A real fight is brewing ahead of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. It’s a war over the way the last GOP administration waged the war on terror. The question to be settled: Is this still George W. Bush’s party?
For a while, it looked like these divisions might be papered over. Rand Paul seemed to be soft-pedaling some of his less interventionist positions, moving closer to fellow Republicans on the Islamic State and Iran. Then many of the other candidates admitted the Iraq war was a mistake, at least in hindsight, including usually reliable hawks like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.
Détente ended Wednesday. Paul called out GOP supporters of the Iraq invasion and “Hillary’s war” in Libya. The Kentucky Republican blamed “hawks in our party” for strengthening the Islamic State by sending weapons to places where they could fall into the hands of jihadists and by launching the wars (and trying to launch more wars) that would create power vacuums in which it could thrive.
That puts Paul in stark contrast with the rest of the Republican field on the genesis of the Islamic State, and Bobby Jindal made sure to let Paul know. “It has become impossible to imagine a President Paul defeating radical Islam and it’s time for the rest of us to say it,” the Louisiana governor said in a statement.
Paul upended the speaking roster at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference when he blocked the renewal of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act in the Senate last week. This kept many of his rivals away from the confab, which was predominantly though not homogeneously hawkish.
Jeb Bush received applause at that event when he expressed pride in his brother, the former president. Chris Christie pounded the “very dangerous” debate over the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance. “I’m the only person in this national conversation at the moment who has used the Patriot Act, signed off on it and convicted terrorists because of it,” he thundered, “and I am telling you there is responsible ways for us to oversee this and make sure civil liberties aren’t violated.”
In a flashback to the Bush years, 46 percent of conference straw poll participants said national security was their most important issue compared to 39 percent who cited economic issues. (One difference, however: only 14 percent listed social issues.)
One Republican who was there because he was most concerned about national security was former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a Bush administration veteran. He had just announced he wasn’t going to run for president, but he wasn’t walking away from the intraparty battle over foreign policy and civil liberties.
“You can blame George W. Bush for a lot of things, but he can’t be blamed for decisions made after Jan. 20, 2009,” Bolton told me. He said his political action committee would be active in the primaries, trying to keep the focus on national security.
I asked if the PAC would attack any of the candidates. He said he wasn’t sure, noting he is willing to talk to and advise any of the Republicans running, but acknowledged he would try to explain why he believed Paul’s approach to these issues was wrong.
Bolton has said that the United States was right to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether there were weapons of mass destruction. Republican primary voters might be receptive to this argument. A new poll of early state Republicans found that 59 percent thought the invasion was the right call.
Yet the third of Republicans who disagree appear to have only one presidential candidate to vote for, with the 14 percent who thought it definitely was the wrong decision to go to war exceeding the performance of any GOP presidential contender in the most recent New Hampshire poll appearing in RealClearPolitics‘ average.
That’s why Paul is as eager to brawl with umpteen other Republicans running for president as he is reluctant to fight multiple wars in the Middle East. And unlike his father’s years of lonely no votes, Senate procedure means his dissents can’t be ignored.
Both sides of this debate will try to portray each other as beholden not to Bush, but the current occupant of the White House. Paul’s critics say he is to the left of Barack Obama on Iraq and foreign policy more generally. The Kentucky senator and his libertarian Republican allies in the House are quick to point out who is actually backing Obama on the Patriot Act.
It may have been better for Republicans to debate these issues more than a decade ago, but better late than never.
