Fox Business 2015 GOP primary debate: on Homeland Security
Ben Carson:
Goal of global jihadists is to destroy our way of life
We're talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? In order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate.
Look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. Our goal is not to contain them, but to destroy them before they destroy us.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Chris Christie:
Yes, there is a crisis at the VA
The way to reconnect Americans to the men and women in uniform is to give them a Commander in Chief who respects the military and respects everyone who wears the uniform. Secretary Clinton says, there's no crisis at the V.A.. That send a hard message
to our veterans that she doesn't get it, and she doesn't respect their service. When the President of the United States doesn't back up law enforcement officers in uniform, he loses the moral authority to any man or woman who is uniform.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Donald Trump:
We worry about Iranian nukes but why not North Korean nukes?
It's not only Russia [that we're having trouble with]. We have problems with North Korea where they actually have nuclear weapons. You know, nobody talks about it, we talk about Iran, and that's one of the worst deals ever made. One of the worst
contracts ever signed, ever, in anything, and it's a disgrace. But, we have somebody over there, a madman, who already has nuclear weapons we don't talk about that.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Jeb Bush:
We don't need a divider-in-chief: rebuild the V.A.
Jane Horton is sitting with my wife here today. Her husband, Chris, was killed in action in Afghanistan. And Jane spends her time now defending and fighting for military families. They're both heroes. I don't think we need an agitator-in-chief or a
divider-in-chief. We need a commander-in-chief that will rebuild our military and restore respect to our veterans by revamping and fixing a broken Veterans Administration, That's my pledge to you. I ask for your support. Thank you.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Marco Rubio:
World is safer when America is the strongest military power
Sen. Rand PAUL: Rubio's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending--you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative.RUBIO: I do want to rebuild the American military.
PAUL: How is it conservative?
RUBIO: I know that Rand is a
committed isolationist. I'm not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the US is the strongest military power in the world.
PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco, you can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that
you're not going to pay for.
RUBIO: We can't even have an economy if we're not safe. There are radical jihadist in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, the Chinese
taking over the South China Sea. Yes, I believe the world is a safer--no, I don't believe, I know that the world is a safer place when America is the strongest military power in the world.
PAUL: No. I don't think we are any safer from bankruptcy court.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Rand Paul:
How is it conservative to add $1T in military expenditures?
PAUL: We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? Marco Rubio's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending--you get something that looks, to me, not very
conservative.RUBIO: I do want to rebuild the American military. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the US is the strongest military power in the world.
PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! How is it conservative to add a trillion-dollars
in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going to pay for.
RUBIO: We can't even have an economy if we're not safe.
PAUL: No. I don't think we are any safer from bankruptcy
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Rand Paul:
We spoke to Russians throughout the Cold War; keep doing so
Q: You have already said that it would be a mistake in not talking to Vladimir Putin, or to rule it out. You've argued that it's never a good idea to close down communication. Do you think the same applies to administration efforts right now to include
the Iranians in talks on Syria and Russian involvement there?PAUL: I think it's particularly naive, particularly foolish to think that we're not going to talk to Russia. Ronald Reagan was strong, but Ronald Reagan didn't send troops into the
Middle East. The question goes to be, "who do we want to be our commander-in-chief?" Do you want a commander-in-chief who says something that we never did throughout the entire Cold War, to discontinue having conversations with the Russians? I am not
happy about them flying there. But I'm not naive enough to say, "well, Iraq has them flying over their airspace, we're just going to announce that we're shooting them down." That is naive to the point of being something you might hear in junior high.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Rand Paul:
FactCheck: Yes, military spending as much as next 10 nations
Senator Rand Paul said, "We need a safe country, but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. I want a strong national defense, but I don't want us to be bankrupt." Is that literally true? We found the answer on
Wikipedia, for the top 11 countries in military expenditures (in billions per year): - $581B United States
- $129B China
- $81B Saudi Arabia
- $70B Russia
- $62B United Kingdom
- $53B France
- $48B Japan
- $45B India
- $44B Germany
-
$34B South Korea
- $32B Brazil
The "next ten countries combined" add up to $598 billion annual military expenditures. Compare that to the U.S.'s annual total of $581 billion, and Sen. Paul is pretty much correct. He spoke a bit loosely,
saying "we spend MORE than the next ten countries combined," when he should have said "we spend A COMPARABLE AMOUNT to the next ten countries combined." But we rate his statement as ACCURATE.
Source: OnTheIssues FactCheck on Fox Business/WSJ debate
Nov 10, 2015
Rick Santorum:
Commander-in-chief is not an entry-level position
Barack Obama doesn't stand behind our men and women in uniform here at home because he hasn't stood behind them overseas. We need a commander in chief who has a vision and plan of how we're going to execute the national security of our country.
Commander in chief is not an entry level position. Experience matters, and that's why I would ask for your support as a Commander in Chief, because I have the experience against the enemy.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate
Nov 10, 2015
Page last updated: Dec 07, 2018