Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul speaks on McChrystal and BP

I got a chance to talk to Rand Paul after his low-dollar D.C. fundraiser Wednesday, and asked him about the McChrystal kerfuffle and the controversy over his take on the BP spill.

RN: Do you agree with the president's decision to accept Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation?

PAUL: Ultimately it is the prerogative of the president to decide who his generals are. My first thought was, going back to the historic controversy between Truman and MacArthur, but the thing is I'm not sure I'd call this insubordination, but he had a public disagreement and I think -- I don't think anybody questions that it's the prerogative of president, whether it's a small or big disagreement, to decide who generals are at the top level. I haven't read all his comments nothing specific to say.

RN: You've started to take heat for your approach to the BP escrow fund. Do you support the fund, the way it's set up?

PAUL: Well, I don't think there are many people who don't believe in any regulations, myself included, and even my dad -- I don't think you'll hear him say he doesn't believe in any regulation. But I'm not sure I have the answer to that, sincerely. I think everyone in the country wants BP to pay for the clean-up, myself concluded. I've never had any argument with that -- it's amazing how you say things and they get blown into things you didn't say! I'm not even sure I can talk to some people anymore because they take things out of context.

RN: But do you support the set-up of the fund? Do you oppose regulating offshore drilling?

PAUL: There should be some regulations, but I want to do it in a rational, reasonable way, and ask: Did they obey the regulations? Do we not have enough regulation, and do we need two blow-out preventers from now on? These are the things scientists and inventors should tell us. Should we be drilling at that level? There are a lot of issues, but we shouldn't react in an emotional way and say no more drilling. I see some of that emotionalism happening because the president feels trapped -- his advisers say you've got to be tough, you've got to have tough language. I'm not sure that's a rational way to handle this.

RN: To finish up, though: Do you oppose the fund? I'm not going to trap you and ask whether or not it was a "shakedown," but do you think it's legal and legitimate?

PAUL: I was listening to some people on the Hill today, and they were looking for the justification for setting it up. I don't know what the legal justification is -- I'm not an expert in whether Congress has to give you authority or the president has authority to do it. Those issues take research and time, and I'm not going to make an off-the-cuff response.

By David Weigel  |  June 24, 2010; 3:40 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Election  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An apology to my readers
Next: Rupert Murdoch, open borders crusader

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company