The pinwheels of McCain-Graham's eyes are, doubtless, enlarging and spinning with unprecedented fury:
Speaking at the headquarters of the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, [Rand] Paul was unambiguous in arguing that Tehran had only become more powerful since the fall of Mr. Hussein, who he said had been a "bulwark" against Iran’s influence in the region. "It was a mistake to topple Hussein," the senator said.
And he called the 2011 overthrow of Colonel Qaddafi — which he labeled "Hillary’s war," referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state at the time — an "utter disaster."
Said a talk-show Republican who was there: "Telling this audience that the Middle East was better off with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi in power shocked me. It was a rambling and incoherent expression of foreign policy that puts him closer to Bernie Sanders than anyone in the G.O.P."
I'm a trifle unclear on how realist Paul's straightforward assessment of the Middle East's post-Saddam wreckage "was a rambling and incoherent expression of foreign policy," but then again I dwell not in the neoconservative world of fantasy qua logic.
As for Paul's presidential politics, the Republican game talk show host may have a point. The senator is having some trouble landing on a consistent, coherent approach to his campaign's message; one day he's talking noninterventionist common sense, and the next day he's appeasing the hawks — or rather trying to — by "completing an about-face on a longstanding pledge to curb the growth in defense spending." On foreign policy, Paul's campaign began idealistically, and it will either finish that way, or it will finish in shambles.