Mediaboss Marketing

In this file photo, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, gives the keynote speech at the New Hampshire GOP Unity Breakfast September 12, 2014 in Manchester, New Hampshire. Darren McCollester, Getty Images

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, opposes arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight extremists with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), because he doesn't trust the U.S. to ensure the weapons reach the right people.

After all, Paul said in an interview on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, even had his picture taken with ISIS members last year. And if a U.S. senator can't differentiate between ISIS and moderate groups in the region, he asked, why should the rest of America have any confidence that the arms will be used as intended?

Play Video

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urges the administration to step up its military campaign against militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (...

One problem, though: McCain didn't have his picture taken with ISIS, as several outlets mistakenly reported at the time. During a trip to Syria last May, the Arizona Republican had his picture taken with the Free Syrian Army, one group the U.S. hopes to empower in the fight against jihadists.

"Here's the problem," Paul told The Daily Beast. "He [McCain] did meet with ISIS, and had his picture taken, and didn't know it was happening at the time. That really shows you the quandary of determining who are the moderates and who aren't. If you don't speak Arabic, and you don't understand that some people will lie to you -- I really think that we don't have a good handle on who are the moderates and who aren't, and I think the objective evidence is that the ones doing most of the fighting and most of the battles among the rebels in Syria are the radical Islamists."

McCain, who's previously criticized Paul's non-interventionist approach to global conflicts, couldn't let the accusation go unanswered.

"I can't believe Rand is still repeating this stuff, which came from a Hezbollah newspaper in Lebanon!" he told the Daily Beast. "He's getting his information from Hezbollah. It's outrageous...I don't know if Rand is dishonest or misinformed...I met with the Northern Storm and Gen. Idriss, who was the head of the Free Syrian Army. Most of the guys in that picture are dead now, killed by ISIS. It's just ridiculous."

Play Video

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul repeats debunked report about John McCain meeting ISIS

By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

updated 11:50 AM EDT, Wed September 17, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul is trying to shed the perception that he's an isolationist and that he thinks the United States should retreat from intervention in other countries' affairs. But members of his own party are making it hard for the Kentucky Republican to escape that image.

Sen. John McCain, one of the most hawkish members of the Senate, told Fox News host Neil Cavuto on Tuesday night that Paul has "a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation and the threats we face" from ISIS.

Referring to Paul's evolving position on ISIS, McCain said the libertarian-leaning senator "has obviously been doing somersaults" since the Sunni militant group gruesomely killed two American journalists and a British aid worker.

Paul, who is seriously considering a presidential run in 2016, responded to his critics in an interview released Wednesday in The Federalist, telling the conservative Web magazine how "frustrating" these labels are for him.

"I spent the past five years in public life telling everyone that 'hey, I'm not an isolationist' ... and when they find out I'm not, they say I've switched positions, because I'm not the position they were saying I was. You know what I mean? So for five years they've been accusing me of being something that I say I'm not."

But McCain apparently doesn't buy this explanation. He said Paul has "dramatically shifted his positions on national security. He said we shouldn't intervene, no matter what, anywhere. And now obviously he wants to take out ISIS."

"I think it's kind of a desperation kind of trying to find some footing here as he slides down a very steep slope of credibility."

Read the original:
Why Rand Paul can't shake isolationist image

In the last few days, several news outlets have published stories examining the policy ideas of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul -- and pointing out instances where Paul seemed to have changed his mind on some issues, as he tries to build support for a presidential run.

On Wednesday, Paul took issue with one of those stories, which was published Monday in The Washington Post. The Post story showed that Paul (R) seemed to have shaded, changed, or dropped some of the ideas that he had espoused as a candidate in 2009 and 2010 and in his early days as a senator.

In an interview published online on Wednesday, Paul said The Posts story was full of inaccuracies, calling it a hit job.

Everything theyd said that my position had changed on, I think, frankly, is untrue, Paul said in the interview, conducted by The Federalist an online magazine featuring news and conservative commentary

Afterward, The Post asked a spokesman for Pauls Senate office to identify the inaccuracies that the senator had been referring to.

Pauls spokesman declined. We will be doing this on another platform, spokesman Brian Darling wrote in an e-mail.

The Posts story, published in Mondays paper, was based on an examination of Pauls speeches, op-eds and 326 pieces of legislation he has submitted as a senator. It also relied on interviews with Pauls staff and advisers. The Post also requested to interview Paul himself, but an aide eventually said the senator did not have the time.

In his interview with The Federalist, Paul also criticized The Post for not providing a response from him or his political team.

I think there was no quote from us in the whole piece an enormous piece, a hit job on me, and they never quoted us for a response on anything, he was quoted saying.

The Post story quoted three advisers to Paul: two by name, and another who asked not to be named. It also quoted an additional aide in Pauls senate office, who described Pauls policy ideas in detail. Pauls office arranged that interview, on the condition that the aide not be quoted by name.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul says Post story is full of inaccuracies. He wont say what they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is everywhere these days. And arguably nobody has crafted such a big profilein his first four years in the Senate. He gives what seems to be a speech a day, is on TV all the time, and isn't shyabouttalking to reporters. The summation is lots of Rand Paul being on the record.

The flipside of that, of course, is that there is lots of Rand Paul being on the recordfor people like us (ink-stained wretches that we are) to parse. And parse we will.

Over justthe past few days, several stories have detailed the inconsistencies and take-backs contained in Paul's public record. Here's our David Farenthold:

Sen. Rand Paul wanted to eliminate aid to Israel. Now he doesnt. He wanted to scrap the Medicare system. Now hes not sure.

Hedidnt like the ideaof a border fence it was expensive, and it reminded him of the Berlin Wall. Now he wants two fences, one behind the other.

And what about same-sex marriage? Pauls position such marriages are morally wrong, but Republicans should stop obsessing about them seems so muddled that an Iowa pastor recently confronted him in frustration.

Yahoo's Chris Moody offered a similar take, and the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis summarized both pieces thusly:

Both do a very good job of documenting Pauls changing positions, but neither fully captures the frustration that comes from dealing with someone who refuses to play by the agreed upon rules of logic, rhetoric, and discourse that keeps society from descending into chaos.

Ouch.

Perhaps nothing captures this phenomenon more than a recent flap over Paul and his comments on executive orders. Paul told a crowd in New Hampshire a few days ago that, as president, hewould repealall executive orders that are currently on the books i.e. more than 200 years' worth.

See the rest here:
Rand Paul talks a lot probably too much for his own good

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks Friday, Sept. 12, 2014 at a GOP unity breakfast in Manchester, N.H. Paul considered a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, made a visit to the key early voting state of New Hampshire at ... more >

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, argued against sending American ground troops to combat the Islamic State on Wednesday and said he had no confidence in the administrations plan to arm moderate rebels in Syria.

I kind of tend to believe that really if the Iraqis wont fight for their country, I dont think American GIs should, and so Im all for the Iraqis stepping up and proving that they want to have a country, Mr. Paul said in a satellite radio interview on The Michael Smerconish Program.

Mr. Paul said Saudi Arabia should be the first country to offer assistance in the fight because the country had helped fund radical Islamists.

I think, frankly, the Saudis have grown rich on our petrol dollars and theyve been funding radical jihad for a couple of decades now. They probably have either purposely or inadvertently funded and sent arms to ISIS, Mr. Paul said.

Mr. Paul will question Secretary of State John Kerry at a hearing on Wednesday and said he plans to ask how the administration will decide whom to train or arm in Syria.

I have absolutely no belief, or no confidence that the moderate rebels are of any use as a fighting force, or that they will significantly fight against ISIS. I think they fight against Assad, and they prevent Assad from fighting ISIS. I think its really counter-productive, Mr. Paul said.

The senator, who is rumored to be considering a presidential bid in 2016, also condemned President Obama for not seeking full congressional approval of his war plans.

I think he would have gotten a nearly unanimous vote in the House and the Senate, and then it becomes a bipartisan battle, the senator said in the interview. There would be less partisan sniping and less criticism if things dont go as planned, and the nation is really at war and you have consensus.

Read the rest here:
Rand Paul: If Iraqis won't fight for their country, why should Americans?