9 votes

Rand Paul Dropped The Ball...

I would expect every one of those other lying rats in congress not to ask the right questions about Libya, but not Rand Paul.

Yesterday, Senator Paul drilled Hillary Clinton about the Benghazi attack. But he blew a great opportunity.

HERE is what Rand should have asked Clinton:

"Madam Secretary, lost in all the hype around the Benghazi attacks are some underlying questions.

First of all, is firing cruise missiles into a country from off its coast an act of war? If not, what is it?

Can you explain to me the unilateral decision by the executive branch to attack Libya with one BILLION dollars worth of U.S. cruise missiles fired from our navy, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS CONSULTING THE CONGRESS?

Do you happen to know how many innocent Libyans died in our attacks? If not, you should, being the Secretary of State.

Did it ever occur to you there might be counter-attacks on Americans by such actions?"
-------------------------
Rand should have gotten to the HEART of the matter, which is that the president (backed by his cabinet) USURPED the authority of congress to declare war AS REQUIRED IN OUR CONSTITUTION - WHICH THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD.

But instead, he fell in line with the other Neo-Con republicans who seemed just fine with attacking Libya, but now are screaming bloody murder when there's some "blowback" for our (illegal) actions.

WE NEED RON PAUL BACK.

And let's not forget the REAL reason we attacked Libya: Shortly before his overthrow, Quadifi was trying to create a new African currency (backed by GOLD) and he had the blessing of several African nations.

But that might have competed with the U.S. dollar (Federal Reserve) and the Euro which might have cost the central bankers some profits.

So, after supporting Quadifi for decades with billions in foreign aid, suddenly "we" had to remove him before he could establish a new currency.

ALL wars and military actions are funded by the bankers FOR THEIR PROFIT.
We are just the poor fools forced to do their bidding (through taxation, wars, occupations and inflation).

I guess it would be way too much for me to expect Rand to bring THAT up.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

can we not in-fight

can we not in-fight please?
http://www.dailypaul.com/272072/are-we-children

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

If he dropped the ball on this...

Then he stuck a knife in it and deflated it with this: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/rand-paul-lets-...

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

SteveMT's picture

Your very same questions should have been fired at Kerry, too!

You are right. Why not? Thanks.

.

.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

I was also disappointed that

I was also disappointed that he didn't bring that stuff up with Hillary, but at Bible class that night, I had some older men coming up to me and were just braggin on "my boy rand." they really like him. It's not good to change a message to gain a crowd, but no one would deny that what rand said was indeed good, although not complete.

THEN when he used the opportunity with john kerry to do JUST what he left out with clinton, he had already gained a crowd and had more people watching him at the moment than if he had done that with clinton. I liked it....

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

No doubt !

A GREAT OPPORTUNITY!! But........... He is all over the news, from the left to the right. He is building NATIONAL name recognition\.. which is vital to a presidential election. Rand is a politician, a libertarian politician. with major clout.

Rand's in a tough

spot. You know...having to fight the establishment as well as half of us. Luckily some of you are on to his evil plan concocted before his birth to infest Carol's womb, knowing it was a womb in a liberty loving family, and then spend his entire life until now pretending to love his father and treasure his teachings and values only to wait for this moment to spring into action using a movement that rarely gains power to take over the government having fooled us. Soon he will be able to fully transition into the hand wringing leader of the once free world and his laughs will increasingly sounds like this: mwah ha ha mwah ha ha MWAH HA HA HAH HA!!!!!!!!

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

We need a real apple

Storm12 nailed it...I was really disappointed to see Rand's political posturing - as was predicted he's getting ready to give Hillary a fight in 2016...so he came out swinging and it rang hallow and inauthentic...he didn't address the real issues and don't your eyes just glaze over once you realize it's more political theater...yikes c'mon Rand!!

Rand needs to be held to the same standards as anyone else in congress...he doesn't get a free pass for being the son of RP and holding him accountable is NOT whining...On the other hand...he certainly has alot to live up too....let's just hope the apple stays close to the tree...and doesn't get wormy....

He Is Playing Along

The questions that you suggest he should have asked are all good questions. I believe Rand Paul would also agree with the principles behind your questions.

Here is the problem: You can't play that role and expect to win the Presidency in 2016.

Did you here AM talk radio praising Rand Paul today? That's a good thing. He is walking the line and can cross the line once he has won the Republican primary in 2016.

Life, Liberty... and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I know we all would like to do it our own way

but the fact of the matter remains; rand is one of the only ones in there who even know who we are and unless we each take it upon ourselves to find a seat in the senate we just have to trust him

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

That's what my Dad had said

About GW Bush Sr. and Jr. and look what they did. I'm not saying Rand will follow their neo-conservative path, but I am saying that it's ignorant to say "let's just trust him."

No, let's not. Let's observe his actions, hold him accountable when needed, and praise him when he deserves it.

I don't believe in trusting politicians. I believe in hard voting records.

well I don't believe Ron and Rand are apart of the same ilk

he is playing games with AIPAC right now. this is a strategic political maneuver over the support from the new aristocratic party created out of the Tea Party movement. by using the Tea Party patriots which is a liberty group of the aristocracy who don't want higher taxes on the rich... if Rand gets those people than it doesn't matter what Goldman Sachs does to defeat him.

So

like I said if you are not in the senate then you can't tell me what Rand is really doing... because it is what he does that really matters not what he says.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Agreed

Rand Paul has done a satisfactory job, yet still should be watched.

No way in hell can you equate

No way in hell can you equate bush sr. & jr. with Ron & Rand

Like I said

I'm not saying Rand will follow their neo-conservative path, but I am saying that it's ignorant to say "let's just trust him."

If you can't understand that, you clearly have some more "un-brainwashing" to do.

Listen to How He Grilled John

Listen to How He Grilled John Kerry today. Some of exactly what he "didn't" ask Clinton. Rand is fighting for YOU. Get behind him.

What difference does it make?

He also went limp when she stated what difference does it make if they died because of a spontaneous uprising or a planned attack?

WE WERE LESS THAN TWO MONTHS FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! If it was spontaneous reaction to a video the president can't be blamed. If it was a planned terror attack the administration failed to stop it and the Sec. of State failed to address the security concerns of the State Dept. security teams.

That is a failure of the President and his administration and had the potential to affect his re-election chances. That's the Friggin difference!

What difference does it make?

He also went limp when she stated what difference does it make if they died because of a spontaneous uprising or a planned attack?

WE WERE LESS THAN TWO MONTHS FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! If it was spontaneous reaction to a video the president can't be blamed. If it was a planned terror attack the administration failed to stop it and the Sec. of State failed to address the security concerns of the State Dept. security teams.

That is a failure of the President and his administration and had the potential to affect his re-election chances. That the Friggin difference!

Exactly! This is what I have

Exactly! This is what I have been saying ever since we invaded Libya. This is maddening! I wish Rand would grow a pair and stop being a milktoast guy. Fight the neocons! Expose them, don't try to be neocon lite.

He's just being...

"reasonable" (or too much bisphenol-a)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Rand fought against the war

Rand fought against the war in Libya from the very beginning.

"fought"

past tense. He has surrendered the battle to spread the message of freedom.. to electioneer.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Exactly

If Rand isn't at all times addressing all the important topics, then clearly he's a sellout. It's no excuse that it's physically possible to address only a certain number of topics in a given amount of time./sarc

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Well...

Given:

1) The State Dept budget for embassy and consulate security was cut AND frozen in 2011
2) Neither the Tripoli or Benghazi consulates have budgets yet (or several other new ones since 2011)
3) the Anti-Deficiency Act requires 80% funding for each facility -- which means budgets are stretched thin and being juggled
4) the Secretary of State doesn't directly manage security logistics, recommendations or staffing of security details

The only thing Rand has accomplished in his attack on Hillary is to highlight the "urgent need" for INCREASED FUNDING (more spending) therefore looking like a pariah engaging in personal attacks for political gain - OR - just being a loose cannon with poor judgement on when to pick battles while helping seal the case in the public arena for MORE SPENDING. (the jokes on Rand)

And he missed the opportunity to highlight the REAL problem. That we shouldn't be there at all and these deaths are just more blowback. Ron's dad called Hillary to the mat several time on the morality of war issues and the end result was Hillary agreeing AND telling Ron how much she respects him. While at the same time creating viral youtubes boosting Ron Paul's statesman like qualities.

And returning to items #1-3 in the list, Rand could have pointed out how much of the blame falls on ---> CONGRESS for failure to budget and arbitrary spending caps with legal penalties.

Non-intervention and the danger of blowback aren't just a couple of minor issues that can be casually left out for future discussions. They are THE issues in the context of these hearings.

Oh well... proceed with your Rand worship... :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I thought Rand dropped the

I thought Rand dropped the ball when Kerry (Bush's cousin) was allowed to ramble on with the last two questions. Rand was in control of the interview until he started debating with Kerry.

Rand raised these exact

Rand raised these exact points with John Kerry this afternoon. He brought up the foreign aid issue and the issue of going into Libya without Congressional approval.

Denise B's picture

Yes, he did, here's the link

Time and place my friends.

Time and place my friends. The questioning was of Hillary and her responsibility and lack of leadership in the Benghazi attacks. I think he did a great job questioning her. He made her sound like a fool. "TURKEY?!?"

This post is BS. Rand did ask the right questions.

He made a fool out of the sitting secretary of state and demonstrated that she is unqualified for the job.

In doing so Rand used her to prove the President incompetent too.

The questions you want asked are questions of war.. these are questions for Obama, not Clinton.

Clinton is not secretary of defense nor is she his boss.

.

Good Point

And he has started to discredit her as a qualified candidate in 2016.

Life, Liberty... and the Pursuit of Happiness.