Rand Paul’s dramatic reversal on national security and foreign policy in recent days and weeks is truly remarkable even for him.
Rand has gone from attacking Hillary Clinton for being an interventionist and a warhawk, to becoming a interventionist and warhawk himself, to mocking anyone who thinks climate change should be a higher priority than terrorism.
Last week Rand attacked Hillary Clinton for being a warhawk and interventionist in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled: How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of 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. [...]
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.”
In an op-ed written for Time yesterday, Rand said that if he were president, he would call a special session of Congress and take the fight to ISIS in Syria one week after accusing Hillary Clintion of wanting to do the same.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess. [...]
The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.
During his appearance on Fox News today Rand said that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president because she would be focused on climate change instead of terrorism.
The Kentucky Republican was asked on Fox News about the Democrat’s comments Thursday that climate change constituted “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges” facing the country and the world.
His response: “I don’t think we really want a commander-in-chief who is battling climate change instead of terrorism.”
Do you have whiplash?
Nine days after Rand Paul attacked Hillary Clinton for being an interventionist, he has attacked her for being some kind of peacenik who doesn’t take terrorism seriously.
Rand also attacked the “hawkish members” of his own party in his op-ed for the Wall Street Journal last week, but at this point he may be more of a hawk than they are.
Who knows what his position will be next week?