Sen. Rand Paul: "Hillary's 'War Hawk' Policies Led to Benghazi Attack & Rise of ISIS"

By Elizabeth Nelson

Hillary Clinton had better get used to outspoken and honest Senators like Senator Rand Paul, if she actually tries to run for President in 2016, because he's once again causing heads to explode when he blamed Hillary's "War Hawk" Libyan policies for not only the Benghazi Attack but the Rise of ISIS.  "War Hawk," more like "War-Chicken," all squawk and scratch and no bite.

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.

Libya is worse off without the dictator we "helped" remove, then before, so what help was Hill-billy and Obama to Libya?  We lost four great men in the process and now have to take care of ISIS.  Rand Paul makes a great point:

"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."

Not to mention, it still hasn't officially come out in the Benghazi investigation that we were arming the Syrian rebels, because we were trying to repeat Libyan history, because that would be illegal, right?

For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad, America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his country.”

A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote.

According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work.

“Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In conclusion, Paul said:

"So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter to the power of ISIS."  Read more Breitbart

There is a time and a place for everything.  Imagine if you can, the Syrian Rebels had succeeded in overthrowing of Assad and probably killing him, just like we were successful in our helping the Libyans in their overthrowing and killing of Gaddafi and causing Libya's total fragmentation today. 

Now, fast forward to the entry of ISIS, do you think the Syrian army would then unit with them or stand behind whatever corrupt scarecrow we had helped put in Assad's place?  Yeah, be careful what you wish for, Obama may not like al-Assad, but at least the rule-of-thumb is, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.