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.


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.


please edit.

Otherwise I agree with all your points.

I'm very sorry Pseudonym. I screwed that up pretty good!

Ususlly spelling is my strong point, so I don't know how I didn't catch the correct spelling of Libya.

Shame on me.

I changed it and thanks for the heads up.

Now I'm going to go bury my head in the sand for a while!

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

He basically asked those

He basically asked those question of Sen. John Kerry in his confirmation hearing today.



This is not about getting your jollies in

Rand is treading a fine line. WHAT USE IT IS to just raise the exact valid points and yet GET MARGINALIZED by the bible thumping republican base who still don't get the follies of Militarism ? Time to mount an insurgency campaign. Take it down from the inside.



I look at all the comments below and it makes me sick

Really? Justification of legislation both bad in practice and theory? Where has y'all's integrity gone?

Ron Paul could have nailed Hilary just as bad, if not worse, and yet still get out the message that having military bases abroad is BAD. But Rand did a complete 180 from his father and defended the bases as well as propose increasing the budget to affirm the security of them.

And all you guys can do to defend him is say: "Oh, it's part of the strategy." - "Oh, he's new, he just needs time to stretch his legs..."
You guys don't give anyone slack except Rand and I'm tired of you hypocritical ingrates. Y'all have no principles whatsoever. The bias is so absolutely blatant it's crazy.


I'm not saying don't support Rand or don't vote for Rand - I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that you Pro-Randers are giving Rand a free pass for mistakes anyone else would be crucified for - especially someone who is a identified as a "friend" of the liberty movement.


quit crying! Im sick of your constant WAILS.
boo hoo hoo.

when we have the best thing in congress since Ron Paul we TEND TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF OUR TRUST.

Whether YOU like it and approve of it, or NOT!
so quit crying.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Clear this up for me

Having concern for a politicians political leanings is now considered "crying"?

I have a right to scrutinize whichever politician I damn well please and if that irritates you or makes you uncomfortable because you're sucking on their balls, that's your fucking problem.


every post you write is a CONTINUOUS WAAAAH! WAAAH! about RAND.
Just Stick the rattle back in your mouth and SUCK ON IT!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Have you checked my posts

Or do you just visit Rand-related posts? Because my comments on Rand make up, at most, 10% of my comments.

When you reply to anyone you never reply back with facts or logical arguments - it's always ad hominem attacks and references to bogus data.


"Have you checked my posts?"

No, I checked your diaper.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

I'm in favor of not having

I'm in favor of not having foreign military bases overseas, but is there really a problem with having embassies overseas? I thought that embassies were basically just a form of good will between countries? And if we're not going to use our marines to guard our overseas embassies, then how should the embassies be guarded?



"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

It depends

How are the embassies being used and what sort of discussions do our ambassadors participate in? I think non-intervention allows for embassies overseas if they exist to sort out issues exclusively between the pair of nations.

"I think non-intervention

"I think non-intervention allows for embassies overseas if they exist to sort out issues exclusively between the pair of nations."

I agree. But if we're going to have embassies in other countries, how should these embassies be guarded? Would it violate the principle of non interventionism to use our marines to guard these embassies?

I don't see why I should be

I don't see why I should be down voted for this comment. I just asked a question that I would appreciate an answer to. I try to learn more about the issues just like everyone else.

henry9's picture

Just to be fair...

Not that I disagree with your premise, but who can you name that came out more for non-intervention?

Yes, he is young and maybe weak in the knees, but that is subject to change.

Rand is on track IMO.

If Rand is a non-interventionist

Then he's off to a rocky start because supporting military bases abroad and sanctions are not non-interventionist policies. Quite the opposite.

He supports having far less

He supports having far less foreign military bases than we have now. He would probably prefer to have about 100, rather than the 900 that we currently have.


So, I guess he doesn't support sanctions everywhere...just in the middle east? And that's okay because he doesn't support sanctions everywhere?

You're reasoning isn't a logical justification for his stance.

henry9's picture

The question was...

Who is more non-interventionalist?

That's all. No matter where.


if Rand supports actions that lead to one million deaths instead of two million deaths, that's all that matters?

We shouldn't require him to vocally object to even one single unnecessary death on principle? Like his dad did?


This pretending to be reasonable and pretending to cozy up with neocons and zionists is HORSESHIT.

People died in Libya because we ENGAGED THEM IN WAR! No other reason! No other excuse! NONE! Yelling at Hillary accomplishes NOTHING but distracting from the REAL PROBLEM!!!

THOUSANDS OF LITTLE KIDS ARE LYING IN THEIR GRAVES NOW!!! Ambassadors on the scene representing the WAR EMPIRE can go to HELL for all I care.


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

RIGHT ON WEEBLES!!! Couldn't have said it batter.

I say the Benghazi attacks happened because we cruise missile-bombed Libya to the tune of 1 billion dollars worth.

And Hillary APPROVED IT because she didn't object then and she still doesn't object NOW.

So of COURSE there's going to be repercussions.

How do you think we would act if some foreign navy pumped a billion dollars worth of cruise missiles into the USA???

THAT was my point.

THAT is the question Rand should be asking IN MY OPINION.

Obviously not everyone else's here.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


I think there are more of us hardcore old school Ronites than Randians. And that the # of Ronites will continue to grow and coalesce and put an end to this foolishness. :)

I hope anyways...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

We should close down all of

We should close down all of our foreign military bases over a period of about four or five years, in order to give these countries a period of time to get used to the idea that we won't have a military presence there much longer. But of course I'm a "neocon" or an "interventionist" or whatever else you want to call me just because I don't think it's realistic to close down every single one of our foreign military bases tomorrow.


you are trying to be reasonable and willing to compromise. Your "4 or 5 years" now becomes "10 to 15" because you are "reasonable".

There is no reason to have a SINGLE soldier, weapon, drone, jet, cruise missile in or near Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, etc.. starting NOW!

The People need to demand it. Their souls are dripping and drowning in the blood and terror of millions of innocents. It should and can stop --> NOW

You think this is unreasonable .. but you are WRONG

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Facts of life time...

If presented with the choice between the status quo and pure non-interventionism, voters will choose the status quo.

If we take an all or nothing approach, we will get nothing.

Gradual movement toward non-intervention is our only viable option.

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


if the voters tend towards interventionism and continuing wars then I care not who they vote for. I care for changing their hearts and minds. And the only thing that will change their hearts and minds is them seeing people with honesty and character speak truth to power regardless of criticism. Not another weasely deceiver spewing lies and deception at them.

I'm gonna follow Ron's plan and vision no matter what. Winning stupid political offices means nothing to me. Winning the presidency without sufficient numerical support for our cause in Congress and amongst the People themselves won't work. If enough people awaken to the need for liberty and self-reliance as the replacement and solution to the problems of Govt then we cannot be stopped.

The battle now is to prevent Rand from destroying what his father built. To arms! :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~