Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Latest Speech Did Contain Footnotes, But That Doesn't Mean it Was Accurate

|

Credit: Gage Skidmore/wikimedia

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his first major speech since the recent plagiarism scandal. Speaking at The Citadel, Paul outlined his views on the military and foreign policy in a speech that included 33 footnotes. Unfortunately, Paul did not outline much new in this speech, and it is already being criticized for its lack of accuracy.

Anyone who has been following Paul's beliefs on foreign policy would not have been surprised to hear him highlight his disapproval of foreign aid to Egypt, his constitutionalism, his opposition to intervention in Syria, as well as his anger over the administration's response to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last year. Although Paul did not voice any new complaints, he did say that he will soon be announcing the formation of a task force "to bring together great minds from the world of national defense, and put forward a plan to modernize our military, and strengthen our defenses," which will include an audit of the Pentagon.

While Paul may have included 33 footnotes in his speech, The Daily Beast's Josh Rogin points out that although more information was cited, the speech included factual errors relating to claims about the situations in Egypt and Syria as well the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi:

From The Daily Beast:

For example, in the following two sentences about Egypt, Paul makes at least four factual errors.

"In Egypt recently, we saw a military coup that this Administration tells us is not a military coup. In a highly unstable situation, our government continued to send F-16s, Abrams tanks and American-made tear gas," Paul said.

In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a "coup," deciding that the administration was not required to make a determination one way or the other.

Following the military takeover of the Egyptian government, the administration quietly halted all shipments of heavy weapons to Egypt, mostly adhering to a law requiring a cutoff of military aid to any country that has experienced a coup, while maintaining a position of ambiguity over whether a coup had taken place.

Rogin also points out that Paul's claims relating to the situation in Syria also contain factual errors:

"As we continue to aid and arm despotic regimes in Egypt, we are also now sending weapons to the rebels in Syria," Paul said. "According to a recent poll from Pew Research, over 70 percent of Americans are against arming the Islamic rebels in Syria, yet the Senate continues to arm these Islamic radicals. [15] [16] This is unacceptable!"

The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian opposition has received only Meals Ready to Eat, first aid kits, and 10 pickup trucks. The CIA is reported to be vetting some arms shipments to the rebels coming from third countries such as Saudi Arabia, but the White House has repeatedly shot downState Department proposals to arm the Syrian rebels.

Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The Pew Research Center wrote "overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria." Paul instead used the phrase "Islamic rebels" to substitute for "anti-government groups."

Finally, Rogin points out that Paul managed to contradict himself when he talked about Benghazi:

Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul's speech is a passage about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in back-to-back sentences.

"When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28]," Paul said.

The article Paul footnotes as proof for his first sentence explains that witnesses were "expected" to testify that Clinton was personally involved in the refusals to place more security in Benghazi in the attack; not that this was a fact. The second sentence confirms that Clinton was not personally involved in the Benghazi security request, refuting what Paul said one sentence earlier.

James Rosen at McClatchyDC has also written on the factual inaccuracies in Paul's speech at The Citadel.

Paul is widely expected to run for president. If he wants to have a shot at securing the GOP nomination he will have to make further steps to ensure that his public statements are not only free of possible plagiarism, but that they are also accurate. As Reason's Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch wrote earlier this month, "…these sloppy, undergraduate-level infractions suggest strongly that Sen. Paul is running a loose ship, one not currently ready for the prime time of winning a national election."

The lack of accuracy and the accusations of plagiarism are frustrating for those, like myself, who agree with many of Paul's positions on foreign policy (even if I might wish he would change some of the rhetoric and more fully explain the policies that would be implemented in a Paul administration). Paul is one of the United States' most prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of errors that have been highlighted recently.

Advertisement

NEXT: Police Rule Death of British Spy Whose Body Was Found in a Padlocked Sports Bag Likely an Accident

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do speeches normally contain footnotes?

    1. after you get busted for lifting passages without attribution, people who don’t like you will be looking harder for more of that. No, speeches don’t usually contain footnotes and Obama makes a habit of lying during his. But Rand will not have a sycophantic press covering for him, and any candidate for POTUS should be able to back up claims.

      1. I agree especially about the sycophantic press – Paul doesn’t have one. He has to be that much more on his game than any of his opponents, because the whole establishment infrastructure is anxious to take him out. Its not fair, but its true.

      2. It sucks that Paul will be hounded by a hostile press. On the other hand, if this forces Paul to tighten up his message, and makes his claims and arguments stronger, then he wins and we win. Maybe it is time for a candidate to tell the truth, and maybe voters will respond positively to it?

        1. Fuck you EDG.

          /HitandRunpublican

        2. It’s a mistake to try placating the press.

          He should just tell them to fuck off and play the anti-media card.

        3. Nah. I’d rather that CNN photoshop a halo around his head while he lies.

  2. Are you motherfucking kidding me, Welch?

    You’re counting as a misstatement a claim that the Obama Administration tells us that what happened in Egypt was not a coup?

    Failure to call the Morsi deposition a coup constitutes an affirmation that it was not a coup, you fucking worthless cuntbag. It’s either A or not A, you piece of shit.

    Now I am absolutely certain that you are concern trolling against Paul.

    You suck donkey cock. Fuck you, I’m heckling your every appearance here from now on, regardless of topic. You may as well bring Moriarty back so I can shit on both of you every day.

    1. Whoops, I am really embarrassed. I thought Welch posted this.

      Transfer all of that rage to Feeney.

      1. Shouldn’t that be transferred to Josh Rogin? He is the one making the claim you are objecting to.

        And I agree with you on the coup. Failure to call out the Egyptian military equals assent.

        1. Except, to be fair, Feeney pretty much swallows Rogin’s bullshit uncritically.

          1. Rogin probably is right. What his sin and Feeney’s sin is is that they are playing a double standard.

            Neither of them put the same kind of scrutiny on say Obama or Hilary for the crazy shit they say.

      2. Feeney/Welch – Felch/Weeney. It’s all the same.

    2. What fluffy said only against the right guy. And what about this one

      The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the Syrian rebels

      Does anyone actually believe that claim? Anyone?

      1. Well, since you get your “news” from Wingnut.com you’re excused for being poorly informed.

        1. Well of course you believe it. Gee, what a shock. The retarded sock puppet believes anything Obama tells him. Never would have guessed.

          1. Even he doesn’t believe it – he’s just repeating bullshit to get paid.

        2. oh look, our resident shit-stained troll showed up to fling some poo.

          1. It woke up late on the wrong side of the bus stop bench.

            1. You have to give the boss man a break; he is so distraught from his hero’s latest approval numbers that he couldn’t sleep all night long. He was so depressed last night that he couldn’t even engage in his nightly ritual of masturbating to the Shepherd Fairy poster taped to the bedroom ceiling.

              1. I think that’s called a “Prince Albert”.

                1. Nah, a PA is a type of cock piercing. A cock ring doesn’t involve any piercing.

              2. O-bate?

          2. Funny how it has been so absent for so long, along with its obama fellating partner Tony.

        3. News like from the Washington Post

          http://articles.washingtonpost…..al-weapons

          Get back in your hole you demented little retard.

        4. Actually, my source was the Washington Post: http://articles.washingtonpost…..al-weapons

          1. C’mon, the Washington Post? That’s not a real newspaper.

          2. report of Sept 11:

            “The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked [etc]”

            I wonder how Feeney missed this, though this doesn’t mean he was wrong about other alleged Paul mistakes

            1. Yeah, it took me all of thirty seconds on Google.

      2. And doesnt “little” make Paul technically correct?

    3. I agree with Fluffy.

      You’re an idiot, Feeney.

      1. He’s awful. And just think, this is the guy that replaced Lucy.

        Who’s the idiot running this magazine?

    4. Feeney’s just trying to get a cool gig on Jansing & Co like Welch gets.

    5. Aside from missing the target, Fluffy is right on. Feeney should be fired. This is horseshit.

  3. If Obama’s biggest problem was a couple of “factual errors” in speeches, I’d cry tears of joy.

    1. but it’s not Obama. Different standards. Ironic when you think about it – the allegedly hyper-smart black guy held to a lower bar than the allegedly out-there white guy.

      1. It is true that he’s held to different standards, but I have to wonder if the media will even focus on any legitimate criticisms of Paul. They didn’t with Romney, it was all binders and war on women shit.

        1. It is true that he’s held to different standards, but I have to wonder if the media will even focus on any legitimate criticisms of Paul. They didn’t with Romney, it was all binders and war on women shit.

          Yeah it’s not as if there is a deficit of legitimate criticism about Romney, the media is just incapable of using anything other than strawmen. After all, any of the legitimate reasons to criticize Romney would make progressive ideology look bad, so they couldn’t risk that…

        2. no, they won’t. Finding legitimate criticisms takes time and effort. The binders/wymynz stuff only requires regurgitating talking points.

          1. Meh, Romney was a fucking moron for not attacking Obama. Hell, he fucked up from the get go with the whole he’s a nice guy, but…. narrative.

            The ‘phants need to attack, attack, attack to neutralize the sycophantic media’s bullshit instead of trying to be mr nice and reasonable guys.

      2. but it’s not Obama. Different standards. Ironic when you think about it – the allegedly hyper-smart black guy held to a lower bar than the allegedly out-there white guy.

        affirmative (pun intended)

  4. In the history of the United States, has any other pre-candidate been subjected to this level of scrutiny at this point in the election cycle?

    1. Perfect early strike on the media front:

      “Troubled”

      “Dogged by accusations”

      “Problematic”

      1. And don’t forget “Gaffe Prone”.

        Reason is not helping Paul up his game, whatever that means. They are just feeding into the bullshit media narrative that portrays anyone who stands up against the ruling orthodoxy an nut or an idiot.

        And people wonder why I claim they are all a bunch of leftists pretending to be Libertarians to get a paycheck.

        1. ah, forgot the classic “Gaffe Prone”

        2. “Paul is one of the United States’ most prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of errors that have been highlighted recently.”

          I don’t always agree with Feeney, to put it mildly, but I see no reason not to take him at his word, here.

          1. I do. Most of the “inaccuracies” are nothing but instances of Paul questioning the agreed upon liberal narrative. Fuck Freeney if he wants to believe that what happened in Egypt really wasn’t a coup or that Obama isn’t sending “weapons weapons” to Syrian rebels. If he wants to tell himself the prevailing lies so he fits in, that is his business. But I would appreciate if he wouldn’t concern troll Paul to do that.

            1. Man, I hate to descend to this level of parsing (and I agree with commenters above on the substance) but if I read the critique of Paul’s statements about Egypt it goes more like this: the State Department has made no public determination as to whether Egypt was a coup or not. Paul said that this administration says it was not a coup. Therefore, Paul is saying the administration has made a determination in one direction whereas State has said that are not determining at all.

              It’s bullshit, and it’s feebleminded gotcha at the worst level but i THINK that is the criticism.

              1. I’m of the opinion that it was a coup, but that it was a wildly popular coup.

                We’re not supposed to send aid to country that’s being ruled by a junta after a coup, but I think we should stop sending the Egyptians foreign aid–regardless of whether it was a coup.

                In other words, whether it was a coup is beside the point to me, but I understand why State refuses to call it a coup, and if Rand Paul has political points to score by pounding on that vulnerability, then all’s fair in love, war, and electioneering.

                Sending taxpayer money to the Egyptian Army surely isn’t popular with voters.

              2. the State Department has made no public determination as to whether Egypt was a coup or not. Paul said that this administration says it was not a coup. Therefore, Paul is saying the administration has made a determination in one direction whereas State has said that are not determining at all.

                That doesn’t really hold water. The State Department is required by law to stop sending aid to Egypt if there has been a coup. The continued sending of aid is a statement in itself.

            2. I think it’s his job to write about stuff that’s important to libertarians, and if other people are criticizing Rand Paul, then it shouldn’t be surprising to find a journalist on a libertarian website writing about that.

              I don’t think it’s entirely fair to criticize Feeney for not changing his positions to the opposite of whomever is criticizing Rand Paul, either. I’m certainly not changing my positions on anything just because those are Rand Paul’s positions.

              1. I think it is plenty fair for him to report and endorse and claim to be legitimate criticisms that are feeble minded gotchas at best.

              2. Except Rogin’s claims are transparently bullshit. Even as I was reading them, I was noting that what were being called inaccuracies weren’t inaccuracies at all, but either different word choices (“anti-government groups” versus “Islamic rebels”), out-and-out wrong (no weapons shipments to the rebels) or just plain poor analysis (claiming State Department recognition determines whether there was a coup or not). That Feeney would simply report on them, even commenting that “…it would be a shame if his positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of errors that have been highlighted recently” without any substantive review of the claims shows journalism sloppy to the point that it’s reasonable to question his motives.

                1. You might disagree with Feeney. You might say he’s wrong on the facts. You might even think he’s not entirely enthralled with Rand Paul’s positions.

                  But saying he’s a leftist pretending to be a Libertarian to get a paycheck is probably going too far.

                  1. I can’t look into his heart Ken. But at this point, how would his reporting be any different if he is a closet lefty?

                    1. He wouldn’t be supporting Rand Paul’s non-interventionism at all.

                    2. Also, since the Democrats really aren’t the defenders of our Constitutional rights anymore, I think it’s important to leave the door open for people who did come to libertarianism from stage-left.

                      Everybody that wants in on libertarianism because they see it as the last defense of our constitutional rights or they’re anti-war or whatever…and maybe they’re not so enamored of our economic arguments yet?

                      We should be throwing our arms wide open for those people. I didn’t always know everything I know now either.

                    3. “We should be throwing our arms wide open for those people. I didn’t always know everything I know now either.”

                      Wow, Ken, you must be the libertarian Pope Francis!

                      NTTAWWT

                  2. But saying he’s a leftist pretending to be a Libertarian to get a paycheck is probably going too far.

                    Bullshit.

                    He’s a fucking wannabe journalist pussy that will go with whatever narrative is required to maintain career viability. Fuck him, he’s just another DC punk ass propagandist.

                    1. All this because he disagrees with Rand Paul and doesn’t pretend otherwise?

                    2. Disagreeing is one thing. Uncritically repeating bullshit is another.

                  3. I don’t have to agree with Feeney to arrive at my problem. This isn’t “I think he’s wrong on the issue”. It’s “this is such astoundingly sloppy reporting that I don’t think he could have made this mistake in good faith”.

                    Like, John, I can’t look into Feeney’s heart. I can’t say that he’s a leftist or a Republican Establishmentarian, wedded to the idea of Gary Johnson as the libertarian standard-bearer, too lazy to bother reading the accusation (let alone analyzing or researching it) or just not competent to serve as the second stringer on a junior high school paper. But, I don’t really think it matters.

                    1. It doesn’t matter.

                      1940s Ken would try to understand the motivation for German propaganda instead of just denouncing it.

                    2. “1940s Ken would try to understand the motivation for German propaganda instead of just denouncing it.”

                      After what you wrote about Feeney, with such little justification, it really doesn’t surprise me to see you go there.

            3. Yes, this is too much:

              the recent plagiarism scandal.

              Who but diehard Maddowists really believe there was honest-to-god plagiarism and it was a scandal?

              1. I would’ve never considered a copy of a basic sentence to be plagiarism.

              2. He copied and pasted three pages of someone else’s writing into his book without indicating it was copied. That’s plagiarism, no ifs ands or buts.

                It appears to be unintentional, since he did include a footnote to the source, but it’s still pretty bad. Footnotes merely indicate that information from the source was used by the author, not three pages of text.

                1. He did not do his attribution in the manner that some people(largely his ideological enemies) think is the only legitimate way to attribute. Therefore–plagiarism.

                  What utter fucking nonsense.

        3. Reason is not helping Paul up his game, whatever that means. They are just feeding into the bullshit media narrative that portrays anyone who stands up against the ruling orthodoxy an nut or an idiot.

          Yep, I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago when they started repeating the Plagriarism controversy meme.

          It’s all pure unadulterated bullshit to smear him. Fuck Welch and the any other douche that goes along with it to get a guest appearance on MSNBC.

      2. The left is scared shitless of Paul. Their secret desire, well, many are coming out of the closet and admitting as much, is none other than the batshit insane Lizzy Warren. They’ll settle for Hillary, but she’s not quite insane enough for them, apparently. But just in case, they want fat boy Christie as the GOP nominee, so that they at least get someone leftist and corrupt, just not nearly as much as they would like.

        Here’s my prediction at this point.

        Christie will never get the GOP nomination, no matter how nasty and underhanded the GOP establishment is in trying to hand it to him. He still has to have the votes, and that’s not happening.

        Warren would lose to Paul or anyone else that the GOP nominates, no matter how bad they are.

        If Hillary runs, sadly enough, she will win. It will be nothing but war on wiminz and more free shit and that will be the winning strategy for the next Clinton. It’s Hillarys turn, but she will only serve one term, and her one term will end worse than Obamas 2nd.

        1. Absolutely they are terrified. It may be that Obamacare will damage the Dem brand so much that any Republican will win in 2006. And pretty much their only hope of getting a big government Republican who won’t change anything is Fatso. And I tend to agree with you that there is no way he is getting the nomination. So it is dawning on them that Paul might actually win. And it is scaring the shit out of them.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul got nominated if they talked Fatso into running with Bloomberg as a third party, lets make sure no one does anything to rock the establishment theft racket ticket.

        2. I suspect Hillary might actually be a better president than Obama, but I think she might disappoint a lot of liberals.

          She more socially conservative than a lot of people realize, and she’s more of a war hawk than Obama is.

          In some ways, she was more hawkish the Bush.

          I’m not trying to say she won’t be rotten president–I think she will be–but it might surprise people.

          I’m not sure I understand what it is about Fatboy Christie that’s supposed to make him Republican. If Christie ever worked his fat ass into the Oval Office, I suspect he might actually govern somewhere to the left of a President Hillary.

          If Christie is better than Hillary, it may only be as a check on a Democratic Congress.

          1. “””‘and she’s more of a war hawk than Obama is.””‘

            Liberals like war hawks as long as they are hawking liberal wars.

          2. Hillary is a very conservative Democrat.

            1. KY is filled with very conservative democrats. She is not one of them.

              1. From a national perspective, she’s a conservative Democrat, and isn’t that what we’re talking about?

                1. From a national perspective, the blue dogs are the conservative dems, and she aint one of them.

                  1. There are what, half a dozen blue dogs left?

                    Most of them have just become Rs over time and the others were primaries or retired.

                    1. There are what, half a dozen blue dogs left?

                      In congress maybe.

                      They still control the KY state house, for example.

            2. Based on what? I’m open to hearing the argument. But, I keep hearing the conclusion without the argumentative support.

              1. If you are asking me, BD, the only thing that separates her from the GOP (other than the obvious Rep/Dem abortion difference) would be on the more lower-income economic issues.

                She’s on-board with the neo-cons on military intervention and banshee-like in cultural issues (anti-porn; always blaming video games; etc).

                1. Okay, so, basically, any non-libertarian leaning facet of conservatism, she’s down with. That sounds about right.

          3. Hillary would have never been stupid enough to pass Obamacare in the form it was and without a single Republican vote. The Dems massively fucked up when they nominated Obama in 2008. They will be paying for that fuck up for at least the next 8 years and maybe more.

            The problem is that even if Hillary wins, it is very unlikely she will have either house of Congress or any kind of a mandate beyond “we managed to personally destroy the Republican nominee”. So it is hard to see how she would do much to clean up the mess Obama is going to leave.

            1. Hillary would have never been stupid enough to pass Obamacare in the form it was and without a single Republican vote.

              She was speaking in support of passing it at the time, as was her husband.

        3. I don’t know about left wing politicians, but actual people I know who lean left sort of like Rand Paul and feel confused and intrigued – sort of “liber-curious.”

          The freedom of association, thing, though, is a deal breaker, since lefties hear “I want to be free to hold KKK meetings.”

          I doubt anyone is really scared of him, though, since almost no one who starts jumping up and down saying “I want to be President!” this early in the game has any real shot. I have my doubts about Hillary, even.

          1. Obama was jumping up and down in 2004

        4. If Hillary runs, sadly enough, she will win.

          You don’t know that. I think the next economic crisis will come by then and it will change things. Everything.

  5. Yes, to be ready for primetime, Rand apparently just needs to outright deliberately lie about everything that comes out of his mouth, and see if he can get a dishonest and pathetic media to try to deflect, obfuscate, and spin those lies right out of existence.

    If he’s not ready to do that, I am sure that there will be one blowhard fat boy in the race to show him the way.

    1. He needs to start making “incorrect promises”

    2. The media seldom called Romney on his lies. Lies don’t hurt you in the GOP primaries – they help a candidate.

      And Hillary lied about landing amid “sniper fire” in Bosnia. That was a whopper of a lie.

      1. were either Mitt’s lies of Hill’s anything like “if you like it, you can keep it; period”?? How about the Obama ad accusing Romney of causing some guy’s wife to get cancer?

      2. They claimed that truths he told were lies . Like Chrysler expanding production in China instead of OH – which happened in 2013.

      3. They media then papers over it saying it wasn’t an “important” lie.

  6. Sorry, but Rogin’s piece looks pretty clearly like the standard sort of smear of any opinion but liberal consensus as “inaccurate”. It’s the same sort of garbage we’ve seen from FactCheck.org. It’s both surprising and unfortunate that Reason would fall for it.

    The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

    Really?
    http://articles.washingtonpost…..al-weapons

    Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to substitute for “anti-government groups.”
    Except Paul didn’t claim to be quoting the question. And if the anti-government groups aren’t Islamic rebels, what the hell are they, Methodists?

    1. It’s both surprising and unfortunate that Reason would fall for it.

      I think it’s Feeney in particular. He squirts in his pants at every opportunity to attack Rand Paul, which is all well and good except that he uses progtard fallacies as if they were legit lines of criticism.

    2. I dont get that last one either.

      Are they not both rebels and islamic?

      1. doesn’t matter. This is how a narrative is built. With Rand, apparently, it’s going to be that he’s a serial liar. It’s never about the person’s positions, beliefs, or ideas; it’s always about the person.

      2. At least in common usage, Islamic usually isn’t used as a synonym for Muslim, but more to refer to an ideology (and its followers) of a radical strain of Islam. Not all the rebels are Islamic under this definition, and I suppose there’s probably a small number of non-Muslims scattered about. In any case though, Paul’s word choice just means he’s actually understating his own argument. If the word choice of the poll had been “Islamic rebels” my guess is that far more than 70% would oppose sending them weapons, and 70% opposing sending weapons to any rebels supports his argument against sending them arms.

        1. Are you sure you don’t mean Islamist? My understanding is that the proper usage is Muslim for adherents of the religion and Islamic for things pertaining to the associated civilization. After all, the Islamic Conference is an actual organization, not the Muslim Conference.

        2. ‘Islamic’ is used to refer to things that are of Islam.

          ‘Islamic people’ is, most definatly, a synonym for ‘muslim’.

          Islamic nation, Islamic law, Islamic architecture are all commonly used terms.

          So you are wrong.

      3. I think they are calling out Paul on trying to make it sound like the US is arming Islamist rebels, rather than rebels who are non-Islamist Muslims, under the pretense that the CIA can accurately pick and choose which groups it arms.

        Paul did say “Islamic,” though, not “Islamist,” so it does seem petty.

    3. “It’s both surprising and unfortunate that Reason would fall for it.”

      Yeah, speaking of a coup, maybe it’s time for one at Reason. Welch out…Jacket in.

      1. Jacket is the one who’s urging us to see Bill Maher as libertarian material.

  7. This is all “insider” stuff that won’t make a whit of difference in 2016. How can Rand Paul be called out on these kinds of “lies” when running against Hillary Clinton who wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked her in the ass?

  8. “Paul is one of the United States’ most prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of errors that have been highlighted recently.”

    Democrat strategy has been to try to discredit their opponents beforehand for a long time. They try to destroy people by poisoning people’s preconceptions.

    And he seems to be drawing the kind of attention now that Palin only got once she had been nominated as the vice-president. They’ll take non-events (like saying she could see Russia from Alaska) if they can’t find anything real–and Rand Paul should definitely be aware of that.

    They’ll come after him for being named after Ayn Rand, eventually, and if he wants a real shot at the presidency (or vice-presidency), he definitely needs to be sure not to give them any ammunition to use against him.

    1. the main rule for non-Dem candidates is simple – minimize unforced errors to the greatest extent possible, and the more minute an “error” may seem, the greater the effort to minimize it.

      1. The problem with that is that it’s pretty clear that, if necessary, they’ll make shit up.

        1. Yep,

          The only defence is to go on offense,

          When MadCow started this bullshit he should have personally attacker her as a lying extremist – which she is.

    1. I will take appalachian over southern any day.

      1. You would, you hillbilly.

        1. When you want to insult someone, you should use a term they find insulting.

          1. Hillbilly? We all know you are a city goat, robc.

            1. True, but I dont find the term insulting.

              And it more accurately describes most of my family. Although I have trouble calling anyone too far from the mountains a hillbilly.

    2. Maybe its because I’m from an area without a strong accent, but I find most accents annoying and generally associate the stronger ones with a lack of education.

      1. Where are you from that you imagine is “without a strong accent”?

      2. You do know that the Generic American Midwestern Accent is still an accent?

    3. New Yorkers trying to imitate “southern” accents sounds like a dying cat fucking a busted violin.

      Then again, if you live in the south your entire life, you can immediately discern who’s from North Texas/Oklahoma, or who’s from Middle Tennessee or the Carolinas within two sentences.

  9. “Everything I am going to tell you is a lie.”

  10. Paul is one of the United States’ most prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of errors that have been highlighted recently.

    Says the guy whose work is constantly overshadowed by his lack of alt-text.

  11. I think it’s hilarious that a crossdresser in her man clothes concern trolls that someone is stealing someone else’s stylings without attribution.

  12. And people wonder why politicians trade almost exclusively in substanceless platitudes and vapid emotionally charged drivel.

  13. Paul is headed for media oblivion, tarred as an idiot, extremist and liar.

  14. This convinces me, I will not vote for Rand to be President of the Library of Congress!!!!!!

  15. Warren would lose to Paul or anyone else that the GOP nominates, no matter how bad they are.

    “Obama will NEVER win a second term.”

    1. Elizabeth is the epitome of ignorance, she relies on fallacious logic to justify bad policy. Which sadly means she is pretty damn electable in 2013 Americaland.

      1. She too aggressive and bitchy and ungly.

        1. She too aggressive and bitchy and ugly.

          Those are assets for women in American politics! It’s the pleasant, attractive women who can’t get elected to public office in this country (they’re too threatening to the insecure modern American woman).

  16. “Plagarism Scandal” ?

    For real? Thats funny. At least we know what they are talking about at the cocktail parties nowadays. Thanks for keeping us informed.

  17. If he gets elected, he should tell other countries “If you like your foreign aid, you can keep your foreign aid.”

  18. The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the Syrian rebels,

    You mean that Ambassador Stevens died for… nothing?

    Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in back-to-back sentences.

    “When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],” Paul said.

    What Paul is saying is that she is accepting, unwittingly or not, that there were cables from Ambassador Stevens asking for more security.

    Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The Pew Research Center wrote “overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria.” Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to substitute for “anti-government groups.”

    This is nothing more than semantic nit-picking. It is not like the anti-government groups in Syria are composed of secularists and Islamists.

  19. “””Unfortunately, Paul did not outline much new in this speech””

    Isn’t that the same as saying he is consistent in his views?

    What new stuff does Feeney want, for Rand to start singing, Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?

    1. Good point – I mean, does he just give one speech on a topic and stop? That’s not how politicians operate, and it’s not how to get voters’ attention.

      1. It’s not like libertarians have much “new” to say either.

  20. The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

    Then Josh Rogin is as full of shit as the rest of the Corporate Media and the Establishmentarians who are fighting 2016 in 2013.
    Lethal Aid to Syrian Rebels

    Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in back-to-back sentences.

    “When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],” Paul said.

    Yeah, yeah. Remember when Benghazi was all about a video on Youtube? And that Hillary promised that the man who made the video would be punished?
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/vid…..ns-jailed/

    1. “Remember when Benghazi was all about a video on Youtube?”

      I maintain that the Obama Administration exploited bigotry against Muslims to try to deflect criticism away from itself over Benghazi, and I wish a Republican candidate would go after Hillary for her part in that.

      1. Why would wish for such a thing? Any time TEAM Red attacks TEAM Blue it’s just an example of the death of civility in political discourse. Attacking Hillary would only compound the offense with WAR ON WIMMINZ.

      2. I maintain you have your head up your ass and really like to position yourself as The Anti-Bigotry Warrior For Enlightenment.

        1. Yeah, and I wish more libertarians would follow suit.

          Seriously, bigotry is fundamentally anti-libertarian, and leaving progs like Obama as the only public opponents of it is strategically foolish.

          …especially when the progs are vulnerable on the matter, like they are in Benghazi, we should exploit that vulnerability.

          Why wouldn’t we?

      3. I maintain that the Obama Administration exploited bigotry against Muslims

        Ever read what they did in India? A skull pile of 100,000 heads. Every year for about 50 years.

        Why would people be prejudiced against that?

    2. “When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],” Paul said.

      Those aren’t even contradictory. Someone else could have read the cables and told her about the request, which she turned down. I highly doubt that the cables went to the Secy of State first without any filter.

  21. When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned the Ambassador down.

    She just wants to establish a track record as a hard nosed fiscal hawk in preparation for her Presidential campaign.

  22. sent little, if any, weapons

    A bunch of .22s, then?

    1. No just all the parts to assemble weapons. ie in order for it to be a weapon you need to put ammo in it…the ammo was supplied in a different box.

  23. Another unsubstantive article from Feeney. Can we bring back Lucy now?

  24. In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a “coup,” deciding that the administration was not required to make a determination one way or the other.

    And yet we still give aid to Egypt which according the rules of that aid it cannot be given if there was a coup. By giving one cent of aid the state department is saying there was no coup.

    Rogin, and by proxy Feeney, is full of shit.

  25. We’ll all grow old waiting for Feeney to be one tenth as fastidious with the facts in an Obama speech.

  26. M. Welch,

    How do you plan to handle the world wide dust up – possibly nuclear – when when the hegemon (US) no longer works to guarantee the Pax?

    Who do you think will come out on top? China? Russia? How long will it take to settle the matter in your estimation?

    You might find this of some amusement – especially the comments:

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfern…..ddle-east/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.