The other day, I wrote about how senator Rand Paul had disqualified himself from being elected president by his demagoguery concerning the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Basically, Paul either does not understand how the collection of metadata works or, more likely, he is just creating new "facts" to back up his position. Today, Paul is out with another position that gets rid of any doubts about his honesty. Here's what Paul said today on Morning Joe on MSNBC:
"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. They’ve created these people."
Think about that for a moment. Paul blames the existence and strength of ISIS on weapons given out by Republicans. No one in his right mind would believe that to be true. Here are a few of the actual facts:
1. ISIS came to the forefront in 2013 and 2014. That means that at least five years had passed between the time that there were any Republicans in a position to give out arms to anyone in the Middle East. From 2009 to now, it was president Obama (and the Democrats) who were in charge of any American distribution of arms in the region.
2. The biggest source of arms for ISIS has been weapons abandoned by the Iraqi army when it fled in the face of the attack by ISIS in 2014. Those arms were in the possession of the Iraqi army as part of the long term effort made by the USA to strengthen the Iraqi central government so that it could fight off any terror attacks. Nearly all of the arms were turned over by American forces when they left Iraq long after Obama and the Democrats had taken control of the US government.
3. The other key source of weapons for ISIS has been the munitions held by the Libyan army of Colonel Gaddafi. The Gaddafi government was overthrown as a result of efforts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as well as President Obama and our NATO allies. Amazingly, Obama, Clinton and NATO went into Libya to support rebels without any plan as to what would happen once the Gadaffi regime fell. Gadaffi was toppled, and chaos ensued. In all the confusion and upset, enormous amounts of Libyan army weapons were shipped out of the country to terror groups like ISIS in Syria. None of these weapons were American, and certainly, the Republicans had nothing to do with ISIS getting them.
So, in view of the actual facts, let's consider what Rand Paul said this morning. Does senator Paul really believe that ISIS was created and grown because Republicans were too quick to give out weapons that ended up with ISIS? That belief is clearly wrong. Indeed, the person most responsible for early acquisition of weapons by ISIS is Hillary Clinton and her disorganized move to topple Gadaffi without having any plan how to deal with the aftermath. So I say again, does senator Paul really believe what he said?
If Paul was being honest in his statement this morning, then he has demonstrated himself to be an idiot. This is not hard stuff to understand. Surely, a future president ought to be bright enough to get it. On the other hand, if Paul was just saying this stuff because he wanted to be provocative, then he is a liar. Over the last six years, America has had enough of a president who tells lies whenever it suits him. We ought not replace one liar with another. So the real choice is whether Paul is a liar or a moron. In either case, he really cannot be considered for the presidency.
"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. They’ve created these people."
Think about that for a moment. Paul blames the existence and strength of ISIS on weapons given out by Republicans. No one in his right mind would believe that to be true. Here are a few of the actual facts:
1. ISIS came to the forefront in 2013 and 2014. That means that at least five years had passed between the time that there were any Republicans in a position to give out arms to anyone in the Middle East. From 2009 to now, it was president Obama (and the Democrats) who were in charge of any American distribution of arms in the region.
2. The biggest source of arms for ISIS has been weapons abandoned by the Iraqi army when it fled in the face of the attack by ISIS in 2014. Those arms were in the possession of the Iraqi army as part of the long term effort made by the USA to strengthen the Iraqi central government so that it could fight off any terror attacks. Nearly all of the arms were turned over by American forces when they left Iraq long after Obama and the Democrats had taken control of the US government.
3. The other key source of weapons for ISIS has been the munitions held by the Libyan army of Colonel Gaddafi. The Gaddafi government was overthrown as a result of efforts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as well as President Obama and our NATO allies. Amazingly, Obama, Clinton and NATO went into Libya to support rebels without any plan as to what would happen once the Gadaffi regime fell. Gadaffi was toppled, and chaos ensued. In all the confusion and upset, enormous amounts of Libyan army weapons were shipped out of the country to terror groups like ISIS in Syria. None of these weapons were American, and certainly, the Republicans had nothing to do with ISIS getting them.
So, in view of the actual facts, let's consider what Rand Paul said this morning. Does senator Paul really believe that ISIS was created and grown because Republicans were too quick to give out weapons that ended up with ISIS? That belief is clearly wrong. Indeed, the person most responsible for early acquisition of weapons by ISIS is Hillary Clinton and her disorganized move to topple Gadaffi without having any plan how to deal with the aftermath. So I say again, does senator Paul really believe what he said?
If Paul was being honest in his statement this morning, then he has demonstrated himself to be an idiot. This is not hard stuff to understand. Surely, a future president ought to be bright enough to get it. On the other hand, if Paul was just saying this stuff because he wanted to be provocative, then he is a liar. Over the last six years, America has had enough of a president who tells lies whenever it suits him. We ought not replace one liar with another. So the real choice is whether Paul is a liar or a moron. In either case, he really cannot be considered for the presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment