Sen. Rand Paul articulated a real stunner in what appeared to be prepared remarks in the Senate. He said "Some of them [people in Washington], I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me."
Dispensing for a moment the megalomania of Mr. Paul's perceived centrality to others' perception of the war on terror, does he really believe that some people want a terrorist attack to prove him personally wrong on his opposition to NSA's collection of bulk data and the Patriot Act?
The irresponsible attribution of motives is the latest in a long line of foolish positions and foolish inconsistencies in Senator Paul's rhetorical quiver. As I have written on these pages, not all changes of heart are suspect in politicians. Some positional change merely reflects that situations change. I would argue that even for many politicians' original votes and subsequent reversals on the invasion of Iraq, including Hillary Clinton's.
Indeed, the inconsistency gotcha attacks on some political leaders leads one to the famous dictum of Ralph Waldo Emerson that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Rand Paul gives me the opportunity to point out that indulging inconsistency has its limits.
In a 2011 interview with ABC News, Senator Paul stated, "I think [Israel is] an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world. Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."