Rich Lowry:
On This Week, Rand Paul danced around his statement on an old tape that Dick Cheney supported the invasion of Iraq because of his association with Halliburton. Yesterday, he said he wasn’t questioning Cheney’s motives, but then commented on how curious it is that Cheney opposed going into Iraq during the First Gulf War and then supported invading after working with Halliburton. Somehow Paul discussed this change without mentioning that perhaps 9/11 had some influence on the vice president’s thinking. I’m guessing this will be Rand Paul’s approach on foreign policy for the duration: trying to soften what he’s said in the past — and presumably truly believes — without disavowing it. From his exchange with Jon Karl:
KARL: But you said we don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off the weapons. Are you suggesting that’s why we went to war in Iraq?
PAUL: No. No.
KARL: That our defense was being defined by people making . . .
PAUL: No.
KARL: — money off weapons?
PAUL: — and that’s why I’m also saying that I’m not questioning Dick Cheney’s motives. I think he’s as patriotic as I am and wanting the best for his country.
But I do think that when people go from high levels of government to high levels of industry that are dependent on government money, that there is a…
KARL: Halliburton.
Crony capitalism in Washington DC resides in both parties.