For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.)

What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul.

None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.