He portrays himself as the Senate's leading voice for foreign policy realism and American moral leadership. But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., isn't the most reliable servant of moral purpose in foreign policy. Because when it comes to Paul's positions over the protection of journalists and the enforcement of U.S. human rights norms, it's a tale of two Rands.

Consider the senator's position against Saudi Arabia over its murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That murder, Paul says, requires U.S. sanctions. And so in op-eds and television interviews over the past two weeks Paul has pushed for an end to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the imposition of sanctions on Riyadh. Such action, Paul suggests, is necessary to punish the Saudi regime for its immorality in killing Khashoggi and in order to strengthen the moral authority of American foreign policy. Whatever you think about Paul's position here ( I think he's wrong), at least it carries the appearance of moral intent.

Yet when one considers Paul's approach to other regimes, the senator's otherwise noble moral agenda rapidly evaporates.

Take Vladimir Putin's Russia. While Paul has always been a pretty sympathetic voice for Putin's authoritarian journalist-killing factory, the senator has now chosen to increase his advocacy for the Russian leader. As Eli Lake noted this week, Paul is engaged in an aggressive and wide-ranging campaign to undercut the sanctions targeting Russia. Why Paul thinks now is the best time to pursue this effort is itself an oddity. After all, this year has seen Russia launch chemical weapons attacks on British soil, enable and cover-up the use of chemical weapons on Syrian soil, and continue to target the U.S. democratic system.

It's challenging to imagine how Paul thinks rewarding this activity is in his constituents interests. But if we judge the senator on his actions, he evidently does.