He's talking about you, Old Man McCain, and your little girlfriend Lindsey too

Rand Paul points out that Republican hawks created ISIS by arming the terrorists in Syria and supporting Hillbama's destruction of Libya.
ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because the same hawks in my party loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya, they just wanted more of it. But Libya is a failed state and a disaster, Iraq really is a failed state or a vassal state now of Iran, so everything they’ve talked about in foreign policy they’ve been wrong about for 20 years and yet they somehow have the gall to keeping saying and pointing figures otherwise.


Brian Brady said…
Rand is getting hammered for making a thoughtful comment. why is it (now) that only libertarians wonder about unintended consequences?
WC Varones said…
Anyone who says this was a "gaffe" is not paying attention and is unqualified to be a political commentator.

Paul said the exact same thing in a well-considered WSJ op-ed last year:

A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither.

But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be “catastrophic” if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad’s regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.

Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration’s feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that “something” must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.
Brian Brady said…
"Anyone who says this was a "gaffe" is not paying attention and is unqualified to be a political commentator."

This is why Rand is getting hammered; the neoconservatives know it's not a gaffe. This was designed to let libertarians know that, while he's not his father, he is his father's son.

Ron Paul (love that man) articulated the non-interventionist foreign policy with the language of the Left (phrases like occupation, empire, etc)--that sunk him with Republicans. Rand has been careful to use phrases which won't ring Republican voters' bells (constitutional foreign policy).

Rand had to pick a fight with the neo-cons to send a message. It's working