Before it was Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton it was Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton. Obama called Clinton out as a warmonger. He criticized her for voting to invade Iraq. It is easy to forget, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner ran for office on an anti-war platform. That is how he won the nomination.
It also has a great deal to do with why Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008. His opponent, John McCain was as pro-war as a candidate could be. Voters faced a stark contrast.
So now it looks like Hillary will be running again, and Rand Paul will probably be running as well. It makes perfect sense for him to call out Hillary Clinton as a warmonger. Good for him! As Breitbart reports,
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.
He said in a phone interview with Breitbart:
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.
He went on to say that he always worries, when the U.S. intervenes and overthrows secular dictators, about who will replace these people. This is something that Obama has admitted to not thinking about before he attacked Libya. Paul also explained the obvious connection between our intervention in Syria and the rise of ISIS.
As anyone should be able to see from the outcome of the 2008 race and the events that have followed, Rand Paul is strategizing to defeat Hillary Clinton. (I think his convictions are also quite obviously correct, but my point here is that we have every reason to believe he is presenting a winning message).
So naturally, as Breitbart.com reports, establishment Republicans are attacking Rand Paul. If Paul gets the GOP nomination, I honestly think that some will campaign for Clinton.