Guess Which Party Says Rand Paul ‘Blames America’ (Seriously, Guess)

Pop quiz: Which political
party’s press secretary put out a press release today that
criticizes Sen. Rand Paul because he “blames America… on foreign
soil,” and subscribes to a radical isolationist policy that would
“make American less safe and secure”?

Read the whole thing before you find out if your guess is
right:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential
presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the
world, while offering reckless ideas that would only
alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he
criticized American policy to the president of another
country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama
Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame
America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of
isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the
world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and
less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would
be – The Rand Paul Doctrine:  Blame America. Retreat from the
World.”

And the answer is…
the Democrats. The above statement comes from DNC National
Press Secretary Michael Czin. You would be forgiven for thinking
otherwise; this is the exact criticism that Republicans have hurled
at both Democrats and members of the Paul family for years. But
with Rand Paul as the likely Republican presidential contender and
interventionist Hillary Clinton as his likely opponent, the
absurdities of party politics demand a switching of the unhinged
attacks.

Here is an excerpt from
Paul’s op-ed in
The Wall Street Journal, which prompted Czin’s reply:

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.

This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we
should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and
emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling
for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied
with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the
interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and
for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the
West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a
disaster.

Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who
to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This
is not a foreign policy. …

But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some
said it would be “catastrophic” if we failed to strike Syria. What
they were advocating for then—striking down Assad’s regime—would
have made our current situation even worse, as it would have
eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.

Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably.
The Obama administration’s feckless veering is making it worse. It
seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is
that “something” must be done. It is the only thing
they ever agree on.

But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who’ve
contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered
arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side
of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to
give moral and material support to these rebels even though there
had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.

As evidenced above, Paul is consistent in his foreign policy
opinions, unlike many Democrats or his fellow Republicans. Expect
more soundbite switcheroo as campaign season gears up.