Scott Horton Interviews Rand Paul

Scott Horton, May 17, 2009

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Rand Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul and 2010 Senatorial candidate, discusses the war in Afghanistan, reducing corruption by making lobbying and bidding on government contracts mutually exclusive, the excess federal authority derived from the commerce clause, prosecutions of Bush administration officials for war crimes and the need for withdrawal from Iraq.

MP3 here. (27:52)

Rand Paul has launched an exploratory committee for the 2010 U.S. Senate election, in which he would run as a Kentucky Republican.

57 Responses to “Rand Paul”

  1. The audio cuts off at like 16 minutes. How do we get the rest of it?

  2. It’s all there. Try clearing your temp files.

  3. You really gave Dr. Paul a grilling, sir.

    I think he answered the torture question backwards. His answer can easily get lost if you don’t listen closely to the follow-up. If he’s going to say Bush-Cheney shouldn’t be prosecuted, he should be leading with the hierarchy point of who was giving orders and just say ‘if there’s probable cause for indictment that any commanding officer, government official (including the president) gave the order, they should be indicted and prosecuted’. Maybe, that’s the Machiavellian political scientist in me, but he didn’t answer that question well. You can’t be as gray as he did and profess the rule of law, but it’s early. He needs someone to consult on the legal process, international law, and the evidence and he gets that person, it needs to be consistent with his “rule of law” talking point which is absolutely necessary to hammer with consistency.

    I’m a fan of his father, relative to Desposton D.C., but I have a lot of problems with him. Where his father is right is that this war, this revolution for liberty and justice, is not political; it’s a philosophical war. There’s little room for such grayness in a philosophical war when your weapon is “the rule of law”.

  4. Got it. Thanks. Great interview.

  5. If he doesn’t want the ruling class to be prosecuted then why doesn’t he advocate them being pardoned by Obama instead of trying to tell us that the oligarchy is above the law for the sake of political cohesion. The Constitution supposed to be upheld not circumvented for political expediency. It destroys the very foundation of the Republic.

    I wish there was more focus on the Afghan war in the interview. How does he think Al Qaida and the Taliban should be defeated? What relations does he believe the United States should have with the Pashtun tribe and Pakistan? Should there be diplomacy? What would be the exit strategy he would advocate?

  6. I’ve been anti-Republicn since the emergance of the Neoconservative fundementilist coaltion begun by the mad Churchillian Gingrich and culminating in the Bush disaster.The emergance of the Pauls might be exciting but for there extreme and impractical economic libertarian views.People are tired of dogma,and ideolgical lectures.The name calling to stifle the brain:Fascist,Socialist,Left-Wing,Right Wing.A candidate which blended the abolishment of the malignent Federal Reserve,anti-intervention and entangling alliances foregn policy,fair trade,health care, uplifting the less fortunate, non-moralizing and direct ways plus rebuilding the cities,combined with SOCIAL libertarianism would be the beginning of real Republican revival.Rand Paul should be applauded,but he must be practical,non-pandering,and avoid the slogans of the past.You dont get votes by HURTING people,and substituting help with cliches.The Contract ON AMERICA ,and Limbaugh-Pat Robertson venom began the decline.Bush-Cheney evagelical monstrosness and McCann-Palin war mongering-moralizing did the rest……Republicanslike Paul should read abou the great Senator Robert Taft(ANTIWAR,CONSERVATIVE BUT PRACTICAL, RECIEVED MORE VOTES THAN EISENHOWER IN THE 52!NOMINATING PROCESS),start with JFKs PROFILES IN COURAGE.

  7. Good interview Scott. Rand Paul is like his father not only intellectually smart, but also a very smart and honest strategic politician. He also has the historical knowledge to know that his and his father’s foreign policy actually reflects the traditional GOP approach, so he does not have to fall back on the LP approach. In the race, I am sure in a calm and thoughtful way he will stick to principle and also know how to articulate it in order to be attractive to the majority of voters. Scott, you obviously come from the Harry Browne LP, but as Dr. Paul always says, he is a Taft Republican and you have very much the same idea, while being a limited govt. proponent and not an anarchist utopian. I do not think foreign policy may necessarily play such an important role during a senate race than during a presidential campaign (and in the campaigns last year foreign policy did not even play a huge role unfortunately). Dr. Paul can focus on fiscal conservatism and in his own way connect the Iraq-war issue to this. Even those pro-war Republicans would not want to propose an unending occupation or stay in Iraq. He also understands very well he should be his own independent person, reflecting his father’s basic political philosophy in his own words and explaining it to people and also focus on issues his father could not concentrate on, like he mentioned. This is a very good strategy and idea he provided, to help to limit corporate power and get true bipartisan support.

    On the war issue, I have heard sen. Tom Coburn of OK (whom Paul’s Liberty PAC also supported) said last year that the Iraq war was not constitutional. He went to senate after the Iraq war and is also a medical doctor. We should also remember that apart from Dr. Paul I think 5 Republican congressman voted against the war and later on some joined, like congressman Walter Jones. Jones is in a heavy military area in NC, so if he could win his primary convincingly last year, any non-interventionist can win a GOP primary as well

    A Goldwater 64 campaign without the unnecessary war hawkishness towards Vietnam (the one add), e.g. non-interventionism while opposing Communism, may have been a winning strategy. Lastly, as Dr. Paul has said, it is always the peace candidate, or in any case the one that is less war, that wins. Rand Paul would be such an asset in the senate.

  8. [...] 17 May 09 | AntiWar Radio [...]

  9. Great interview, many good answers, but very disappointed on his views on Afganistan war.

  10. He said that it was a smart decision to pardon Nixon and then it was for the countries better…

    So after he decides to give Bush and Cheney a pardon and another million people die “over there” another politician will say “I think it was smart and good for the country not to prosecute Bush and Cheney”…

    Rinse and repeat.

  11. Ayn Rand??? Yikes.

    The problem with Americans in general is their belief they are better than anyone else and that international laws don’t apply to them. Both Ron and Rand, aside from some few commendable traits, basically fall into this category as well.

    Sorry guys, but the United Snakes is and will forever be, a corporate/financial/military/security state empire. If there were 100 “Ron Pauls” in the senate nothing would really change.

  12. Scott,

    Thanks for the interview. I’m disappointed in Rand’s answer to your question concerning the prosecution of torturers.

    His answer makes no sense – better for the country to just move on and focus on preventing torture in the future. He just lost my support.He can be all for free-markets and non-intervention abroad, but to take the easy way out and absolve criminals shows he has not yet achieved the moral or ethical compass that his father has.

    Rand needs more backbone if he wants my support.

    Glenn

  13. How does Rand intend to finance his campaign?

    Not in favor of long-term occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan? What does he think the situation is right now?

    He’s clearly unfamiliar with the details of who knew what about torture. Check out emptywheel.firedoglake.com as the definitive source.

    Pardoning of Nixon was worst thing that ever happened to the U.S., because it established the principle that there was no accountability for the prez.

    I’m not a Ron Paul fan, but from this interview, it seems like Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.

    BTW he indicated on Rachel Maddow that he would not run if Bunning decided to re-up.

  14. eCAHNomics: Have you not listened to the interview in full? he mentioned – when asked about it – that he two years ago he was already calling for an immediate withdrawal and better still, no invasion of Iraq. He has stated 6 months is a reasonable time to withdraw.

    The war can be ended immediately, by stop fighting, but logistically it does take some time to organize a withdrawal. I do not think he is or should be concentrating on the details on who were involved with the torture etc. After all, he has a campaign to organize and has to focus on many issues and as a human one has limited time. Mind you, he does not have any aid to give him info and do research at the moment.

    I think you should rather write about Jim Webb, your party's utterances about torture as related to the Obama administration etc.

    Duncan: I would not describe Ron or Rand Paul as Randians in any way. They would be closer to Von Mises (do you know what he – Von Mises – said of Rand years ago? Murray Rothbard's wife has said Ayn Rand would probably have been a neocon interventionist today and Ron Paul said last year when interviewed (can find on youtube) about Ayn Rand, he thinks she is too militant, and that he is closer to the Founding Fathers. One should differentiate between a rugged and an absolutist individualism. The rugged individualism also recognize the meaning of group, like belonging to a church community, a country (patriot) etc. etc. and that greed should not be the dominant or only way of behaviour, but rather tempered.

    I agree with you many Americans believe they are better, are arrogant, but notice that with adherence to their Bill of Rights, Constitution etc. and respecting their sovereignty,

    they do not necessarily need to subject their country to "international law", as their laws are totally compliant to international laws. Ron Paul has said during a debate last year the Iraq invasion was against international law as well.

  15. Waffling on prosecuting is just that , political lies, saying it is a political question is BS, it shoots his desire to stop torture in the ass.

    Hoping for incorruptible politicians is completely ludicrous.

    You can hear the political positioning in every answer he gives.

  16. Irene: I think Rand Paul is with his father, also on Afghanistan. Ron Paul also voted for it, I heard – from the infamous Eric Dondero – rather reluctantly. I think Ron Paul meant for it to be an action going after Al Qaeda, and NOT to overthrow the Taliban govt, and the same with Rand Paul. Rand could not go in detail on the issue, of course. I think he gives a measured response, just like his father. Indicating that he would not run if Bunning goes all the way through is IMHO a wise political move. If Bunning voted for the Bush-Paulson bailout, then he could have run against Bunning in the primary, but with this, he would have NO chance of beating Bunning in a primary: incumbents mostly win in 90% plus. This does NOT mean he endorses every vote of Bunning. Ideally I think the Bush admin. should have provided evidence of Al Queda’s involvement in 911 when the Taliban govt. asked that of them, or to the world/UN. Then the US would have had a solid moral ground to go into Afghanistan, with a marque and repraisal – as Ron Paul suggested – deputee to Blackwater or a small elite military group and track down OLB, leaving the Taliban govt. alone. Anyone suggesting Rand Paul would be corruptible is ludicrous. Last year he critisized Tim Russert’s interview with Ron Paul on MTP that he was only looking for moments to try to ‘outsmart” Ron Paul by asking trivial questions in
    the election, for instance about civil war, while totally ignoring a question about Paul on
    the Iraq war, which Rand Paul said is THE important issue separating Ron Paul from the rest. One can follow past interviews on youtube: (randpaulsupporter etc.) from his speeches and interviews as well as a recent interview with Mike Church. Rand Paul is very much the real deal.
    Ernie: does Ron Paul or any politician not also position himself with every statement? Some politicians tend to stick to general remarks, and not go into specifics, unlike Ron Paul. Rand Paul went into specifics all the time as well. Also on the issue of timeline for withdrawal, he gives the same answer Ron Paul would have given. I have listened to so many interviews with Ron Paul, and I know he never meant withdrawal like in a few days, but rather in a 3-6 month period. Paul should have perhaps just stated this more clear with many interviews and debates, as they wanted to portray him in a negative/naive light. I wish Paul had a very good PR manger, who could communicate Paul’s wonderful positions clearly.

  17. While I would welcome all the informed Paul’s in Congress- Rand comes across as not being quite as informed as the senior statesman. Lobbying should be totally eliminated– a bribe is a bribe for favoritism – favors- special interest- special favors – like payments rendered to do all our bidding for Israel – holding us hostage – payola – conflicts of interest- corruption . so what doesn’t he understand that Ron Paul does.. sorry Ron – your son comes across to me as another illiterate like our reps in Senate/ Congress – that want their cake and eat it too.. what we really need is more people voting on things that concern us ! More We The People Voting On OUR Government …….. Agenda’s instead of bribes ruling what will decide our fate……. instead of WE THE PEOPLE …………

  18. Jim Kacey: Are you sure that lobbying should be eliminated? What about me? I lobby my politicians for liberty.

  19. And what do they do for you- they give you Socialism – the end of our government founded under God – removal of all of our freedoms – delay of E-Verify so they can import more immigrants you are mixing the issues and you know – you know of what I speak of , instead you want to be cute – What we need is more People Power and People Voices in our government … They don’t listen to you. I email or write directly with my political representatives or call them and my Congressman lives on my stret- so I can walk the five houses down from mine and talk to him in person.

  20. Patrick- Learn to use other modes of contacting your reps- like the telephone, email, snail mail is still a method of writing directly a letter to your rep in Washington – getting their web page or contacting emails – I have the White House Mc Cains- Newt’s , Palin’s congressmen , lieberman’s , Dodd’s , and others ……There are many lines of communications – they even set up phone for call in lines – or Town Hall Forums to go to …. You just doesn’t have to call me Mr. Johnson……… you can call me Ray or you can call me Hey……… get with the program Patrick….

  21. Young Dr. Paul lost my support because of his preposterous view that as trials are justified by utilitarian considerations, therefore “it wouldn’t do any good” to prosecute Mr. Bush et. al. for violating laws and treaty obligations against torture. Young Dr. Paul, trials are required by law to hold lawbreakers accountable. The position you hold is just a mealy-mouthed rationalization to avoid holding lawbreakers accountable. Our country does not “move forward” by turning a blind eye to lawlessness. The victims of torture demand and deserve justice. You, young Dr. Paul, clearly believe that these people who suffered so much do not deserve justice, and they won’t get any if you have anything to say about the matter. Shame on you. You most certainly should not be a member of the US senate.

  22. “Anne Rand”? Lol, why can’t he get her name right.
    ps. great interview Scott. Liked the skepticism you were showing.

  23. Hey Scott, why didn’t you grill him more on Afghanistan? That is incredible that he stated the he would have supported a declaration of war. This guy’s libertarian credentials might be seriously overstated…

  24. Scott et al, have you listened to this one? Rand Paul on foreign policy?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAL0JehpdmM

    I do believe he is essentially saying the same things as his father, but only present it a bit differently and in his own way. During his Rachel Maddow TV interview, he also mentioned this. I do agree with him on this. This is no “Bob Barr “appeasement to the hawks”, but rather the presentation of a healthy pro-defense and balanced policy as opposed to a hawkish and unacceptable neocon policy of preemptive strikes. Ron Paul would also approve of an attack by the president alone without congressional approval if there was certainty about an imminent attack, as he also mentioned during the congressional questioning of James Baker a while ago.

  25. [...] The more I hear from Rand Paul the more I like his approach to politics. Today I enjoyed listening to his lengthy interview with Scott Horton (antiwar.com) from last Friday. Listen to it here. [...]

  26. @Stefan: Rand said he was Randian, not I.

    As for the fabled “individualism” and “Bill of Rights”, my position is this:

    A “Bill of Rights” is not a bill of rights, it’s a bill of REVOCABLE Privileges granted by the state that can, and always IS revoked (as history, past and present, has clearly SHOWN) whenever the government sees fit. Anyone who truly believes in Freedom – who lives among OTHER people (i.e. other people who want to be FREE) in a Society (i.e. socialism) – cannot be GRANTED “rights”: only LIMITS can be placed on everyone’s right to do whatever they please so long as it conforms to the general welfare of SOCIETY at large. There is No Room for “cowboy justice” or the advantages of wealth or power in regards to Freedom. This is the basic concept of universal freedom that NO ONE in the US seems to understand, apparently.

    There should be NO “bill of rights”, there should only be a clearly defined Bill of LIMITS.

    “Individualism” is a Randian-type euphemism for Capitalism, Plutocracy, Autocracy, and Fascism. I mean, Jesus H Christ, who the hell ever Denied your freedom to act in Your Own Interests, anyway???

    Sorry, but Ron Paul and all the other “constitutionalists” have it totally ass-backward: we are “individuals” only in so far as we choose NOT to live with OTHER people. When we sign that unconscious social contract to live amongst OTHER people and respect THEIR freedom, in addition to our own, only then can we live in harmony. The opposite of that way of life – i.e “individualism” – would be something like living the life of Sam Berkowitz or Charlie Manson – or Dick Cheney and 99% of politicians and “free marketeers”.

    For a nation that claims to be “under God”, you sure have Luciferian attitude toward Commonwealth.

  27. To illustrate my point I point you to the Venezuelan Constitution:

    http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf

    READ IT, you won’t be disappointed.

    That’s about as close (granted, still a little short by my VERY high standards) as ANY nation in the history of mankind has EVER come to a Declaration Of Freedom.

  28. Stefan: thx for that link you posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAL0JehpdmM).
    In it Rand makes the same statement (that he would have voted ‘yes’ on Declaration of War) about Afghanistan @ the 2:44 mark! Talk about a military socialist.

    Defense can be provided by private enterprise as Hans-Hermann Hoppe showed in his book The Myth of National Defense.

    I guess the Friedman phenomenon doesn’t happen in the Paul family (ie. increasing adherence to liberty seen with Milton to David to Patri).

  29. @Stefan
    does Ron Paul or any politician not also position himself with every statement?
    Sure they do, but he makes the argument that giving these admitted felons a pass will not effect the rule of law.

    That all of congress is complicit int his issue is why the actual perps are given a walk. Only those that spoke out from the beginning have any integrity. The utilitarian arguments for torture disgust me.

    Rand Paul may be better than the majority of those with political aspirations, my only response is first he must talk the talk, then by his actions you will know him.

    So far the weasling on prosecution leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ron Paul has not pushed for them either, though he has said that they broke the law.

    We need a citizen convened grand jury to indict the MFers.

  30. Mr Paul, How can exposing the truth, ridding ourselves of illegal activity, and setting standards for future executive branch members be bad for the country? To me the reason why we have the problems of the past administration is because we didn’t prosecute Nixon or Reagan (or Clinton) for their illegal activities. We didn’t set a precedent for illegal behavior then and we are paying for more extreme illegal behavior now.
    Obama has show that he has drunk the empirical Kool-Aid with the torture issue and last wekend’s commencement speech. For some reason prosecuting those involved in the ordering of torture is bad for the country or that politically it will take all the energy away from any push for recovery legislation. Yet this last Sunday Obama thinks there is common ground enough for an open dialogue on the abortion issue. How is torture too politically hot to handle and abortion is not? When did torture become an issue that some believe in and others do not? I don’t know what Obama believes in, if he belives this insanity.

  31. @ Duncan
    I do not think Rand Paul wanted to say he is a Randian, he said elsewhere he is a libertarian. The two are NOT the same. He wanted to say he believe in the concept of individual rights and voluntarism, but I do not think he would subscribe to the whole Randian philosophy. I agree with you, one should IMHO differentiate between a rugged (Founding Fathers) and absolutist (Ayn Rand) individualism. The first one is compliant with “conservatism”, while the second one more an obscure anarchist theory that does not reflect reality.

  32. @Patrick: thanks, OK, now I know your philosophical premise, which seems to be closer to anarchism than minarchism, limited government or the Constitution. It is philosophically a totally legitimate position, but not one shared by neither Ron nor Rand Paul not most Americans.

  33. Dr Rand Paul — was very unimpressive :( Very disappointing. There can be only one Ron Paul. Too bad…

  34. Scott, if you listen to Rand’s video on his website today about the backround of his name, he mentions the Ayn Rand thing and mentions he has met with Murray Rothbard more in private as well and asked him about Ayn Rand. Rand is very much in his father’s footsteps, he has the same ideals, and follow an incremental approach (as also Dr. Paul) and he approach the war issue a bit in different words, but essentially the same message, perhaps a bit more emphasis on the security aspect, just like Michael Scheuer would have advised Dr. Paul had he been president. Maybe if Dr. Paul’s PR during the election campaign would have approached the communication a bit differently and also focussed on some security issue in a balanced way, Dr. Paul would have received more votes in say SC etc. Of course the media has also misused and misconstued some statements by Dr. Paul.

    About family in politics, you could also have mentioned the Goldwaters and surely that was/is a good and positive example.

    What about an interview with ex-congressman John Hostettler? He was also one of the six GOP congressmen who voted against the Iraq war and has written a book about it, which he published last year and Dr. Paul recommended. Hostettler also debated the virtue of non-interventionalism together with Doug Bandow with a neocon at CPAC earlier this year. Some want to draft him to run again in 2010.

  35. The strategy of not accepting any but the perfect candidate comes along is beyond silly. This purity fixation needs to go before the liberty movement can proceed. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

  36. Absolutely David, spot on. Some of these guys are online all the time critically sifting through all aspects of the best candidate, looking for something they can criticize and if they do a find different formulation or one aspect that the candidate does not highlight, then they all of a sudden say the candidate is “anti-liberty”. The LP did not make much progress also due to itself, infighting etc. Rand Paul is smart and know he should formulate things a bit differently, without changing anything of the message, and empathize the security aspect better and balanced and then he can appeal to most Republicans in KY and bring them back to the correct traditional position. Ron Paul always meant with “just come home” a time framework of say 3-6 months (I heard him once), but he has not always added the 3-6 months so this had lead some in the media and parties he wants to pull out immediately, like in one or two days, and he never said that, but there was some misunderstanding. One learns from mistake sin a campaign.
    With regard to the torture issue, it is actually a bi-partisan issue, but in effect only the party to which Rand Paul belongs to is blamed and one cannot make such a generalization. Paul is following the law, but there is also no need for him to be like an opposing party within the GOP, also as both parties have a role to play. He has to concentrate on all the issues and the economic issue affects most people. If the critics want to be consistent, then they should call not only for investigation into Bush-Cheney, but also into Obama and possibly an impeachment based on the innocent people in Pakistan etc. who have been killed by drones. Paul is also not in a political position yet to comment on every daily policy issue and he has other issues like health care to also look into and media contacts to build up, expand his team, raise money and develop a good campaign strategy. By the time he is hopefully elected, the torture issue may not be front page anymore, but the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc will be or perhaps torture under the Obama administration.
    It would also be a mistake to call most in the GOP neocons, they are simply misguided and need to be persuaded and this will not bee too difficult, except of course the real neocons in think tanks etc. Paul should build up some alliances within the GOP.

  37. Impeach Obama!

  38. Well, Rand was a bit of a disappointment to me on Afghanistan and prosecution of war criminals. He seems to be in the mould of most other politicians; i.e. he won’t prosecute because it is too partisan (the solution is to prosecute both Dems and GOPs). Those elite rulers really like to take care of themselves/each other.

    When ppl break the law, they should be prosecuted like everyone else. It doesn’t matter if it’s the president. Otherwise, you may as well have a monarch with unlimited power.

    Can’t we just clone some RON Pauls instead?!?

  39. Rand Paul was a big disappointment: kudos to Scott Horton for asking the questions that revealed what a typical politician Rand Paul would be. Quite simply, anyone who says those who tortured in the past shouldn’t be held to account has ensured that any policy changes will be meaningless. He had to have his teeth pulled to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and made clear he’d play with words over the timeline with anyone who wanted to know where he stood. Furthermore, his web site says NOTHING about this issue, or about non-intervention in general.

    And his blog doesn’t take a strong libertarian stand on ANY issue that isn’t a typical right wing cause (e.g. gun control). How a doctor can write about health care and not mention the FDA is beyond belief, and the War on (some) Drug Users is nowhere to be found.

    He is no Ron Paul.

  40. obamabodycount.org

  41. [...] need look no further than Ron Paul and his son Rand. Scott Horton asked Rand about neptotism in an Antiwar Radio interview recently. Rand answered quite honestly and bluntly, something we’ve become accustomed to when [...]

  42. If there were 100 Ron Pauls in the senate nothing would change?? Are you kidding? Really?

    He speaks more clearly in general than his father does. Also, he understands the real underlying reasons for the wars we fight (when compared to most of Washington.) I hope he can make it in to help the cause. He is more antiwar than 98% of those in Washington. If you want to get anywhere near ending the wars, policing the world, and bringing troops home in the coming years, you should send your financial support to him in a hurry.

  43. [...] negligence for Palin given her de facto position of trust, or grotesque political expediency. During his 2009 interview by Scott Horton of Anti-War Radio, Dr. Paul repeatedly spoke of the need to form a coalition with the Left to win his election. Like [...]

  44. [...] GOP/Tea party Co Opt Each Other” by Alex Brant-Zawadzki published: December 17, 2009 • 4Scott Horton Interviews Rand Paul May 17, 2009 • Rate this Post: (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … Related Posts:Grassroots Moneybomb [...]

  45. [...] the Christmas Day bomber in civilian courts, and opposes the dismantling of Guantanamo. Sure, he questions US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, pointing out that we don’t need to be [...]

  46. [...] the Christmas Day bomber in civilian courts, and opposes the dismantling of Guantanamo. Sure, he questions US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, pointing out that we don’t need to be [...]

  47. [...] the Christmas Day bomber in civilian courts, and opposes the dismantling of Guantanamo. Sure, he questions US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, pointing out that we don’t need to be [...]

  48. [...] the Christmas Day bomber in civilian courts, and opposes the dismantling of Guantanamo. Sure, he questions US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, pointing out that we don’t need to be [...]

  49. [...] He has to walk a fine line. What made his father the enemy of the party establishment were his non-interventionist foreign policy and civil libertarian positions. Last year in a radio interview with Antiwar.com, the son came out against torture and for a withdrawal from Iraq. [...]

  50. Well, Rand Paul won the primary. What do you think?

  51. [...] did an interview with Antiwar.com, in which he stated some mildly anti-interventionist sentiments, coming out [...]

  52. [...] indeed, during the campaign, after being attacked by his Republican primary opponent for doing an interview with Antiwar.com, in which he expressed mildly anti-interventionist views, Rand pulled back and [...]

  53. [...] have taken a lesson from Paul’s Republican primary opponent, who tried that – even citing an interview Rand Paul did with Scott Horton on Antiwar.com Radio – and was crushed at the polls. Just like [...]

  54. I’m extremely inspired with your writing abilities as neatly as with the structure for your blog. Is that this a paid subject matter or did you modify it your self? Either way stay up the nice quality writing, it is rare to look a nice weblog like this one today..

  55. [...] Scott Horton Interviews Rand Paul [...]

  56. [...] immigrants should be punished for breaking a law they had not part in constructing, yet he does not support upholding the constitution and prosecuting the Bush administration for cases of admitted torture. [...]

  57. http://www.dj-nation.pl/rip-a-remix-manifesto/

Leave a Reply