Rand Paul

Rand Paul: 'Idiots in the Republican Party' Want War in Syria and So Does Hillary Clinton

Candid moment from Paul's livestream

|

Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore

If you've been watching the livestream of Sen. Rand Paul's day on the campaign trail in Iowa, you know he drove through a lot of cornfields and listened to some Metallica. But perhaps the most noteworthy moment came when he paused the music and attacked his Republican—and Democratic opponents—for being war cheerleaders.

He said:

I think we should talk about politics for a minute. Shouldn't we at least talk about what idiots we have in the Republican Party running for president who want to have a red line and a no-fly zone in Syria. What a recipe for disaster. But you know what the interesting thing is, Hillary Clinton agrees with all of them. All of them beating their chest to see who is the most likely to get us involved in a war that really, these people have been at war for a thousand years. You think somehow we're going to solve their problems?

This is the side of Paul libertarians want to see more of—particularly in the debates. Voters who think it's a good idea to get involved in the Syrian civil war have plenty of candidates on both sides of the aisle to choose from. On the other hand, voters who are skeptical that further military intervention in the Middle East could possibly be the right course of action have few options. Paul must court them.

NEXT: The Boring Debate Is Hours Away, Black Voters Aren't Feeling the Bern, Larry Lessig Might Go Independent: P.M. Links

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. WACKO BIRD

      1. CRAZY POULTRY

        1. POLLO LOCO!!!!

          /ankur baybee

          1. LOS POLLOS HERMANOS!

            /drug war

  2. This is the side of Paul libertarians want to see more of?particularly in the debates.

    My guess is he won’t. He knows the only people watching his stream are reporters and fans who feel exactly what you describe. There have been plenty of reports here of Paul making pretty strong libertarian-sounding arguments… in a narrow range of events. He wants to keep us on board with this kind of talk, but appeal to the non- or anti-libertarian GOP base in more publicized events.

    Maybe he’ll really go for broke in a debate when it looks like he has nothing to lose this cycle, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    1. Maybe he’ll really go for broke in a debate when it looks like he has nothing to lose this cycle, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

      I feel the same. All the subsurface Iowa organizing in the world won’t do what one good debate that highlighted the differences in Paul’s positions from the others would do.

      1. With respect, I believe that this overestimates the media, and the general public, with respect to their desire to have substantive debate on issues. I personally feel most prefer the current circus for its entertainment value. Issues – that’s so booorrriiinnnggg!

        1. With respect

          Newbie.

    2. when it looks like he has nothing to lose this cycle

      Have you seen his poll numbers? We’re pretty much there.

    3. That’s the side of anyone running for president people want to see more of. Isn’t that what Trump called our “leaders,” idiots? Stupid? Keeping people on board to vote for a Rubio, or Cruz, good point. Sad thing this, voting for those in the same party over and over again and expecting different results seems to be the norm, even for libertarians.

  3. I’m disappointed. “Idiots” is such a mild word. “Fucktards” or “mongoloids” would have been better.

    1. “I can barely tolerate reading most “dissenting” writers at times like this. The Pigfuckers launch their newest assault on decency and humanity, on the sacred value of a single human life, and on civilization itself, and the protesters are all so goddamned, fucking polite. The United States government is led by blood-guzzling, flesh-eating pigfuckers. Fuck polite.”

      Arthur Silber

      1. This man. Arthur Silber. I wish to subscribe to his magazine. =)

        1. He writes for The Daily KOS. Ha =)

    2. He needs to do some coke, and go crazy.

  4. Well, if we go into Syria and start dropping bombs, there will fewer of them and there will be fewer problems, right?

  5. Jesus fuck.
    We started the war in Syria, and we should be thanking Russia for cleaning up our mess.
    Syria is proof that Obama is even less competent at regime change than Bush was. The Syrian civil war has probably already surpassed the Iraq war in terms of civilian casualties, and ISIS is larger and better funded than Al Qaeda in Iraq could have dreamed of.

    1. I don’t think you can say “we” started the civil war in Syria, unless you subscribe to the idea that it started due to climate change, and that it’s our fault in that sense. Or do you mean that by saying some nice things about the “Arab Spring,” we encouraged it to happen? IIRC our involvement in that war came well after things began in 2011.

      Obama did screw things up, of course, but I don’t think it’s fair to say we “started” the war.

      1. Well, we encouraged the “Arab Spring” uprising, we demanded Assad step down, and provide Lybia as a nice exmple of what we were willing to do, we then covertly (and then overtly) armed and funded the opposition as the situation devolved into civil war, we threatened to bomb the place when it appeared chemical weapons were used, and then we let it all go on so long without resolution that an insane terrorist group took over half the country and massive waves of refugees started flooding out of the place.

        1. Maybe you were involved, but I reject the 1st person plural. I had nothing to do with any of Obama’s Wilsonian/neo-con aggression in Libya and Syria.

        2. My point, if I am not mistaken, is that we didn’t demand Assad step down until after the big demonstrations (and maybe the fighting) started, and didn’t send aid to rebels until after that. So we didn’t really “start” it, though yes, we did get involved once it did get started.

          1. We definitely pushed it in the direction of overthrowing Assad, and when that didn’t happen immediately, kept pushing it and pushing it, until it turned into a civil war. And then kept on pushing it, long after it became clear that the only “opposition” capable of overthrowing him was ISIS. And we still haven’t stopped. We should just shut up and go sit in the corner while Putin cleans the place up.

            1. None of “us” know what really happened or what “we” did or did not do to help get it started or to tamp it down or to help it along after it started.

              All we can bank on is that “we” were involved. I blame it on a video.

              The CIA rarely publishes retail reports of it’s clandestine efforts.

              1. I has been revealed that the US was clandestinely supporting the rebels long before that became official policy.

                1. What did this clandestine support entail? Some supplies? Pretty sure the Turks and Gulfies did far far more to aid the rebellion.

        3. None of those things = starting the Syrian civil war. The role of Gulf nations and Turkey far outstrips America’s. Further, if Assad had stepped down, there’s a chance Syria wouldn’t have devolved into what it has.

          1. When it became clear that there was not going to be a quick peaceful transition, we should have butted out. Instead, we doubled down. I think you forget how close we came to bombing Damascus after the chemical weapons incident.

            1. The USG ‘doubled down’ on not much. America is still not the reason they fight.

              ” I think you forget how close we came to bombing Damascus after the chemical weapons incident.”

              I remember quite clearly. I also remember the bombing never happened, and that this did not represent the beginning of the Syrian civil war.

              1. It is indicative of how committed we have been to regime change in Syria. We have done everything in our power to remove Assad, and the result of this has been to deepen and prolong the conflict.

      2. Dear Fruity Ass. Yes. “We” started the war in Syria. Wars have a beginning, and a conclusion. A “Police Action” has neither.

        1. No America did not start the Syrian civil war. That was their government.

          1. However you want to describe it, we have been deeply involved in fuelling the conflict for a long time. We’re heavily responsible for what has happened.

      3. How about…the collective nightmare-thing, known as the U.S. Government started the war?

    2. and yet, you don’t hear anyone suggesting that Obama is a war criminal or any of those other terms used in castigating Bush over Iraq. Obama drew that foolish red line, essentially dropping his dirty drawers in front of the world, then acted like you didn’t see what you saw. On top of that, he and his former SoS were all about ridding Libya of Qaddafi, which worked out well didn’t it.

      1. Not to mention Obama’s bombing of a hospital. Though of course the progressives are all for Obama claiming the Bin Laden kill, but will distance themselves from any other collateral damage.

      2. Because he’s the liberal/prog poster boy. Bush was always criticized heavily for all of the aggressive things he did, but Obama gets a free pass constantly.

    3. “We started the war in Syria”

      That’s bullshit. Assad’s side started it when they started shooting protesters.

      “we should be thanking Russia for cleaning up our mess”

      Russia isn’t cleaning anything up. They are helping ISIS by mostly bombing non-ISIS rebels.

      1. Assad’s side started it when they started shooting protesters.

        Because he didn’t want to end up like Ghadaffi. Who got ass raped with a bayonet before being shot on video. At the hand of American backed insurgents.
        Apparently Assad’s not an idiot?

        1. If he didn’t want to end up like Ghaddafi, and wasn’t a moron, then he would have abdicated for a nice Black Sea resort home.

          Not that any of that matters or remotely justifies shooting protesters or changes the fact that this is basically his fault. Heck, many of the original members of ISIS were released from Syrian jails at the outset of the revolution on his orders.

        2. Also, it’s worth pointing out that shooting protesters is EXACTLY what Ghaddafi did. If Assad didn’t want to end up like him, then he should have tried something else.

    4. I don’t understand the benefit to us to remove Assad, other than to destabilize another part of the region so isis can can control. We don’t learn.

    1. Wow that blurry out of context 30-second video has me convinced.

      1. Hugh, you’re not shitting your pants properly. Did you get some Depends like I told you to?

        1. Look Epi, some scary brown immigrants stole my pants, okay? I mean what am I supposed to do, just shit on the street?

          1. But that’s what dirty immigrants do, Hugh!!! He stole your pants…to steal your nation!

              1. Your pants-shitting second-hand special interest think tank links have convinced me. I will now proceed to shit *my* pants.

                OOPS ACCIDENT

                1. You should be used to shitting your pants, because events like cops telling someone to “Step aside” are so upsetting to you. If something that trivial drives you to hysterics, the Muslim colonization of Europe should be rather more upsetting.

                  1. You’re absolutely hilarious. Yes, *please* continue with your pathetic attempt to equate your almost-literal pants shitting over “the Mulslim colonization of Europe” (hahahahahaha) with “you shouldn’t just let cops ride roughshod over your rights”.

                    Are you sure you want to go back down yesterday’s road, super genius?

              2. Thanks for the view from batshitinsane.com

                1. I have a serious question for you. Have you ever actually been to Europe? Because you sure as fuck act like someone who has never been there, let alone go to multiple regions/countries. You’re quite perfectly doing the “it’s going to hell in a handbasket in a place I’ve never been, which is why I can believe this nonsense” bit.

                  1. I lived in (the former East) Germany for 15 years, worked often in the Czech Republic and Hungary and stay in touch with friends there and relatives in Norway who tell me that yes, this stuff is happening.

                    1. Thank you, Homple. Of course it’s happening, even though the mainstream news and those with ideological blinders don’t want to see it.

                      I’m old enough to remember the pro-pornography arguments of the early ’70s, when we were told that the Scandinavian countries had little rape, because porn was legal. Now, Sweden is plagued with rapes because of Muslim immigration. Few want to talk about it, but it’s indisputable.

                    2. “Plagued with rapes’ being bullshit-ese for “not really that much rape”.

                  2. I have been to Europe three times, for a total of maybe five months. In rough order of time spent: Spain, Greece, France, Netherlands, England, Hungary, Italy, Austria, plus Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium (just passed through the last three). In the late ’70s, early ’80s, and the early ’90s.

                2. A newspaper cherry-picked the stats. I’m convinced.

              1. The ‘new rape capital of the world’ still has a very low rape rate.

          2. Allahu akbar!!!!!

            /steals Hugh’s pants

            1. *laughs that anyone would want THOSE silly things*

              Allahu AKthhhhhhhhbbbbbbbhhhhhhharggjh!!

              *steals Epi’s leggings*

      2. Hey, if it’s good enough for Wikileaks, it’s good enough for me!

    2. That’s not a majority though. So no worries.

    3. Hm, the only story I could find says the demonstration was “absolutely peaceful” – assuming it’s the same one.

      TW: German

      1. You know who else started with “absolutely peaceful” demonstrations in Germany?

        1. Milli Vanilli?

        2. Grace slick?

        3. The Scorpions?

  6. All of them beating their chest to see who is the most likely to get us involved in a war that really, these people have been at war for a thousand years. You think somehow we’re going to solve their problems?

    More like two thousand years. With some brief interludes caused by plagues and earthquakes.

    1. Actually, prior to WWI, Syria hadn’t seen a serious conflict in several centuries.

      1. Damascus, Lawrence.

        Lawrence, not this. Go round.

        Damascus, Lawrence. Damascus.

  7. Libertarians just do not understand the real world, and that is why they have a childish view on foreign policy. Listen, we go in to Syria, kill all the bad guys, support the Syrian’s lust for democracy with a lot of money and infrastructure know-how, and we gain a strategic partner in the region.

    How the fuck can that fail?

    1. How the fuck can that fail?

      And we could’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their weird great dane!

      1. Maybe we should be dropping Scooby snacks on Syria.

        1. MK-ULTRA style scooby snacks? I think a large scale psychedelic attack on ISIS would at least be interesting. They already are ultraviolent, let’s see what happens when we light up their serotonin receptors. I have to consult a certain cyborg on this matter, an agile one.

          1. You know, that’s not the most terrible idea ever!
            Agile, America needs you!

          2. Yeah! Ba’ath Saltz!

            1. That’s some serious shiite, man.

              1. *Groans, bangs head on desk*

    2. Your right, third time has to be the charm.

  8. Thing is, I don’t think anybody is really really all that concerned about Rand’s signature issues because the economy is so unsteady. That’s why Bernie is getting so much traction with his “Eat the rich” routine and Trump gets so much juice by blaming immigrants for all of America’s ills.

    But the issues that Rand is solid on, like America’s blundering interventions in the middle east, the war on drugs and prison reform, and domestic surveillance, can all be framed as economic issues. Even if it’s not the most libertarian thing evar, he can at the very least say that every dollar the government isn’t spending on that bullshit is a dollar it can spend on something people like, or better yet a dollar back in taxpayers pocket (though that last thing is disingenuous).

    1. Military spending=foreign aid

    2. Rand Paul could take the middle road. He could say that, even if their intentions were pure as the driven snow, intervention is destined to fail. The US has over a half a century of history in catastrophically failed interventions. Vietnam. Laos. Cambodia. Indonesia. Afghanistan. Iraq. Iran. Libya. Saudi Arabia. Lebanon. Sudan. Somalia. The total number of people who appreciated US intervention is vanishingly small compared to the millions of dead, disabled, bereaved parents, widows and orphans, though the intervention did benefit crony capitalists who profit from the military-industrial complex and the sociopaths who rush in to fill the power vacuum left behind. Maybe the Kuwaitis are happy that the US removed Saddam and restored their monarch to his throne. But it was just the opening act for US involvement in a Middle East war that has been going on for a quarter century with no end in sight. Was the restoration of an autocratic Kuwait government really worth it?

      Intervention costs blood and treasure. It seldom accomplishes its ostensible ends, and even in the few and dubious cases where it does, it is not worth it.

      Now, personally, I think the whole bunch of interventionalists are depraved, blood-drenched pigfuckers. They like military intervention because war is good for their business, whether it involves profiting from military goods and services or increasing political power. Otherwise they would quit doing what history demonstrates is doomed to failure.

      1. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran? Indonesia? WTF does America have to do with these?

        There’s no such thing as ‘interventionism’. Every intervention requires individual evaluation. Invading Afghanistan was good and necessary. Staying to make democracy was neither.

  9. Well, I must say I agree with Rand.

    Who would expect most Americans to agree with him? The majority of Americans are fucking morons. Sad to say, but it’s true.

    1. I deal with this on a daily basis. So many people just can’t comprehend anything beyond their personal little bubble.

      1. Sometimes, well often, I wonder about the blissful ignorance thing. Is it really better to go through life like a dumb bovine creature, never really wondering about anything complicated, never really caring about what happens beyond your next meal or trip to the toilet, or who just unfriended you on Derpbook?

        I’m not religious but, here’s just one version of Ecclesiastes 1:18:

        For with much wisdom there is much sorrow; the more someone adds to knowledge, the more someone adds to grief.

  10. If you’ve been watching the livestream of Sen. Rand Paul’s day on the campaign trail in Iowa, you know he drove through a lot of cornfields and listened to some Metallica.

    One of the perks of working for Reason is that you can spend your day pretending to look at a live stream of a candidate’s travels, have the balls to say “it’s my job” and still get paid to do it.

    1. Metallica? Blah! Come on Rand, if you’re ever going to go full on libertarian, you got to listen to some real metal.

      My first advice when Rand makes me his campaign manager? Stop pandering to the SoCons and listen to some real metal!

      Come on Rand, do you really want Almanian to be Supreme Overlord? Well, do you!?

          1. Fucking Holy Wars!

            Holy Wars

          2. Look, I love Megadeth too, but nobody does “absurd Satanist death metal” like Slayer. And we all know that’s what Rand should be listening to.

            Obligatory Megadeth contribution.

            1. Ha !!! Here is a Hybrid. =) You lovely bastard. =)

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTtV0QYvuyI

              1. That’s pretty great.

            2. Somehow this current administration makes ”symphony of destruction” run through my head all of the time.

            3. Except Slayer’s not death metal.

              1. Who are you, Nicole? Fine, thrash metal, pedant.

      1. Fuck metal. I don’t get the appeal at all.

        1. Low testosterone? Metal can help.

        2. Go stroke your ovaries Waffles. =)

        3. I am pretty sure John Denver knew God, so I do not know what those metal nerds are talking about.

          1. When Denver arrived in Heaven, the libertarian head bangers beat him up and broke his geeetar over his dumb head. That’s how God came to love libertarians and metal.

            1. AMEN !!!!

            2. When Denver arrived in Heaven, the libertarian head bangers beat him up and broke his geeetar over his dumb head.

              I’m telling West Virginia what you said.

              1. Well, I live right here next door. The Hillbillys should invade, there’s no armed resistance to speak of.

                But, the problem is that most of the Hillbillys love metal too.

          2. Sure you don’t Crusty. =)

        4. @waffles: Metal is jazz for people who bore easily. Classical music for the impatient. Liking Bach seems to be a big indicator for liking metal. Basically, the appeal is complex arrangement, virtuosity, and a horror-movie sensibility.

  11. Good to see Rand adopt Obama’s ‘Don’t Do Stupid Shit’ foreign policy.

    I see some idiots upthread prefer Dumbya’s ‘Trillions Wasted For Nothing’ foreign policy. TEAM RED! GO GO GO!

    1. What a waste of good air you are. Rand would never support all the bullshit that Obama has done in Syria, Libya, and droning hospitals and daycare centers.

      Go jump in front of a train, assclown.

      1. Dude…it’s not cool to mock the tarded.

        1. Yeah.. but it kinda fun when you are mocking Turd Burglar. =)

      2. Rand Paul stands by Obama over drone attack

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/27/…..index.html

        Hyperion – always wrong, always an idiot, always TEAM RED! GO TEAM GO!

        1. Rand’s a very gracious guy, too much I think. Unlike your narcissist twat in chief and your new cankled favorite.

          Rand obviously would not have made the same mistake, he’s just too nice of a guy to point out what a loser Obama is.

        2. Now do tell us on how Rand agrees with Obumbles on Syria and Libya?

          1. Rand agrees with Obama that they are not worth an Iraqi-sized trillion dollar Bushian nation-building effort there.

            Fuck Assad and Qaddafi. Let their own people hang them up in the town square Mussolini style.

            Dumbya never understood that.

            1. BOOOOOOOOSH !!!!!!!

            2. So how did expending taxpayer money on either Libya or Syria help U.S. interests?

              1. The money spent on Libya/Syria was chickenshit. And ZERO soldiers involved.

                False, idiotic equivalence on your part.

                1. Yes, it’s easy to spend zero money and manpower doing nothing while batshit crazy extremists take over half of Syria and Iraq. But it takes real effort to spend positive sums sending them weapons and training, because we want to help them remove a run-of-the-mill dictator. How is ISIS not textbook blowback?
                  Why the hell do we want to remove Assad again?

            3. Yeah, it’s better to just to make a total dipshit and unqualified old hag like Hillary SOS, and then totally destabilize the areas so that millions of refugees flock into Europe and then hide in the closet with your little wee-wee between your legs, while Putin swoops in and takes over.

              You’re such a fucking retard.

            4. ButtLiKKer.

              The reasons(drink) why you are retarded.

              1. You think it s a good idea to vote for a Warlord every four years.

              2. You think a War lord should have absolute control of the domestic economy.

              3. You think that a War Lord should have control of foreign economies.

              4. You think destruction will boost an economy.

      3. “Rand would never support ….”

        Oh Yeah ?

        Well Rand never won a Nobel for Peace either, so there !

    2. Good to see Rand adopt Obama’s ‘Don’t Do Stupid Shit’ foreign policy.

      LOL!

      1. Let the bombings of Hospitals commence !!!!!!!!

        1. Medecins sans Frontieres is so smug, they had it coming.

    3. Good to see Rand adopt Obama’s ‘Don’t Do Stupid Shit’ foreign policy.

      Whatever Obama’s foreign policy is, it certainly is not “Don’t Do Stupid Shit.”

      1. If Obama appeared on national TV tomorrow and said ‘I think I should officially name my foreign policy ‘Do Stupid Shit”, it would be the first time ever that he has been seen in public telling the truth.

    4. You mean the same ‘Don’t do stupid shit’ policy that involves purposely destabilizing several middle eastern governments thereby enabling the rise of an even more insane Islamist group, causeing massive waves of refugees to flood Europe and destroying priceless archeological ruins? That ‘Don’t do stupid shit’ policy?

      1. Yes, that’s what he means.

        He supports everything that Obama and Hillary have ever done, no matter what. He supports the current immigrant crisis in Europe, the thousands that have died trying to escape ISIS because of Obama and Hillary’s stupidity, the destruction of Libya and Syria, hospital bombings, daycare bombings, wedding party bombings. If Obama did it, he supports it. If Obama would blow up a daycare center here in the USA and kill 1000 children right now, Buttface will condone it, 100% guaranteed.

        Libertarian, lol.

        1. But if BOOOSH did it. Then there shall be HELL TO PAY !!!! I TELL YOU !!!

        2. It’s always funny to me how Shrike constantly pushes Bush!!! Trillion Dollars!!! Yet, defense spending has remained at the same level as when Bush left office. Even if we give Bush the ’09 spending, his average is $549B (’02-’09) while Obama is at $663B (’10-’15).

          Military budget of the United States

          So, apparently “Don’t Do Stupid Shit” costs us $115B/year more.

          1. The Bushpig’s War was off budget (supplemental) and over $2 trillion to date.

      2. Yeah, the Middle East was all hugs/kisses until Obama “destabilized” it.

        You’re usually not this stupid HM.

        1. But if BOOOSH did it. Then there shall be HELL TO PAY !!!! I TELL YOU !!!

        2. “You’re usually not this stupid HM”

          You however are always this stupid.

          Hazle looks for the truth in a situation..

        3. The middle east is more fucked up than ever, thanks to Obama’s policies. There are no less than four civil wars going on there now. Three of which Obama helped instigate with his “not stupid ” policies.

          1. The Syrian and Libyan interventions are bad but they would be in civil war regardless. Same with Yemen, and even probably Iraq. America’s role is like a stone thrown into a river: ripples but it’s still flowing to the same place.

        4. You’d have a point if the Obama administration didn’t have its fingerprints all over the Arab Spring countries (excluding Tunisia, notably the one country not collapsing as we speak) and if Clinton herself didn’t count her part in the administration’s involvement as a selling point for her candidacy.

    5. That’s a good one. Better than I’ve seen from you for awhile, actually. I was kind of wondering where you’d gone. Class A trolling, really well done.

  12. paul just can’t please anyone enough.

    too conservative for the libertarians. too libertarian for the conservatives. the democrats take plenty of shots because they know he’s a real threat if he ever gets as far as the nomination.

    enough of the right people have too much of a reason to not like him.

  13. Right on! Good article. Rand Paul 2016!

  14. Rand Paul should run as a Democrat. He appeals to younger voters, there are issues that make him desirable with that group, as it is noted that there were some things in the debate that were on target. As long as the republican party has the blood lust to intervene in every other countries business, as well as ours, he will never get any real traction. Sadly though, many who call themselves libertarian will drop him if he does since they are more republican than libertarian.

  15. I was thinking the other day that the real problem with all this war rhetoric is that war is easy. The majority of America doesn’t feel the pain of the war we are waging via our military or the countless contractors. I think that for a free people the “citizen soldier” concept is important, and with team red and blue both full of statist it’s going to take a population tired of war to end it.

    To be clear, I think if we had a draft that you would see a lot more vested interest in not fighting an open-ended war to eternity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.