Rand Paul in CBS "Face the Nation" interviews during 2018

On War & Peace: Cut off arms sales to Saudis; war in Yemen hurts US security

PAUL: That evidence is overwhelming and, no, I don't think we can sweep this under the rug.

Q: President Trump imposed sanctions.

PAUL: The [Saudis] will see sanctions as weakness and if the President wants to act strongly he should cut off the arms sale not only because of the killing but until they stop indiscriminately bombing civilian populations.

Q: You're talking about in Yemen?

PAUL: Yes, in Yemen.

Q: Should this trigger some change in policy? The president says he's not going to hurt the economic benefits of arms sales.

PAUL: The arms sales don't make us safer. When we sell arms to a foreign country, it should not ever be for jobs, it should be for our national security. The Saudis' involving us in their war in Yemen is not good for our national security. So we should quit arming the Saudis.

On War & Peace: Lesson of Iraq: unintended consequences from regime change

PAUL: When it comes to foreign policy, the thing I liked about President Trump was his opposition to the Iraq War. I guess what I'm perplexed by is that he keeps nominating people around him on foreign policy who actually thought the Iraq War was so good that they want to have an Iran war now. The lesson of the Iraq War was that there are unintended consequences from regime change. And so I don't think somebody being the head of secretary of state who wants regime change in Iran is a good thing or wants regime change in North Korea. You really want a diplomat to be in charge of the State Department, not someone who is advocating for war. So, I can't vote for Pompeo.

Q: Will you filibuster?

PAUL: I will do everything [possible but] I don't have the power to stop nominations.

On Budget & Economy: Trillion-dollar deficits are bad, whether by Dems or by GOP

PAUL: We should draw attention to the fact that we're spending so much money. I ran for office in 2010 with which was called the Tea Party tidal wave at that point, and we were very, very critical of President Obama's deficits, approaching a trillion dollars in a year. And I'm still against deficit spending. Just because Republicans are doing it doesn't make it any better.

Q: And now we have deficits projected to be a trillion dollars again, and yet in a growing non-recessionary economy. Are you troubled by that?

PAUL: Yes, I'm very worried. Republicans want more for military spending. And to get that, they have to give Democrats what they want, which is more for domestic spending. And the compromise, while some say, "oh, it's bipartisanship," well, if the bipartisanship is exploding the deficit, I'm not so sure that's the kind of bipartisanship we need.

On Homeland Security: Fiscal conservatives must oppose unlimited military spending

PAUL: One of the questions Republicans are not willing to ask themselves is, "Can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending?" There's sort of this question, "is the military budget too small?", or maybe "is our mission too large around the world?" And because Republicans are unwilling to confront that, they want more and more and more for military spending. And to get that, they have to give Democrats what they want, which is more for domestic spending.

Q: Is the current level of defense spending, or the mission, reckless?

PAUL: I think the mission is beyond what we need to be. We're actively in war in about seven countries, and yet the Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now.

On War & Peace: We're actively in war in 7 countries, and none are declared

PAUL: I think the mission is beyond what we need to be. We're actively in war in about seven countries, and yet the Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over I think the Afghan war is long past its mission. I think we killed and captured and disrupted the people who attacked us on 9/11 long ago. And I think now it's a nation-building exercise. We're spending $50 billion a year. And if the president really is serious about infrastructure, a lot of that money could be spent at home. Instead of building bridges and schools and roads in Afghanistan or in Pakistan, I think we could do that at home.