became the presumptive GOP nominee, and as this one member of the group noted, the HFC was generally split between Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Our movement in the Freedom Caucus was not a Donald Trump movement,” the member said. And yet, other HFC members were willing to accept similarities between the roots of their group and the roots of Trump. “The continued appeasement of Obama spurred the rise of the Freedom Caucus, but it also spurred the rise of Donald Trump,” Duncan said. Duncan added that many of the same frustrations leading to Trump brought members of the HFC to Congress in the first place, as well as motivated them to band together. “The Freedom Caucus became a necessity when Congress and House leadership failed to do conservative things ― when they failed to actually land a punch or two on the progressive in the White House,” Duncan said. What actually led to the Freedom Caucus is a much broader conversation. As Jordan, the group’s chairman, has put it numerous times, the Freedom Caucus is “about doing what you said you were going to do.” Duncan attributed the group to voters “failing to see what they got for their money, so to speak,” after they elected large Republican majorities in 2010 and 2012. And while Duncan noted that Trump support among the conservatives in the HFC was a bit mixed ― “I don’t think anybody in the Freedom Caucus believes 100 percent of what Donald Trump says” ― he could see some similarities between the HFC, Trump, the tea party and Palin. “The tea party is just a title for the broader conservative movement,” Duncan said. Still, the misgivings about Trump are very real in the group. They’ve seen Republicans say they want to dismantle Obamacare and substantively address debt and spending, only to have Republicans turn around and approve more debt and more spending, and not even propose a health care law alternative. Embodying the uneasiness, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said he couldn’t really make a judgment on Trump because the GOP nominee had never held a political office before. “If Barack Obama is right and Donald Trump proves to be like the House Freedom Caucus, then Trump will make a great president,” Brooks said. But he said drawing comparisons between Trump and the HFC was premature. “I hope Barack Obama is right, which is unusual for me,” Brooks said. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 октября, 20:47

Yes, Deplorables, I'm Voting For Hillary Clinton

You never know what's going to upset the Deplorable basket, and understand when I say that, I'm not being insulting; I'm talking about the self-identified Deplorables. This actually happened to me: A reporter tweeted about a WikiLeaks thing about the Podesta emails. As with all of them, it was something that was 1) nothing out of the ordinary and 2) presented to be something nefarious. The details aren't important, so I won't go into them. I replied to the Tweet, asking "So?" And the response was stunning. Over the next two days, my feed received nearly two million impressions and I received literally thousands of mentions. Most of them coming from people who had "Pepe" as their profile picture and/or "Deplorable" in their name. Their well thought out responses included various creative uses of the "p-word", references to the Obamas eating bananas, and original jokes about how "Kelly is a girl's name." And those were the friendly ones. Most of them were profanity-induced charges referring to my ignorance, references to how Clinton should be in jail, that Bill Clinton was a rapist, and just general asinine levels of hostility. Most of them I just blocked without even reading. I had to block over 500 people in two days. And the irony was how many of these people were in agreement that I (and people like me) are the reason America is so divided right now. No. I am not the reason. Nor is America falling apart as a certain sexual predator on the Republican ticket would have you believe. But it sure would if Trump won. But there's a question a lot of people asked me that I want to answer: Why would you vote for her? I would literally vote for any 35-year-old, American-born citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony and who is able to function in polite society without groping women before I would vote for Trump because he can't even clear that bar. But let's clear up things on two fronts, here. First, I couldn't find a hoot to give about WikiLeaks. Shockingly, they also show that Podesta is her campaign manager, and he's managing her campaign. Yes, the WikiLeaks prove Hillary Clinton is a politician running for office. But there is nothing in there that makes me contemplate putting a racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, despot-wannabe, fear-mongering, pedophile, sexual-predating narcissist in the White House. Sorry. I'm not going to waste time arguing about that because I find there's never any progress made in those discussions. People who make their minds up when they read click-bait headlines tend to be closed-minded anyway. But I do want to explain is that I am not just voting for Clinton because she is "not Trump." She is not "just as bad" or "the lesser of two evils." She didn't run an illegal charity that she robbed from to buy self-portraits and bribe politicians not to investigate her for scamming hard-working Americans out of their money with a fake university. She didn't run business after business into the ground and fail to pay her bills while literally pooping in a golden toilet. She didn't brag about groping women and then call the women who said he did it liars. Trump is a slimeball. Pure and simple. Let's not confuse normal politics with the moral bankruptcy of Trump. But there is no Chapter 9 for that. But I am not just voting against him. I am voting FOR her. I voted for Sanders in the primary, but I still find a lot to like about Clinton. I think we need an in an increase in minimum wage. So does she. I think we need to continue growing the economy, and the way to do that is not to make irresponsible tax cuts which correspond with irresponsible spending cuts; so does she. I have LONG thought the greatest asset of any society is its people, and as such, everyone's education should go as far as their abilities and ambition will carry them. I don't think that secondary education should be something that should be available only to some. So does she. She would give free college tuition to anyone from a family making $125,000 per year or less. I think that the over-incarceration of blacks is a massive problem in this country (and an irresponsible burden on the tax payers). So does she. She would like to turn the "school-to-prison" pipeline into a "school-to-college" pipeline. And for those who want to know how she pays for that, college is cheaper than prison. I believe that while most police are decent people, trying to do their jobs, unconscious racial profiling is real, and is a big part of why we have so many problems in that area. So does she. I believe that the next supreme court justice needs to be someone who will protect the rights of ACTUAL people and not corporations. So does she. While I believe the second amendment protects the right to own guns, I also think that those who commit violent crimes lose that right and responsible government should prevent those people from gaining easy access to them. So does she, and that's why she is for closing loopholes that allow that to happen. I think that global warming is an actual threat. So does she. I believe there should be a path to citizenship for people whose families have become integrated into American society. So does she. I believe that the Affordable Care Act needs to be improved, but it needs to be tweaked, not repealed. So does she. A bit selfishly, I admit, this 49-year-old man likes the idea of expanding Medicare to 50. I believe women deserve equal pay for equal work. So does she. I do not agree with everything that Clinton has done. I don't agree with everything she says. I don't think I'll agree with everything she'll do. But perfection has never been my measure of any candidate because no such candidate exists. The only one I always agree with is me, and I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was president. In sum, I think that Hillary would be a good president. I think that she has a life of working hard to help people, and I think the totality of her biography proves that. If you look past the debunked scandals, you can see that. She would be a good president. She has a history of successfully reaching across the aisle, which when you consider the sheer scope of derision she's born is massively impressive. When Trump had to answer two consecutive negative questions in a debate, he couldn't handle it. He is STILL complaining about it. Can you imagine him sitting in front of the senate for 11 hours bearing up against the snide questioning Rand Paul? Perhaps what this divided nation more than anything is a president who has self-control, and Clinton has that in spades. After all, she's had to live in a world of condescending Trump-like doofuses her whole life where she knows more, has done more and still has had to explain herself. Trump can't even reach across his own party. Is he going to reach across the aisle? So, no, I'm really not just voting or Trump's opponent. I'm actually voting for her. To wit: I'm with her. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
12 октября, 15:30


RAND PAUL AND SCOTT WALKER WERE MY EARLY FAVES, BUT NEVER GOT TRACTION. HMM. Democrats Were Worried About Rand Paul, Leaked Email Reveals: At the same time Democrats were advised to “elevate” Donald Trump. So when Hillary tells you how awful Trump is, remember that she maneuvered to make him the GOP nominee…

09 октября, 18:00

"Просто найдите мужа" и другие цитаты кандидатов в президенты США о женщинах

Карьеристки и диснеевские принцессы Кандидаты на пост президента США выдвигаются не поодиночке: у каждого из них есть "младший напарник", который в случае победы своего кандидата займёт пост вице-президента. У Дональда Трампа на выборах 2016 года такого "напарника" зовут Майк Пенс. В молодости Пенс написал несколько статей, в которых изложил свои идеи по поводу женского труда. К нему, как становится понятно после прочтения, он относится с большой неприязнью. Годами популярная культура внушала женщинам, что у них может быть всё: карьера, дети и большой гараж. Конечно, может, но потом не удивляйтесь, что никто не занимается воспитанием детей Майк Пенс Когда Пенс вёл свою программу на радио, он делал ещё более впечатляющие заявления. Например, нападал на детский мультфильм "Мулан" 1998 года, в котором принцесса, переодевшись в мужчину-солдата, отправляется сражаться на войну. Будущий кандидат в вице-президенты заявил в радиоэфире, что "в Disney сидят либералы, которые думают, что хрупкая женщина сможет воевать наравне с сильными мужчинами", а потом сделал вывод о возможной службе женщин в армии: Девушки очень любят заниматься сексом с парнями. Парни любят заниматься сексом с девушками. Поселите их вместе на достаточно продолжительное время, и всё станет очень... интересно. Мораль истории: женщины в армии — к беде! Майк Пенс Стриптизёрши и холокост Бывший губернатор штата Арканзас Майк Хакаби вознамерился подняться на трон американской политики в 2008 году, но оступился, позволив себе ряд неостроумных комментариев. Во-первых, он напал на любимцев американской публики — пару рэпера Jay-Z и певицы Бейонсе Ноулз. Начал с того, что сравнил их отношения с союзом сутенёра и проститутки, а потом заявил, что Бейонсе не больше чем очень популярная стриптизёрша. Вы знаете таких родителей, которые говорят дочери: "Дорогая, будешь учиться на одни пятёрки — подарим тебе собственный шест для стриптиза! Майк Хакаби На этом история высказываний кандидата не окончилась. Например, в своих интервью он приравнивал аборты к холокосту, оскорбляя не только женщин, но и жертв геноцида, а также обещал, что предотвращением абортов, если он придёт к власти, будут заниматься специальные отряды национальной гвардии.  Поиски мужей и дети вне брака Джеб Буш, один из кандидатов 2016 года, который выбыл из президентской гонки ещё в феврале, двадцать лет назад тоже высказывался про женщин в интересном ключе. Во время кампании на пост губернатора Флориды Джеб сказал, что женщины, находящиеся на социальном обеспечении, должны "собраться с силами и найти себе мужей".  Давайте начистоту: чтобы получать социальное пособие, нужно быть незамужней женщиной. Мужчины же не сидят на алиментах Джеб Буш В ответ на вопрос о том, как правительство США намерено помогать одиноким матерям, Джеб заявил, что их в принципе не было бы, если бы в мире всё ещё было презрение к тем женщинам, которые рожали детей вне брака. У женщин нет проблем Сенатор штата Кентукки Рэнд Пол одним из первых обратил внимание на "войну против женщин", которую, по мнению политиков и феминисток, правительство США объявило прекрасному полу. На фоне выступлений против разницы в зарплатах между женщинами и мужчинами, а также других острых социальных вопросов, Пол рассказал, что не видит в ситуации никакой проблемы, поскольку лично с женщинами, которые испытывали бы какие-либо трудности, не знаком.  Мне правда это непонятно, если и была какая-то война против женщин, то они её уже выиграли. Например, женщины в моей семье очень успешны. У меня племянница учится на ветеринара, там 85% учеников — девочки. В юридической школе — 60%, в медицинской — 55%. Моя сестра работает гинекологом, воспитывает шестерых детей и прекрасно себя чувствует. Мне не кажется, что женщин прямо так сильно угнетают Рэнд Пол На вопрос, адресованный Полу сайтом The Nation, не думает ли он случайно, что знаком со всеми женщинами в Америке, кандидат не ответил, а через месяц выбыл из президентской гонки.  Рабовладелица в абортарии Вопрос абортов — один из самых сложных в американской политике. Нейтральную позицию в нём занять нельзя, а каждый из выборов настраивает против кандидата половину общественности. Например, во время дебатов 2016 года Бен Карсон, к слову, практикующий детский нейрохирург, знающий цену детским жизням, очень неаккуратно увернулся от неудобного вопроса о том, как он относится к прерыванию беременности. Подумайте вот о чём. Во время рабства — и я знаю, что это слово не очень приятно слышать, но я всё равно его скажу — многие рабовладельцы думали, что имеют право поступать с рабами так, как посчитают нужным. Делать всё, что захотят. А что, если противники рабства не действовали, а просто говорили, что не верят в него, что это неправильно, но позволяли им дальше действовать как им заблагорассудится. Что бы сейчас было?  Бен Карсон Карсон, Пол, Буш, Трамп — многие американские политики позволяли и позволяют себе странные, неудачные, а порою и напрямую оскорбительные комментарии про женщин или в их сторону. Из-за этого падает их рейтинг, сайты пишут язвительные комментарии, а кампании некоторых кандидатов не переживают такого удара и закрываются. Поэтому любым кандидатам на любые посты хочется пожелать любить и уважать женщин. 

05 октября, 07:29

Elaine Quijano cuts off the drama

Just when the candidates started to debate, CBS's moderator stepped in.

04 октября, 23:45

Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged broker of Libyan weapons

Arms dealer had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s talks about arming anti-Qadhafi rebels.

03 октября, 20:31

Andrew Kaczynski's BuzzFeed Team Joins CNN

NEW YORK ― BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and his scoop-driven political research team are joining CNN during the final, frenetic stretch of the 2016 election and beyond.  Kaczynski, 26, has been one of the standout reporters of the campaign season as his K-File team has consistently broken news through deeply mining candidates’ past statements and actions. Three other members of the team ― BuzzFeed deputy politics editor Kyle Blaine and reporters Nate McDermott and Christopher Massie ― are making the jump with him.  The hiring of Kaczynski and company is a major coup for CNN and follows a recent spat between network chief Jeff Zucker and BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. In August, Zucker said BuzzFeed wasn’t a “legitimate” news organization, prompting Smith to criticize the network for boosting Trump in the pursuit of ratings. The mini-exodus also comes amid questions about BuzzFeed’s commitment to original reporting following a recent reorganization.  In an interview, Kaczynski stressed that the decision to leave ― and the abruptness of his departure ― was motivated by what “CNN brought to the table” rather than a reflection on BuzzFeed. He said the network can offer “unparalleled” resources and promotion for his team’s work, providing the opportunity to “influence the political debate in this country in a powerful way.” “To be at the biggest name in news for the last month of what has been the craziest election in modern history is just a great opportunity for me and everybody on our team,” he said. “When the opportunity was there, we made sure we took it.” Kaczynski said talks began informally in late summer. Given the urgency of the presidential race, Kaczynski and company won’t get a breather between jobs. They gave notice at BuzzFeed on Monday and begin at CNN on Tuesday. Andrew Morse, executive vice president of editorial of CNN U.S., likened the situation to “a pennant race.” “There are 40 days before one of the most pivotal elections in modern times,” Morse said. “CNN, as we have been this entire cycle, is trying to do everything we can to provide our viewers and our users with the very best reporting that we can. When you’re in a pennant race, you try to bring on the best talent you can to make sure your team is as strong as it can be.” CNN’s late-season poaching of four BuzzFeed reporters may be viewed as the latest round in the two news outlets’ public fight. But Morse said hiring the investigative unit was done to strengthen CNN, not swipe at a rival.  “We’re worried about ourselves,” Morse said. “We’re not worried about BuzzFeed.” “I guess this means that CNN has seen the value in doing the kind of tough reporting on Donald Trump that BuzzFeed News has been doing all presidential cycle and we wish Andrew good luck,” Smith said in a statement. Kaczynski was one of Smith’s first hires after leaving Politico in late 2011 to beef up original reporting at BuzzFeed. While in college, Kaczynski built a reputation among prominent political reporters, like Smith, for unearthing newsy videos. He was wrapping up his senior year when he joined the site. Kaczynski described Smith in an interview as a “mentor.”  The small group Kaczynski put together ahead of the 2016 election ― initially likened to an in-house opposition research team ― has had an outsize influence on the political news cycle and performed serious vetting of the candidates. For instance, Kaczynski’s team found video contradicting Trump’s claims of being against the 2011 U.S. intervention in Libya, and, last week, reported how the Republican nominee appeared (clothed) in a Playboy video, even as he’s tried smearing a former beauty queen by saying she’d been in a sex tape. He revealed through searching census records that only one of Hillary Clinton’s grandparents had immigrated to the United States, contrary to what the Democratic candidate had asserted. Kaczynski also found instances of Rand Paul plagiarizing in speeches, which led the Kentucky senator to muse about dueling those investigating his record.  The team’s biggest scoop came in February, and CNN played a role in immediately amplifying it. Kaczynski and McDermott unearthed 2002 audio of Donald Trump voicing tepid support for invading Iraq, a clip that contradicted the Republican candidate’s long-running and false claim that he was a vocal opponent of the war. Zucker read the BuzzFeed story as CNN was conducting a town hall interview with Trump and spoke with executives about quickly inserting a question on it into the event.  Kaczynski said he “knew that [his] reporting had really made a mark” this election cycle when video or audio of it was later cited or played on CNN. The ex-BuzzFeed team can be expected to continue delving into candidates’ records even once the presidential race is past. Kaczynski pointed out there are governor’s races in states such as New Jersey and Virginia, a New York City mayor’s election, as well as the appointments of either President Clinton or President Trump. Then it’s on to the 2018 midterm elections, and another presidential cycle begins again. The addition of four BuzzFeed reporters follows on CNN’s deep investment in 2016 election coverage and ambitious plans for digital operations going forward. The K-File team should get its own dedicated page on the site after the election.  “We think in hiring this team we’re hiring a really unique investigative reporting unit that has shown a clear record of breaking news and really smart reporting,” Morse said. “We’re going to set them up to do what they do best.”  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

03 октября, 09:16

Американцу – не верь: США будут отказываться от своих «союзников»

Вашингтон продолжает устоявшуюся практику по отправке отработавших «союзников» в утиль.

27 сентября, 18:48

Comey warns of post-ISIL terrorist 'diaspora'

FBI Director James Comey warned Tuesday that the increasing success of the military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq carries an ominous downside: a wave of terrorist fighters who will spread across the globe as the group loses control of its territory on the ground."The so-called caliphate will be crushed. The challenge will be: through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of very, very dangerous people," Comey said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on the global terror threat. "They will not all die on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq. There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we've never seen before.""We must prepare ourselves and our allies particularly in western Europe to confront that threat because when ISIL is reduced to an insurgency and those killers flow out they will try to come to western Europe and try to come here to kill innocent people," the FBI director said. He said the wave of fighters will be larger than the one that came out of Afghanistan after the war there in the 1980s.Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) acknowledged that the territory governed by ISIL has decreased, but he said the campaign against the group has been so slow that the group is reconstituting elsewhere."We haven’t reduced their capability. The diaspora has already begun," Johnson said. "We're poking the hive. We've done some damage to it but the killer bees are leaving the hive. They’re setting up new hives."National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen said intelligence officials had long predicted the threat would metastasize as ISIL was squeezed."It’s not surprising. It puts us in a period of sustained vulnerability that I don’t think any of us are comfortable with. But I think it’s a reality," he said. Despite the fears of terrorist fighters flowing out of Iraq and Syria, some senators said a more urgent worry is that the FBI is missing opportunities to head off home-grown terrorist attacks like the shooting at an Orlando nightclub in June where 49 people were killed and the bombings earlier this month in New York and New Jersey.Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) noted that FBI investigators looked at the suspects in those attacks long before the violence, but closed those inquiries without bringing charges."I'm also troubled the FBI is not even willing to admit they made some mistakes," Paul complained. "These are judgment calls and the judgment calls were incorrect and I think we should just admit that and look at some of the facts."Paul said the FBI failed to get video from a gun shop that could have shown shooter Omar Mateen buying a weapon shortly before the attack, but Comey said the FBI wasn't told about that visit promptly and by the time it was notified the video was already erased.However, Paul said the FBI should have kept an investigation into Mateen open longer because it might have exposed his plan to attack the Pulse nightclub.Comey said the FBI can keep such probes open indefinitely and repeatedly extended the one in Florida."We should keep them open longer...as long as the facts warrant," the FBI director said. "We have the policies and the tools we need to do this well." He added that agents have to make a "judgement every day" about whether specific cases merit further investigation.Ayotte questioned why agents handling the pre-shooting investigation of Mateen never looked at his social media or internet activity, even the publicly available information.Comey said the FBI had two people interacting directly with Mateen, leading the case agent to think he had "a pretty good vector into [Mateen's] state of mind."Ayotte said it still seemed odd that the FBI wouldn't also check his public online activity, especially as the FBI presses for more access to encrypted communications."It just seems surprising to me that there wasn’t some kind of online work done in something so significant," the New Hampshire Republican said.Comey said a review of the Florida probe is nearly done and another is in the works. He also said an assessment will be done of the handling of earlier inquiries into New York and New Jersey bombing suspect Ahmad Rahami, but that inquiry will be complicated by the pending prosecutions of the suspect who is currently in a Newark hospital being treated for a gunshot wound."We are going to go back," the FBI director said. "You will find us being very candid about our shortcomings and our strengths."

26 сентября, 14:49

CLAIM: Trump’s old debate tricks won’t work on Clinton. He entered each debate with a game plan a…

CLAIM: Trump’s old debate tricks won’t work on Clinton. He entered each debate with a game plan and flawlessly executed it. By the time the debates began, for instance, Trump was at the top of national and battleground Republican polls. So he was able to consistently tout his polling strength while needling opponents such as […]

26 сентября, 07:45

Недовольство Саудовской Аравией в Конгрессе США растет

На этой неделе 27 сенаторов — трое республиканцев и 24 демократа — проголосовали против поставки в эту страну партии оружия на сумму 1,15 миллиарда долларов. Для запрета поставок этого было недостаточно, однако количество противников продажи оружия в эту страну оказалось больше, чем предполагали наблюдатели.

23 сентября, 00:58

Obama, in an awkward twist, becomes Saudi Arabia's defender

Long a critic, the president now finds himself in the uncomfortable spot of protecting the austere desert monarchy from Congress.

22 сентября, 18:48

Time to Halt Weapons Sales to Saudi Arabia

J.D. Gordon Security, Middle East Saudi-exported Wahhabism is one of the world’s most dangerous retrograde forces Four U.S. Senators have launched a bipartisan effort this month to block an arms deal to Saudi Arabia worth $1.15 billion. It’s a smart move considering that, since last year, a Saudi-led military coalition has reportedly killed and wounded over 10,000 civilians across their southern border in Yemen.   With the partisan gridlock that’s so prevalent in Congress, it’s refreshing to see a noble cause like human rights in Yemen shared by two Republicans -- Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, and two Democrats -- Minnesota’s Al Franken and Connecticut’s Chris Murphy.   Hopefully they will secure a veto-proof majority, as the last thing Washington should do is sell 130 Abrams tanks, other heavy weapons and ammunition to Riyadh in light of Yemeni massacres. Yet even if the Senators are successful, they should consider taking it a step further. All weapons sales to Saudi Arabia should be halted.  Until the Kingdom halts violent extremism. That’s because Wahhabism, the ultra-rigid form of Islam practiced by the Saudis for centuries and exported globally by Riyadh for decades is one of the world’s most dangerous retrograde forces. It demands a literal interpretation of the Koran, fostering a 7th century mentality which applies to law, governance, policy and social norms. As a PBS Frontline Documentary described it, “Strict Wahhabis believe that those who do not practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies.” In effect, Wahhabism justifies violence against Christians, Jews and others as non-believers, a.k.a. “infidels.” It calls for punishment of “kuffars,” Muslims who are judged as insufficiently pious. Under Sharia Law, religious conversion away from Islam is punishable by death. Saudi Arabia’s embrace of Wahhabism has served them well in recent decades, at least to a certain degree. Read full article

22 сентября, 04:15

Сенат США отказался блокировать продажу оружия Саудовской Аравии

Авторы текста, сенатор-республиканец Рэнд Пол и его коллега из Демократической партии Крис Мерфи, выражают обеспокоенность участием королевства в йеменском конфликте

22 сентября, 04:06

Сенат США отклонил предложение не продавать Саудовской Аравии вооружения

На заседании Сената США за проект резолюции, блокирующей продажу Саудовской Аравии вооружений, проголосовали 27 членов палаты, 71 высказался против. Авторами текста выступили сенатор-республиканец Рэнд Пол и его коллега из Демократической партии Крис Мерфи, оба они выражают обеспокоенность участием королевства в йеменском конфликте, передает ТАСС. «Тысячи мирных жителей гибнут, террористические группы внутри страны (Йемена), такие как «Аль-Каида» и «Исламское государство», становятся все сильнее», - говорится, в частности, в заявлении Мерфи. По мнению законодателей, пока политика Эр-Рияда не изменится, «США должны приостановить дальнейшие продажи оружия». Сенаторы, в частности, предлагали не поставлять Саудовской Аравии более сотни танков Abrams, оптические системы к ним, пулеметы крупного калибра, пехотные пулеметы М240, гранатометы, а также учебные боеприпасы. Они выступали против поставок машин М88, задачей которых является эвакуация и ремонт танков. Данная сделка на общую сумму 1,15 млрд долларов была одобрена госдепартаментом. В августе спикер Палаты представителей Конгресса США Пол Райан сообщил о планах заблокировать продажу Саудовской Аравии. Группа из 60 конгрессменов США обратилась к президенту США Бараку Обаму с просьбой отложить запланированную продажу Саудовской Аравии вооружений. Закладки:

22 сентября, 01:10

Senate Permits $1.15 Billion Arms Sale To Saudi Arabia

WASHINGTON ― The Senate has rejected a measure that would have blocked a $1.15 billion weapons transfer to Saudi Arabia, disappointing critics of the Kingdom and tacitly endorsing President Barack Obama’s policy of record arms deals to the Saudis and other U.S. partners in the troubled Middle East. A handful of lawmakers from both parties backed the bill, describing it as a way to begin putting necessary limits on the U.S.-Saudi alliance. The bill’s supporters say the Kingdom has threatened American interests by committing war crimes in its brutal U.S.-backed campaign to restore the government in Yemen, and by spreading a radical strain of Islam that some terror groups, like al Qaeda and the self-described Islamic State, have partially co-opted. Another arms deal would solidify the impression that the U.S. is tied to the worst Saudi excesses, according to the measure’s co-author, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “There is a U.S. imprint on every civilian death inside Yemen, which is radicalizing the people of this country against the United States,” Murphy said. But the bill failed 71-27 on Wednesday after its opponents argued that it would be interpreted as a dangerous, disloyal message to an ally that has embraced U.S. policy at great cost to itself. “Were this resolution of disapproval ever to be adopted, it would further convince the world that the United States is retreating, not only from its commitments, but also as a guarantor of the international order we worked to create after the Second World War,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. The vote appears to mark the end of a spat that began in August, when the Obama administration informed lawmakers that despite the growing controversy over Yemen, it had approved another weapons sale to the Saudis. Members who had been raising the Yemen issue then began to try to kill the deal. Others on the Hill argued that Saudi Arabia and other U.S. partners in the Persian Gulf need to arm themselves against an increasingly aggressive Iran. Iran has supported Houthi forces in Yemen that ousted a pro-Saudi government last year. It’s also used its allies to expand its influence and weaken Saudi proxies elsewhere, particularly in Lebanon and Syria. On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested that this is not the right time or the right way to begin a broad conversation about U.S.-Saudi relations. “If militias were attacking our borders and launching missiles into our territory and our friends refused to help us defend ourselves, we would certainly question the value of that friendship,” McCain said. “This is why the sale is more important than just a sale. It is a message.” Murphy and others skeptical of Saudi Arabia ― like resolution co-sponsors Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), and the supporters of the equivalent measure in the House, Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) ― aren’t likely to drop the issue. “I knew from the beginning that this was not becoming law,” Murphy told Politico. “My point here is to raise a discussion about the war in Yemen and Saudi behavior in the region that isn’t happening.” The fact that public criticism of U.S.-Saudi relations has become so popular has the Saudis worried about how much they can count on traditional support from Washington. The Kingdom has responded by bolstering its charm offensive among “thought leaders” in the U.S. and pumping up nationalism at home ― suggests that it might actually become more aggressive in response to international condemnation because it feels isolated and betrayed. Other recent news from the Hill is adding to the Saudis’ anxieties. The House has approved a bill that would allow sovereign governments to be sued in the U.S. over allegations of terror. That measure was championed by some families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks who believe Saudi Arabia had a role in those events, even though years of investigations by the U.S. government have found no evidence for that claim. Obama plans to veto this measure, with the White House citing concerns for the security of U.S. personnel abroad. Administration sources argue that other governments would pass similar laws that would open up America to suits and fraught, as well as potentially unfair processes of discovery and trial. They also note that the legislation would affect all countries, not just the Kingdom. European Union countries, for example, strongly oppose the bill as well, arguing that sovereign immunity is essential to foreign policy and international law. Still, Congress could override the veto ― which lawmakers appear to be seriously considering, presumably in part because siding with Sept. 11 families would likely bolster their political prospects in an election year. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 сентября, 22:21

Senate backs tank sales to Saudi Arabia

The Senate on Wednesday backed a $1.15 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, even as Congress is preparing to override an expected presidential veto of a different bill allowing 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi government.The Senate voted 71-27 to table, or kill, the resolution from Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) that would have blocked the $1.15 billion sale of Abrams tanks to Saudi Arabia, which the State Department approved last month.While the vote was unsuccessful, Murphy said his goal wasn’t necessarily to pass the resolution, but rather to press Saudi Arabia on its role in the civil war in Yemen. Riyadh has been accused of killing civilians with airstrikes in Yemen and other human rights violations.“I don’t think the Saudis are interested in continually having a debate about the future of U.S.-Saudi relationship on the floor of the Senate or the House,” Murphy told POLITICO ahead of the vote. “I knew from the beginning that this was not becoming law. My point here is to raise a discussion about the war in Yemen and Saudi behavior in the region that isn’t happening.”Opponents of the resolution — including Republican Senate foreign policy stalwarts like Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — argued that the Saudis were important allies in the Middle East, despite their abuses in the war in Yemen. “Were this resolution disapproval ever to be adopted, it would further convince the world that the United States is retreating not only from its commitments, but also as the guarantor of the international order,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor Wednesday.The arms sale vote comes at a tense time in U.S.-Saudi relations, as Congress is preparing to override a presumed veto on legislation that also targets Saudi Arabia. The White House plans to issue a formal veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks to sue foreign governments found responsible for them. The legislation, which breezed unanimously through both chambers of the Capitol earlier this year, has long been viewed as focusing on Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the terrorist attacks. The so-called “28 pages,” part of a 2002 probe that was declassified in July, included some indications that appear to suggest links between a handful of Saudis in the United States and two of the 9/11 hijackers. Some influential lawmakers have shown hesitation about the 9/11 bill and its implications as an override vote became imminent. President Barack Obama has not vetoed the legislation yet; he has until Friday to do so, and McConnell said the vote will be held before senators leave Washington until the November elections.Murphy said it was “unfortunate” the timing of the two bills intersected, arguing they were two separate issues that both happened to deal with Saudi Arabia.“I think there are a lot of people who want to vote — who will vote to override the JASTA veto and then vote against our resolution as a means of balancing their votes out,” he said. “Had our resolution happened at a different time, the vote might be different.”Opponents of the disapproval resolution also made a distinction between supporting the 9/11 bill and supporting the arms sale to the Saudis. Republicans who came to the floor to back the sale tied it to Iran, charging that Iran was on the other side of the civil war in Yemen and that Saudi Arabia was essential as a counterbalance in the region.“You're talking about a body and an idea that is ass-backwards, this is one for the ages,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “To those who want to vote today to suspend this aid to Saudi Arabia, people in Iran will cheer you on.”The U.S. has played a support role for Saudi Arabia in the Yemen civil war, providing aerial refueling and intelligence sharing. The proposed arms sale to the Saudis includes 153 Abrams tanks, and 20 “battle damage replacements,” likely from their use in the Yemen war.Wednesday vote wasn’t the first time that Paul and Murphy have teamed up to force a vote on a sale to a Middle Eastern ally with a checkered history. In March, the pair forced a vote on the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, which was also blocked by the Senate, 71 to 24.Paul’s Senate campaign sent out a note to his supporters ahead of the vote Wednesday, urging them to “#standwithrand” and to sign a petition backing his resolution.

21 сентября, 02:53

2 ex-Ron Paul aides get probation for paid 2012 endorsement cover-up

The case involved a $73,000 payment for a presidential endorsement.

21 сентября, 00:34

Senators Call For ‘More Conditional’ U.S. Relationship With Saudi Arabia

WASHINGTON ― The United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia should be “less consistent” and “more conditional,” according to a freshman senator who’s taken the lead in questioning it this year and demanding that the Saudis do more for the U.S. “Our interests are not aligned in fundamental ways, in the way that many new senators and congressmen are taught when you show up here,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday at the Center for the National Interest. His remark is one of the clearest signs yet that the recent push to hold the Saudis accountable for their excesses is about more than their U.S.-backed brutality in Yemen over the last year ― it’s an effort to fundamentally rethink a relationship that has been at the foundation of American Middle East policy. Murphy and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were speaking at the D.C. think tank in advance of a Wednesday Senate vote on a measure they have introduced that would condemn a $1.15 billion sale of U.S. tanks and other military equipment to the kingdom. The senators believe Saudi interests have drifted away from those of the U.S. in recent years, they said. They blasted the kingdom for promoting an orthodox perspective of Islam that has been twisted into the militant ideologies of groups like al Qaeda and the self-described Islamic State. The young lawmaker targeted the assumption that the U.S. should help the Saudis even on missions that seem futile or dangerous, like their campaign in Yemen. That’s especially striking because it’s an implicit critique of what President Barack Obama, the leader of Murphy’s own party, has done for years, even as he has proved willing to question the Saudis and anger them by pursuing nuclear diplomacy with Iran. “If consistency is your ultimate goal here, then I guess we should answer the call any time the Saudis ask,” Murphy said. “But if your goal is to create a more functional relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia then occasionally you have to say no … I think the Saudis need to show us something in return, and I don’t see a lot of evidence over the last five years for that to be the case.” The senators said they’d like to see an increasingly cautious Saudi alliance, in which U.S. military support depends on Saudi efforts to combat terrorism and prevent civilian casualties in military adventures like that in Yemen, where the Saudis hope to restore a friendly government and weaken a local movement linked to Iran. Human rights groups and lawmakers in the U.S. and Europe have blamed the Saudi-led coalition for targeting civilian sites, such as schools, hospitals and factories, despite repeated Saudi promises to follow the laws of war. The U.N. estimates that the civil war has killed 10,000 civilians since it began last year. The controversy over the U.S.-backed war has gotten attention in the House too. Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who has been vocal on the issue for months, and Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) introduced a similar measure to the Senate proposal in the lower chamber on Tuesday. It’s striking that few Americans are aware of their country’s culpability in the conflict, the senators said. “We are refueling the planes that are dropping the bombs, we are giving the targets and we have people positioned there helping to guide the missiles into their targets,” Paul said. “So I think we are actively part of a war in Yemen, and I think almost no American knows that we’re involved with it.” To Yemenis on the ground, the war is very much a joint American and Saudi effort, Murphy added. “We have to take seriously the fact that we own, in some way, shape or form, every single civilian death,” the senator said. He noted that radical groups, notably al Qaeda’s especially skilled branch in Yemen, have prospered thanks to the chaos of the war. Saudi Arabia and its partners in the campaign, like the United Arab Emirates, have spent some time fighting radical militants, but they are mostly focused on the Iran-backed Houthi movement. They argue that this must be their focus given their vulnerability to attacks from Yemen, and they respond to critics by pointing out their successful campaign against al Qaeda in the kingdom, as well their steadfast and often domestically difficult support of U.S. foreign policy goals. The kingdom is facing unprecedented heat from Congress this year. In addition to the tensions over sending the Saudis more arms, lawmakers have supported a bill that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any possible role in the attacks. Theories about a Saudi role have proven to have little basis and likely would not stand up in a court of law. But even passing the bill would be seen as an insult inside the kingdom and a gift to its enemies, notably Iran, which regularly suggests Saudi links to militancy while downplaying its own ties to international terror. President Barack Obama has voiced staunch opposition to the measure, arguing that it would open the U.S. up to lawsuits by other countries. The White House will almost certainly veto it. Paul’s fellow Kentuckian, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the Senate would override Obama if the president vetoes the Saudi law suit bill. But McConnell predicted Paul’s resolution on weapons would fail, and he called Saudis important allies. “I do think it’s important and I intend to aggressively oppose the effort to disapprove the arms sale to the Saudis,” he said. “The Saudis are in many many ways been good allies of the United States over the years. they, as we all know, were extremely unhappy with the Iran deal. I think it’s important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudia Arabia as possible. And I hope we’ll defeat the resolution of disapproval of the arms sale.”  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 сентября, 22:13

Trump team talking to veteran GOP ad man Elsass

Donald Trump’s campaign, hoping to counter Hillary Clinton’s air assault, is in talks with veteran GOP ad maker Rex Elsass, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.Elsass, according to one of the sources, met with Trump officials in New York City last week. Elsass has deep connections to the Trump campaign. He previously served as a top strategist to vice presidential nominee Mike Pence, and in 2012 he worked with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway for Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, who came under widespread criticism after making controversial remarks about rape. Elsass is a partner at Strategy Group for Media, a firm that has also counted Jim Murphy, Trump’s national political director, as an employee.Trump’s advertising campaign has been led by Jamestown, a prominent political consulting firm with an anti-establishment edge. Two Jamestown employees, Jason Miller and Larry Weitzner, have taken senior roles in the campaign. Also helping to lead the Trump ad effort is Rick Reed, a veteran GOP strategist who assisted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against John Kerry in 2004.Discussions about bringing aboard Elsass come as Trump is getting walloped on the airwaves. On Sept. 12, Smart Media Group, a media buying firm that works with the Republican National Committee, detailed in an email to Trump campaign officials how Clinton was outspending the Republican nominee on TV by an astonishing seven-to-one margin. With polling in many battlegrounds suggesting the race is tight, many Republican strategists are concerned that Trump’s lack of commercial spending could pose problems as the contest enters its final seven weeks.The Ohio-based GOP operative has a long history in Republican politics, having worked for a number of presidential candidates over the years. During this year’s primary season, Elsass advised Rand Paul and, following Paul’s departure from the race, John Kasich. In 2012, he worked for Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich.Neither Elsass nor a Trump spokesperson responded to requests for comment.

11 апреля 2015, 20:18

В президентскую гонку вступил кандидат, готовый покончить с гегемонией США

Сенатор Рэнд Пол официально объявил о своем выдвижении в президенты США вторым среди республиканцев. Сейчас невозможно предсказать ни исход выборов 2016 года, ни даже фамилию республиканского кандидата, но Пол в любом случае занимает уникальное место в американском политическом истеблишменте, потому что реально бросает ему вызов. Доктор Пол идет ломать вашингтонскую машину и закрывать глобальный проект.52-летний сенатор от Кентукки вступает в кампанию под лозунгом «Разрушить вашингтонскую машину! Дать волю американской мечте!». Тут интересно все: и обещание сломать сложившуюся власть партийно-бюрократической элиты, и невольная перекличка с главным китайским лозунгом последних лет, выдвинутым председателем Си Цзиньпином и обещающим достичь «малого процветания» (важный элемент достижения «китайской мечты») как раз к 2020 году, то есть времени, когда завершится срок полномочий президента США, избранного в 2016-м.Конечно, «мечтой» спекулируют многие американские политики, но практически все из реально претендующих на высшую власть считают, что мировая гегемония Америки является неотъемлемой частью американской миссии. А Рэнд Пол – антиинтервенционист, который видит Америку «достаточно сильной, чтобы отразить любую агрессию, и достаточно мудрой, чтобы не ввязываться в ненужные интервенции». Причем эта позиция Пола совершенно логично вытекает из его консерватизма и либертарианства – он один из вождей и кумиров «чайной партии», движения, апеллирующего к наследию отцов-основателей и занимающего сейчас очень серьезные позиции в среде республиканцев. Далеко не все «чайники» столь миролюбивы во внешней политике, но Рэнд еще и сын своего отца, чья известность сыграла немалую роль в быстром взлете молодого сенатора.79-летний Рон Пол больше двух десятилетий провел в Палате представителей, но был там абсолютной «белой вороной», выступая не только за жесткое ограничение власти федерального правительства и его вмешательства в жизнь граждан и права штатов, за кардинальную реформу американской финансово-банковской системы (настаивая на ликвидации Федеральной резервной системы), но и за отказ США от внешней экспансии. Пол голосовал против войны в Ираке, предлагал выйти из ООН и НАТО, а уже во время украинского кризиса осуждал вмешательство США, говоря, что «без спонсируемой США «смены режима» сотни людей не погибли бы в ходе беспорядков, которые последовали за свержением президента Януковича».«Если наша гиперинтервенционалистская политика с большой вероятностью дает нам такую «отдачу», нужна ли нам такая внешняя политика? Оно реально того стоит? Основной акцент нашей критики, другими словами, состоит в том, что внешняя политика правительства ставит под угрозу американский народ и делает его более уязвимым для атак, чем было бы в других случаях... Внешний интервенционализм не приносит выгод гражданам Америки, а является угрозой нашим свободам», – подчеркивал он.Пытаясь опорочить Пола, его называли расистом, гомофобом и антисемитом. При этом сам Рон не согласен считаться даже изоляционистом:«Любой, кто защищает антиинтервенционистскую внешнюю политику, должен быть готов к тому, что его заклеймят изоляционистом. Но я, например, никогда не был изоляционистом... Настоящие изоляционисты – это те, кто изолируют свою страну, настраивая против нее мировое общественное мнение, проповедуя бессмысленную агрессию и войну, которые не имеют ничего общего с легитимной концепцией национальной безопасности».Именно благодаря своей последовательности и идейности Пол стал очень популярен среди либертарианцев, а позднее и консервативного «движения чаепития». Пол-старший – абсолютная противоположность Бушу-старшему или Клинтонам, и более чем символично, что его сын вступает в борьбу за президентство в кампании, которую многие уже считают обреченной стать битвой двух президентских фамилий и династий.Но если Пол-старший антисистемщик (будучи при этом весьма последовательным сторонником как раз исконных американских ценностей, от которых отошли сами американские элиты), то его сын пытается хоть как-то приспособиться к системе, чтобы изменить ее. Осуждать Рэнда Пола за измену принципам, как это делают некоторые из сторонников его отца, не стоит – в США просто невозможно прийти к власти, минуя одну из двух «партий власти»: сама выборная машина построена так, что независимые кандидаты или представители карликовых партий не имеют никаких шансов (максимум, на что они способны – будучи очень богатыми эксцентриками собрать много голосов, как это сделал Рос Перро в 1992-м). Для победы нужна партийная поддержка, и Рэнд Пол пытается ее получить, учитывая при этом неудачный опыт своего отца, который тоже не раз боролся за выдвижение от республиканцев.В 2008 году Рона Пола игнорировали мейнстримные СМИ, но он был очень популярен среди интернет-аудитории, что проявлялось даже в том, что он получал больше всех пожертвований на свою кампанию (и это были именно переводы от обычных граждан). В 2012 году Пол первое время даже лидировал по популярности в опросах среди республиканских избирателей. Но тогда не помогло ни движение чаепития, ни симпатия избирателей – он проиграл праймериз Миту Ромни, который в свою очередь не смог лишить Барака Обаму второго срока.А политическая карьера его сына началась всего двумя годами ранее – в ноябре 2010 года Рэнд был избран сенатором от Кентукки. До этого Пол-младший никогда не занимался политикой – врач, как и его отец, он 18 лет проработал офтальмологом (так что в случае избрания станет вторым президентом с такой профессией наряду с Башаром Асадом). О его президентских перспективах заговорили почти сразу – впрочем, очень многое зависело от внутренних процессов в Республиканской партии. «Чайники» наступали, и как ни сопротивлялась партийная машина, приобретали все большее влияние в партийных структурах и Конгрессе.«Чаепитие» нельзя назвать чисто антиэлитным движением, это скорее сочетание низового протеста с внутриэлитной борьбой: не говоря уже о том, что большинство американцев выступает за ограничение власти правительства, в США достаточны сильны противоречия и между экспансионистскими элитами побережий, и элитами внутренних штатов, между теми, кто давно уже считает себя частью и ядром мировой наднациональной элиты, и сторонниками самодостаточной Америки. Это и не чистой воды изоляционизм, но это очень важный шаг к нему.Понятно, что сейчас в американской элите преобладает интервенционистская позиция – конечно, в разных ее вариантах, но ключевые фигуры как среди республиканцев, так и среди демократов не ставят под сомнение миссию США по «поддержанию порядка» во всем мире. Рэнд Пол, конечно, не столь жесткий антиинтервенционист, как его отец, но все же его внешнеполитическая концепция однозначно резко отличается что от взглядов Клинтон, что от позиций Джеба Буша или Тэда Круза. Во время своего выдвижения Пол заявил, что внешняя политика США «должна порождать стабильность, а не хаос».При этом в отношении украинского кризиса Пол, сначала, до присоединения Крыма, призывавший «не стремиться ущипнуть Россию», в марте прошлого года изменил позицию, потребовав «принять решительные меры против российской агрессии». Жесткая позиция Пола вызвала недоумение у сторонников его отца, который в те же дни выступал с прямо противоположных позиций.Но поведение Рэнда объясняется достаточно просто – сенатор уже тогда готовился к президентской кампании и понимал, что для успешной борьбы за выдвижение ему необходимо будет существенно увеличить число своих сторонников. Отмолчавшись по Крыму и Путину, в отношении которых тогда в Штатах было абсолютное согласие, Пол рисковал маргинализацией. Для России при этом принципиальны не эти высказывания Рэнда Пола, а его общий настрой на отказ от внешней экспансии США, от которого в случае его победы на президентских выборах он в любом случае не сможет отказаться.#{interviewpolit}Пол, конечно, не сможет свернуть американский проект и отказаться от планов глобализации (президент в США все-таки достаточно зависимая фигура), но он сможет существенно повлиять на их корректировку, а значит, и способствовать хотя бы относительному снижению мировой напряженности и смягчению процесса ухода Америки с позиции мирового гегемона. Пол не Обама в том смысле, что он имеет стройную систему взглядов и не откажется от их воплощения. Он боец. Достаточно вспомнить, как два года назад он пытался заблокировать утверждение Бренана директором ЦРУ, выступив в сенате с 11-часовой речью, или то, сколь упрямо он настаивает на аудите ФРС.К тому же внешнеполитическая концепция Пола является лишь продолжением внутриполитической. А она, ограничивая власть федерального правительства и уменьшая его влияние, как раз очень серьезно бьет по интересам и власти глобалистски настроенной части американского истеблишмента. Меньше государства внутри США автоматически означает и меньше империи вовне. Президент-антиинтервенционист проторит дорогу президенту-изоляционисту, но есть ли сейчас шанс на победу Пола?Пока что по всем опросам Клинтон побеждает любого республиканского кандидата. Но это сейчас – ее известность и влияние не сравнятся ни с одним из республиканских кандидатов. Против Клинтон играет слишком многое – президентство однопартийца Обамы, в целом оцениваемое скорее как неудачное, собственный тяжелый характер, слабая работа в качестве госсекретаря. Кроме того, республиканцы сейчас на подъеме, они, по сути, правящая партия везде, кроме Белого дома. У них большинство в обоих палатах Конгресса, власть в большинстве штатов. У них есть огромное желание отыграться – вопрос только в том, сумеют ли они выбрать сильного кандидата.Сейчас у «слонов» нет явного фаворита, хотя понятно, что республиканская элита выдвинула бы Джеба Буша, сына и брата президентов. Но непонятно, насколько он избирабелен, хотя сейчас его рейтинг выше, чем у остальных претендентов-республиканцев, Клинтон он все равно проиграет. Да и внутри Республиканской партии у бывшего губернатора Флориды не все просто.По опросам Буш пока что немногим опережает губернатора Висконсина Скотта Уокера (консерватор, дважды победивший в либеральном штате). Вслед за ними идет группа преследователей, в которую входит и Пол – опросы пока что дают ему с третьего по пятое место.В этой группе бывший губернатор Арканзаса Майк Хакаби (серьезно боровшийся за выдвижение в 2008-м, но уступивший Маккейну), знаменитый нейрохирург чернокожий Бен Карсон (неожиданно включившийся в гонку), губернатор Нью-Джерси Крис Кристи (пару лет назад считавшийся фаворитом) и сенатор Тэд Круз (близкий к «чайной партии»), в конце прошлого месяца первым объявивший о своем официальном выдвижении.Но эти опросы мало о чем говорят, потому что впереди еще много времени – все будет зависеть от борьбы партийных элит и настроений внутри партии, а также способности победить Клинтон. Второго чернокожего претендента подряд (Карсона) республиканцы стране явно не предложат, баптистский пастор Хакаби не способен сплотить республиканцев и свое уже отыграл. Кристи после скандалов сидит в засаде, Круз слишком молод, а есть спрос на опыт.Самый опытный, конечно, Буш, но у него и множество минусов. Главный из которых – само происхождение. Тот факт, что Америка уже открыто уподобляется так любимому отцами-основателями Риму с его соперничающими за власть патрициями, не нравится очень многим избирателям. И в этом смысле кампания Клинтон–Буш сама по себе может стать серьезным ударом по и так уже очень низкому авторитету центральной власти.На борьбу со сложившейся американской номенклатурой (связки политиков с финансово-промышленной олигархией), которую и называют «вашингтонской машиной», и вышел Рэнд Пол. Подтверждением этому является и то, что из всех республиканских кандидатов Пол пользуется наибольшей симпатией среди неопределившихся и беспартийных, то есть его воспринимают шире, чем просто партийного кандидата. Внутри Республиканской партии пока что Пола будут пытаться остановить Уокером – консерватором, который не имеет антиэлитарных убеждений и вполне приемлем для республиканского истеблишмента, но понятно, что главная борьба ему предстоит с Бушем.Она и станет главной интригой нынешней кампании, причем это будет не обычное американское шоу, в котором разница во взглядах имеет второстепенное значение, а принципиальный спор. Пол представляет собой «другую Америку» – ту, которую давно уже оттерли от ключевых рычагов управления. И которая хочет взять реванш – опираясь на ключевые принципы самоуправления, прийти в Вашингтон, чтобы лишить его большей части власти, незаконно присвоенной им у штатов.По исходу противостояния Буш–Пол можно будет судить о том, насколько ситуация в Штатах созрела для подобных революционных изменений. Которые интересны нам в первую очередь теми последствиями, которые они окажут на поведение США на глобальной арене, ведь именно там мы будем заниматься изолированием «атлантической империи», минимизацией разрушительных последствий ее агрессивного мессианства. Было бы неплохо – и для самих США, и для России – если бы новый президент облегчил нам эту задачу. Даже если Пол станет президентом не в 2016-м, а в 2020 году.источник