Rand Paul: Hillary's 'War Hawk' Policies Led to Benghazi And Rise Of ISIS...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
Right on Rand!


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.

The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”

While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?

In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:

I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war...

Read More:

Exclusive Rand Paul Hillary s War Hawk Policies Led to Benghazi Attack Rise of ISIS
DRUDGE REPORT 2014


 
Right on Rand!


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.

The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”

While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?

In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:

I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war...

Read More:

Exclusive Rand Paul Hillary s War Hawk Policies Led to Benghazi Attack Rise of ISIS
DRUDGE REPORT 2014


Hill is ready to kill. She's had enough of this namby pamby stuff Obama made her do.
 
Ran Paul proves why libertarians will never occupy the WHite House, with an analysis that combines the worst of liberal hate-America-ism with a gross misdiagnosis of the situation.
Bye Bye, Rand.
 
Ran Paul proves why libertarians will never occupy the WHite House, with an analysis that combines the worst of liberal hate-America-ism with a gross misdiagnosis of the situation.
Bye Bye, Rand.

Which essentially means that the GOP won't occupy it for at least another 10 years, either, because it currently has no candidate with the credentials to beat Hillary.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I think Hillary is no shoe in, and she'd a lousy campaigner who can't speak off the cuff. But, surprisingly, I agree with Rabbi on this. Paul is probably the easiest goper for her to go up against. He says crazy stuff, and the one thing Hill offers is a left of center tried and true technocrat.
 
Rand Paul is already pretending he's the GOP nominee running against Hillary Clinton for president.

I think he needs to slow down a bit.
 
Ran Paul proves why libertarians will never occupy the WHite House, with an analysis that combines the worst of liberal hate-America-ism with a gross misdiagnosis of the situation.
Bye Bye, Rand.

Which essentially means that the GOP won't occupy it for at least another 10 years, either, because it currently has no candidate with the credentials to beat HIllary.
Yeah, count on that.
Hillary is being reviled by the leftists in her own party and will be thrown over for Warren, much as she was thrown over for Obama.
Most of the GOP guys looking at running would handily beat Warren, who is a typical elitist socialist.
 
You have to admit though that a 2016 presidential election campaign where the GOP candidate is running to the left of the Democrat on foreign policy and defense issues would be quite an entertaining mind boggle.
 
You have to admit though that a 2016 presidential election campaign where the GOP candidate is running to the left of the Democrat on foreign policy and defense issues would be quite an entertaining mind boggle.
It's certainly happened before, like in the 1950s.
But it wont happen now. Paul is toast.
 
Ran Paul proves why libertarians will never occupy the WHite House, with an analysis that combines the worst of liberal hate-America-ism with a gross misdiagnosis of the situation.
Bye Bye, Rand.

a gang things you're likely to find in a third world water supply said:
Which essentially means that the GOP won't occupy it for at least another 10 years, either, because it currently has no candidate with the credentials to beat HIllary.

The Rabbi said:
Yeah, count on that. Hillary is being reviled by the leftists in her own party and will be thrown over for Warren, much as she was thrown over for Obama. Most of the GOP guys looking at running would handily beat Warren, who is a typical elitist socialist.

I'm not "count(ing) on that", because I am not a Democrat.

But no, most of the GOP guys currently in the hunt would have nightmares running against her, because people in this great country see the GOP as a bunch of old white men.

I said it back in 2008, and I'll say it again: unless the GOP can find a solid minority candidate like J.C. Watts to run on its ticket, it has no chance of ever winning the White House again. Ever.
 
192555.jpeg
 
I only skimmed through the article, so did Paul mention the GOP's war hawk policies as well? I like Paul, but if he singled out Hillary I would have to disagree with that.
 
Oh, I think Hillary is no shoe in, and she'd a lousy campaigner who can't speak off the cuff. But, surprisingly, I agree with Rabbi on this. Paul is probably the easiest goper for her to go up against. He says crazy stuff, and the one thing Hill offers is a left of center tried and true technocrat.

I think you underestimate America's war weariness. In 2008 Obama ran on being the only candidate to oppose the Iraq war, and won.
 
Right on Rand!


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.

The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”

While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?

In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:

I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war...

Read More:

Exclusive Rand Paul Hillary s War Hawk Policies Led to Benghazi Attack Rise of ISIS
DRUDGE REPORT 2014


It's hard to argue with his assessment. The war in Iraq is also another catalyst of this. But it's truly the Demonic Cult Religion of Islam itself that is responsible for this. Radical Islam isn't the problem, Islam itself is the problem!
 
Oh, I think Hillary is no shoe in, and she'd a lousy campaigner who can't speak off the cuff. But, surprisingly, I agree with Rabbi on this. Paul is probably the easiest goper for her to go up against. He says crazy stuff, and the one thing Hill offers is a left of center tried and true technocrat.

I think you underestimate America's war weariness. In 2008 Obama ran on being the only candidate to oppose the Iraq war, and won.
Adelson's gonna bury Randian Paul. But, possibly more importantly, if the GOP tries to run a candidate who wants to leave ISIS and al queda in peace, we'll never elect another goper.
 
Adelson's gonna bury Randian Paul. But, possibly more importantly, if the GOP tries to run a candidate who wants to leave ISIS and al queda in peace, we'll never elect another goper.

Leave ISIS and Al Qaeda in peace? That's an interesting way to spin Paul's position. How about not creating another ISIS or Al Qaeda?
 
Adelson's gonna bury Randian Paul. But, possibly more importantly, if the GOP tries to run a candidate who wants to leave ISIS and al queda in peace, we'll never elect another goper.

Leave ISIS and Al Qaeda in peace? That's an interesting way to spin Paul's position. How about not creating another ISIS or Al Qaeda?
He's saying Hillary created both? I think he and you need rebooting on that message.
 

Forum List

Back
Top