Sen. Rand Paul is redoubling his efforts to paint Hillary Clinton as a hawk whose policies are dangerous for the United States.
The Kentucky Republican and 2016 hopeful took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal to launch his latest broadside against the former secretary of state, saying her proposed foreign policy of arming the Syrian rebels would have emboldened Islamic militant group ISIS.
“To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn’t get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS,” he wrote in a piece published online Wednesday.
Paul added: “Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a ‘Munich moment.'”
The libertarian senator — a rare Republican advocating a more restrained foreign policy — cautioned against making “the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.”
The Democratic National Committee accused Paul of adopting “blame America” rhetoric.
“This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of ‘blame America’ rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world,” DNC spokesman Michael Czin said in a statement. “In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure. Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be — The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”
Paul has made a habit of attacking Clinton, a potential competitor in 2016, in part by channeling the war-weary sentiments of the American public. Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” he labeled her a “war hawk” and said lots of Democrats and independents don’t want another war in the Middle East.
Just came from Home Depot, They are all out of brass spray paint.
Opinions are like what Kirsten Gillibrand called her sexist chambermate, everybody has one but the Jr. Senator from KY has two.
Rand might want to think about this word: over-exposure.
I said I was watching TPM’s coverage of Hillary Clinton and I’m watching.
Rand Paul is right that Hillary was dead wrong on Syria. Not loving that the DNC is wasting time going after Paul. They should be concentrating on midterms and not doing Hillary’s campaign work for her.
The problem I have with Rand Paul’s non-interventionist stance is that it seems to be terribly shallow, in that he just speaks the words. Basically, “Hillary wants to intervene and bomb people and, by the way, she should be ashamed; it’s her fault that Bill got some head.”
I’ve never heard Paul make a well-thought-out case for the “side boards” for interventions – never? sometimes? under what circumstances?. What manner of threat[s] and in what intensity would make intervention in a foreign entanglement a critical necessity? These are questions that Obama struggles with all the time. Where’s Paul’s intellectual legerdemain here, not to mention honesty? Where’s his foreign policy paper?, his “manifesto”? Maybe he just needs to find someone he can plagiarize.
There’s not much coherence and precious little thought behind Rand’s rhetoric, I fear.