There was exactly one sensible point that Rand Paul made during his ten minute free infomercial on Meet The Press with his bestie, Chuck Todd. Senator Paul asked if it was wise to topple the secular dictators of Middle Eastern Nations and are the consequences worth it? That is where his momentary journey into rational thought stopped and the Benghazi obsession was revisited for the umpteenth time. Paul attempted to change the topic from Jeb Bush's misstatement regarding his brother's massive foreign policy disaster and blame Hillary for being just as culpable as the Bush/Cheney regime.

After admitting that the invasion of Iraq was one of the reasons the country is plagued by "radical Islam," Paul thought the exact same questions should be asked of Hillary Clinton.



We should ask Mrs. Clinton, "if she ever takes questions, they should ask her, was it a good idea to invade Libya, did that make it less safe, did it make it more chaotic, did it allow radical Islam and ISIS to grow stronger. So I think the war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the question of 'should we have gone into Libya.'

It's no secret the Junior Paul thinks Hillary's alleged culpability into the only scandal that matters, Benghazi, carries essentially the same severity as the unintended consequences from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In February, Rand Paul appeared on the beacon of fairness and balance, Fox News, and essentially blamed Hillary not just for Benghazi, but for the rise of ISIS!



One of the people I blame for a lot of this, frankly, is Hillary Clinton,” he said on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom.”

“The disaster that is Libya is now a breeding ground for terrorists and also a breeding ground for armament. I really do blame Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya for creating a lot of the chaos that is now spreading throughout the Middle East.”

So obviously, Rand thinks that Hillary essentially caused the Benghazi tragedy, single-handedly. Now that we've settled that, Chuck plugs Rand's book "Taking A Stand" which compares Iran to who else, Libya. More free Rand Paul publicity, courtesy of Chuck Todd

Todd: You're referring to Gaddafi, who gave up nuclear ambitions. And then, two years later, in a different administration, the Obama Administration, they ended up taking him out. You're implying that the Iranians shouldn't trust the United States in these negotiations, are you not?

Paul: I think it's more a criticism of Hillary Clinton because I think she should've thought through the repercussions of the invasion and toppling of Gaddafi. Because Hillary Clinton made the decision to do this, with President's Obama assent, what you end up having is-- is that now it does send a signal to Iran and it makes them question whether or not we will honestly be a good broker or a good negotiator with-- eliminating of nuclear weapons. Because Gaddafi did give up his nuclear ambition and was toppled anyway. So it's an-- it's an argument for not doing what we did in Libya.

It's simply asinine to compare a nation like Iran to a country like Libya. Libya is culturally and economically different from Iran. It's not the first time a Republican tried to erroneously compare the two countries. Paul Ryan blundered over Libya in the 2012 campaign by equating the situation with Qaddafi with Tehran, 1979. Nice try, GOP, but you keep showing your ignorance of history and foreign affairs. It's a damned good strategy to let the mental midgets of the GOP Clown Car (bus) keep tripping over each other while Hillary waits for her time to settle matters like the adult in the room. You can have your own opinions, but you can not have your own facts.