Rand Paul's Statement on Syria 8/28/13

[angelatc]

Where did you get that from? Cruz's statement on Syria is very similar to Rands, even including the same language "United States shouldn’t attack Syria because it has no national interest calling for it to do so"

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/08/28/ted-cruz-attacking-syria-isnt-in-our-best-interest/

Cruz flip-flops on this issue. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/...destroy-assads-chemical-weapons-then-get-out/

 

[angelatc]

Impeachment over what issue? Are we publically attacking Syria already?

We could always use Libya.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He should be calling for the impeachment of Obama. only 9 percent of americans support the war. This is a perfect time to slam a vulnerable pathetic president.

I think he has to wait until Obama actually goes to war, and then get one of his friends in the House (Amash or Massie most likely) to impeach him. Rand can't actually start impeachment proceedings from the senate.

 

[specsaregood]

We could always use Libya.

fair enough, of course the process would have to start in the house.

 

[tsai3904]

I think he has to wait until Obama actually goes to war, and then get one of his friends in the House (Amash or Massie most likely) to impeach him. Rand can't actually start impeachment proceedings from the senate.

Massie said he wouldn't do it:

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said “the impeachment battle is not one that I think we could win,” but he said he would support impeachment proceedings should someone else bring them up.

“I wouldn’t initiate them myself, although it is clearly unconstitutional,” Massie said of conducting a war in Syria without a specific authorization. “I’m just not the guy who will be leading this charge.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/l...if-obama-strikes-syria-without-authorization/

 

[RockEnds]

I don't really care exactly how any statement from any politician is worded so long as the basic theme is easily understood to be, "Hell no, we won't go!" I'm not reading that into Rand's statement.

 

[ManOfSteel]

good interview, so much for the people trying to give Rand shit for not taking a stand on Syria. he made his position pretty clear in this

I guarantee you this will not stop them.

weak statement. He should be blasting Obama left and right. Only nine percent of Americans support this war. Rand needs to go on the offensive.

I much preferred Justin Amash's response to the possibility of war with Syria.

Why is Paul holding back on this one? What is he afraid of?

You didn't "call" anything, but you did prove yourself to be disingenuous, at best.

In the other thread you declared that Rand would not respond at all about Syria. Now that he has you change your story to something else.

Kindly quote me declaring that Rand would not respond at all about Syria, I don't remember doing that.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Any minute now bombs will be dropping. Where is the urgency?

Because pre-crime is a-ok when it helps our side.

 

[ManOfSteel]

He should be calling for the impeachment of Obama. only 9 percent of americans support the war. This is a perfect time to slam a vulnerable pathetic president.

What are the odds that the Senate would vote to impeach Obama, do you think?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't really care exactly how any statement from any politician is worded so long as the basic theme is easily understood to be, "Hell no, we won't go!" I'm not reading that into Rand's statement.

No, Rand is calling for 'obeying the Constitution,' by requiring a Congressional DoW to intervene, a condition that will never be met. It goes to the same place, but has a more solid foundation on Constitutional compliance. I'm with Rand on this one, I am vehemently opposed to Syrian intervention, but the argument we need to articulate to be effective is that Congress must obey the Constitution. Especially by producing this argument, it will open more solid grounds for impeachment when Obummer inevitably ignores everyone and intervenes by fiat.

"We have to go" vs "Hell no we won't go" is just a disagreement on action.

"Don't go without a Congressional Declaration of War" is a statement of principle.

In either case it does not change the immediate outcome, but the Constitutional argument will produce a richer ground for impeachment under War Powers.

Strategically, Rand is taking the correct course here.

 

[Lightweis]

What are the odds that the Senate would vote to impeach Obama, do you think?

What were the odds of Ron Paul becoming president in 2012. What are the odds of defunding Obamacare? We still need to send a message and fight

 

[jtstellar]

Then he must have crafted a message that allows everybody who reads it to hear what they want.

lol, don't people always.

some of you act like rand created a new universe of human stereotype

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What are the odds that the Senate would vote to impeach Obama, do you think?

The Senate doesn't impeach, the House does. The Senate vores whether or not to remove him from office following a successful impeachment.

The Senate will never vote to remove him from office, but that's OK. He needs impeached anyway. If Boehner just grew some huevos he would have the votes in the House.

 

[ManOfSteel]

What were the odds of Ron Paul becoming president in 2012.

Better than the odds that the Senate will vote to impeach Obama.

What are the odds of defunding Obamacare?

Better than the odds that the Senate will vote to impeach Obama.

We still need to send a message and fight

No, no we do not. Ironically, this is the exact same thing people who want us to bomb Syria are saying.

"I know chemical weapons are horrible and Assad is a bad guy, but won't interfering simply make us more enemies with little chance of producing a better outcome for those in the region or ourselves?"

"WE STILL NEED TO SEND A MESSAGE AND FIGHT!"

This is a slogan for the brain-dead. The message you send by starting a fight with no upside is that you are too stupid to act in your own self-interest.

 

[ManOfSteel]

The Senate doesn't impeach, the House does. The Senate vores whether or not to remove him from office following a successful impeachment.

I know, I'm using "impeach" as shorthand b/c it seems like everybody else does.

The Senate will never vote to remove him from office, but that's OK. He needs impeached anyway. If Boehner just grew some huevos he would have the votes in the House.

How would having the House vote to impeach him help anything? If I thought Republicans in the Senate could find enough defectors to follow through, I'd be all for it, but I just don't understand what a House vote is supposed to accomplish.

 

[RockEnds]

No, Rand is calling for 'obeying the Constitution,' by requiring a Congressional DoW to intervene, a condition that will never be met. It goes to the same place, but has a more solid foundation on Constitutional compliance. I'm with Rand on this one, I am vehemently opposed to Syrian intervention, but the argument we need to articulate to be effective is that Congress must obey the Constitution. Especially by producing this argument, it will open more solid grounds for impeachment when Obummer inevitably ignores everyone and intervenes by fiat.

"We have to go" vs "Hell no we won't go" is just a disagreement on action.

"Don't go without a Congressional Declaration of War" is a statement of principle.

In either case it does not change the immediate outcome, but the Constitutional argument will produce a richer ground for impeachment under War Powers.

Strategically, Rand is taking the correct course here.

I'm sorry, Gunny, but I don't believe any of that will stop a war. Or even slow it down.

 

[jtstellar]

it just hit me that rand may have this as a strategy

and it matured from years of observing ron paul instinctively reacting to an incident often to the adverse effect from some who "read what they want to read" (lol angelatc), and sadly this phenomena seems to exist well before rand was born perhaps to the dismay of some here, i think rand has consciously decided to delay his responses to this issue until the hot heads settle. you have people like o'reilly lashing out recently and various mainstream outlets showing sad images of people convulsing on the ground over and over, the peter kings of the world throwing tantrums over humanitarian reasons, etc etc, how can you not at least feel sympathetic somewhat? that is the same with most people who see this.

therefore when this delayed response happened, how can it not occur to anyone this may be a purposeful timing rand is adopting?

perhaps he has, as we all should have, learned much from ron's ways and people's lingering hatred of quarrels with ron during heated moments that clouded their judgments later on. this epiphanous moment crystalized for me over this instance precisely, during this thread's back and forth. i guess some people are just slow. well i admit i sometimes leave a lingering bad taste for people too by embarrassing them during the heat of the moment, and that may be the reason why some are so slow to adapt even after being proven wrong again and again. they simply hide in a dark corner and wait for the next opportunity on the slightest gap of rand's speech to come in and start all over, all because previous fight left too much bad taste in their mouth for them to curb their argument, even if they were proven wrong. in that regard, i am actually closer to ron than rand in being an agitator, and i guess that would be hypocrisy.

but man, sorry, stupids are still stupids.

you aren't much better than sean hannity to the degree you all would like to think. if you applied your own crybaby phenomena and mirror that with sean hannity and all the enemies ron has created who now disagree with him simply because of ego and hatred, you would know exactly why rand avoids arousing people that are just like you, only on the opposite side, so he can engage with logical heads and not argue with emotions from those who want ballsy responses the instant an emotional event occurs but fail to realize the other side wants the same. but no, lol, you don't see yourself in the mirror.. retards. oops i am guilty again. i am glad rand isn't like me. or maybe he is, but he just learned to adapt. not sure when the rest of you will ever learn how to communicate

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sorry, Gunny, but I don't believe any of that will stop a war. Or even slow it down.

Who said it would?

Obama's gonna bomb. That's just what he is. Nothing is going to stop it, not the Constitutional argument, and not the hell no we won't go argument. ESPECIALLY given that it's going to happen anyway, Rand's argument is far more effective than the other. My point is strategic. The hell no argument isn't going to slow down Obama any more than the DoW argument. Difference is the DoW argument will reap more dividends down the road. It's the right play.

 

[specsaregood]

it just hit me that rand may have this as a strategy

don't take this the wrong way, but I thought all of that was obvious some time ago.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I know, I'm using "impeach" as shorthand b/c it seems like everybody else does.



How would having the House vote to impeach him help anything? If I thought Republicans in the Senate could find enough defectors to follow through, I'd be all for it, but I just don't understand what a House vote is supposed to accomplish.

Only 2 Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton's never had much historic weight because "it was over a blowjob." Obama needs historic repudiation for war powers violations. None of this will stop his tyranny NOW, but a House with the backbone to impeach based on a real issue (war powers) will have effects decades down the road. It's what we need.

Removing Obama would be irrelevant. Joe Biden will be identical.