Ron Paul Dismisses GOP Talking Points on Benghazi as ‘Sideshow’

In a column posted on Monday, Ron Paul dismissed both Republican and White House talking points about Benghazi as a “sideshow” and charged that GOP attacks against the White House in regards to the issue are politically motivated.

“Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department,” Paul wrote.

 “The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it,” Paul went on to say. “But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.”

Paul has long been a vocal critic of “interventionist” foreign policy. He noted that many in the GOP had initially supported Obama’s policies in Libya during the country’s uprising that contributed to the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. Paul argued that it was those policies that were responsible for the death of American ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as three other Americans.

“Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus?” Paul wrote. “The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.”



  1. Avatar

    Bob Cull

    May 13, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    So in other words, Ol’ Ron, in typical fashion, was FOR it until he was AGAINST it. Why doesn’t he just say that he is behind whatever he thinks the person he’s talking to is in favor of. He is just a total nut job and his son is the apple that landed right next to the trunk of the tree. I had to read it twice to figure out that the reason it seemed to be so confusing was that he really wasn’t saying anything.

  2. Avatar

    J.R. Kerr

    May 14, 2013 at 4:15 am

    cool story bro. howcome ron paul called Iran “the enemy” in every bill he wrote including the “iranian student expulsion act” here? http://1.usa.gov/At8CCB

  3. Avatar

    Mel Haun Sr

    May 14, 2013 at 7:04 am

    I seldom agree with Ron Paul, but I think he is spot on this one about reasons for the attack. As for the sideshow, the right is involved in. I suspect they are pretty well making a fool of themselves. We shall see. From experience, anything Issa is involved in is suspect..

  4. Pingback: Ron Paul Dismisses GOP Talking Points on Bengha...

  5. Avatar


    May 15, 2013 at 11:35 am

    You read it twice and still missed “But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens.” Somebody must not have learned reading comprehension in school. Also, if you actually knew anything about Ron Paul, you know he’s maintained the same stance in regards to foreign policy, along with almost every other position, throughout his entire political career. Here’s his quote specifically regarding Libya during a 2011 primary debate, “I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we’re there, the worse things are and the more danger we’re in, because our presence there is not making friends.”

  6. Avatar

    Bob Cull

    May 15, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    I comprehend what I read very well, thank you, as a matter of fact I probably read more in one year than you do in five. The one thing I do agree on is that we do have too great a presence offshore and it does harm our image in a lot of places. Ron Paul, though, is not the great “thinker” that his disciples think him to be! Basically he is a crack pot and never would have been Presidential material. His son is even less qualified!

  7. Pingback: maillot football

  8. Avatar

    Jim S

    June 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    I don’t agree with much of what Ron Paul says but he’s right on this one! I have always agreed with his non interventionist stance but little else. His son Rand is a total nutjob and is dangerous for our country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top