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

[GunnyFreedom]

Sounds to me like Rand is being the intellectual adult in the room. Let's verify the evidence, let's debate it like the Constitution requires, let the public make their voices heard and then put it up to a vote....let's follow the procedure that we are supposed to. I don't have a problem with that approach even though I personally know that I don't want us involved.

I think the point is that if we DID follow that approach, then we WOULDN'T be involved.

 

[Kords21]

Anyone else appreciate the irony of all this? Remember in the 2008 primary debates when Chris Wallace was poking fun at Ron Paul when he said "so you're suggesting we take our marching orders from al qaeda?" That's what we're doing now. I do wish Rand would try to get more in front of this, but I suspect he's trying to play 3-d chess with this. Regardless, this Syria thing is not going to go well.

 

[devil21]

Anyone else appreciate the irony of all this? Remember in the 2008 primary debates when Chris Wallace was poking fun at Ron Paul when he said "so you're suggesting we take our marching orders from al qaeda?" That's what we're doing now. I do wish Rand would try to get more in front of this, but I suspect he's trying to play 3-d chess with this. Regardless, this Syria thing is not going to go well.

Ohhhh good point. Post that video and/or quote in the comments sections of the neocon websites pushing intervention.

Here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHLnP8VuoV4#t=101

 

[devil21]

doublepost

 

[rich34]

With the statement Rand just made, there's no doubt he's fixin to mount a very serious charge for the white house..

I have np with the statement the man HAS to walk a very fine line lest he get out flanked by the warmongers..

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, he doesn't have to change his tone to point out that further escalation of US military action in the ME threatens our security or that we have no right to invade yet another country. Just a firm no that cannot possibly be misunderstood would be a start. And for the record I love his curly hair. My son's hair has exactly the same kind of curl. It's straight on the sides where it's short with beautiful ringlets on top if it has any length at all. I'll admit, I'm a bit biased toward it.

I'm sorry that your son is in harm's way, and I really want to make sure he is not there. I happen to believe that what Rand is doing here is the best strategic plan to make that happen.

The problem is politics is wicked because people are wicked. The shortest distance between two points, in politics, is usually not a straight line. The clear statements that would give us comfort, can also make the uphill climb to a sane foreign policy more difficult. Our government is not rational. Our politicians are not rational. The media is not rational. The Parties are not rational. The voters are not rational. Leave it to the activists to make all of these to see reason. Leave it to elected people like Rand to do what will serve best to remedy the problem. In Congress, or in any branch of government, trying to apply reason to unreasonable people is an exercise in futility, and because they are mental children, usually counterproductive.

The Constitutional argument he is making is the best argument to put an end to this madness LONG TERM. What you are asking for would be the best way to stop it short term if it could be stopped. I am not so optimistic. I have seen how ego-driven politicians work up front and personal. They don't care that only 9% support intervention, they will manufacture consent, and when they do, they would paint a hard-line from Rand as 'fringe,' and his impact on future policy will suffer.

Politics is evil. The problem is if we are going to have political impact we have to do politics. You don't get onto a baseball field and play rugby, you play baseball. If you try and play rugby then you will lose the baseball game. It's up to the activists in our movement to take the hard line, it's up to the politicians in the movement to move the ball down the field. Let's let everyone play their proper role and save the venom for the monsters.

 

[ManOfSteel]

i'm curious who that is

JCDenton0451

never seen that before that's for sure

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ohhhh good point. Post that video and/or quote in the comments sections of the neocon websites pushing intervention.

With that picture of John McCain standing with the terrorists in Syria.

 

[ManOfSteel]

Anyone else appreciate the irony of all this? Remember in the 2008 primary debates when Chris Wallace was poking fun at Ron Paul when he said "so you're suggesting we take our marching orders from al qaeda?" That's what we're doing now. I do wish Rand would try to get more in front of this, but I suspect he's trying to play 3-d chess with this. Regardless, this Syria thing is not going to go well.

Yeah, the situation is seriously ripe for embarrassing neocons and interventionists of every stripe, but the thing is, we're gonna need a bunch of those people to vote for us in 2016. Embarrassing them and "winning" is meaningless if we make so many enemies by doing so that nothing can be done about it. The idea is to calmly and carefully bring people over to our side until the rhetoric you and I are comfortable with begins to resonate with them as well.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

Massie said he wouldn't do it:



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

Calling Walter Jones.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Calling Walter Jones.

Pretty sure that's a safe bet. Walter Jones has been spot on on all of this madness of late. Hopefully we'll get another bill of impeachment out of it.

 

[puppetmaster]

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.

you want to unify the democrats and the fence sitters this is the right tactic to lose the election.

obama is pathetic for sure

 

[tsai3904]

Calling Walter Jones.

He has a resolution that does just that:

H. CON. RES. 40

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is prohibited under the Constitution from initiating war against Syria without express congressional authorization and the appropriation of funds for the express purpose of waging such a war.

Whereas the Constitution's makers entrusted decisions to initiate offensive warfare not in self-defense exclusively to Congress in article I, section 8, clause 11;

Whereas the Constitution's makers knew that the Executive Branch would be prone to manufacture danger and to deceive Congress and the United States people to justify gratuitous wars to aggrandize executive power;

Whereas chronic wars are irreconcilable with liberty, a separation of powers, and the rule of law;

Whereas the entry of the United States Armed Forces into the ongoing war in Syria to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad would make the United States less safe by awakening new enemies;

Whereas the fate of Syria is irrelevant to the security and welfare of the United States and its citizens and is not worth risking the life of a single member of the United States Armed Forces;

Whereas humanitarian wars are a contradiction in terms and characteristically lead to semi-anarchy and chaos, as in Somalia and Libya;

Whereas if victorious, the hydra-headed Syrian insurgency would suppress the Christian population or other minorities as has been similarly witnessed in Iraq with its Shiite-dominated government; and

Whereas United States military aid to the Syrian insurgents risks blowback indistinguishable from the military assistance provided to the splintered Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet Union and culminated in the 9/11 abominations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the President is prohibited under the Constitution from the offensive use of the United States Armed Forces in Syria without prior express authorization by an Act of Congress or without a prior express appropriation of funds for that purpose by an Act of Congress; and

(2) the President's defiance of those constitutional limitations on his authority to initiate war would constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He has a resolution that does just that:

My man!

I really hope I get to work for him....

Y'all who pray, please keep me in prayer for this.

 

[dskalkowski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY1M0Nvsxkk

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like just a lil' different tone.

Are you criticizing Rand for not having a certain tone? Correct me if I'm wrong please—however, I'm getting a little fed up with the way people are portraying Rand in here. First of all: there is no war in Syria yet, the United States has not engaged in any attack on Syria so let's refrain from calling it a war. Secondly, what do you want from Rand? Do you expect him to push out a video of him criticizing Obama with his press releases? I don't understand what the problem here is? We know where Rand stands on this issue, and yet we can't give the guy a break..

The House and the Senate are both in recess, it makes no sense for Rand to come out and go on the offensive when he can't even call Congress into session. Rand has had a long year and he is spending some time with his family and constituents. He should not have to come out and attack the President when the President still has not even made up his mind on what to do on the issue. He is trying to be professional and strategic, not come out and impose a sense a fear on his constituents when we do not even know the full details. What if Obama decides not to initiate an attack on Syria (as unlikely as that is)? Then he ends up looking like an idiot..

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's from June.

http://jones.house.gov/sites/jones.house.gov/files/H. Con. Res. 40.pdf

But, there is also this: http://jones.house.gov/press-releas...gainst-unconstitutional-military-action-syria

 

[jjdoyle]

It's a good statement. He's not done with the issue. What do you want him to do, run around waving his hands in the air and screaming like a lunatic?

Well, he is a Senator, if anybody should be running around waving their arms like a lunatic trying to warn against this, it probably should be him since he has a speaking platform.

I agree though, if he's trying to run in 2016, he is doing a TERRIBLE job using opportunities to blast President Obama and unite the Republicans behind him. Is it because his "friend" Sean Hannity would say he has no heart and soul?

 

[JJ2]

It's a good statement. He's not done with the issue. What do you want him to do, run around waving his hands in the air and screaming like a lunatic?

He should be "screaming": "I stand with the 91% of Americans who do not support this war! It is unconstitutional and foolish and we as Americans will not allow this to happen!"

OK, so it's Rand's tone you are angry about. Fair enough. He's not yelling loudly enough or using language provocative enough. If he yelled louder and used more provocative language what would the effect be? Would it change the outcome? Would it make more people or fewer people oppose Syrian intervention?

There are already enough people opposed. I would say 91% is enough. He needs to use that to his advantage. If he is the only one out there loudly blasting what 91% of America is opposed to, he would be the most popular politician in the country!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He should be "screaming": "I stand with the 91% of Americans who do not support this war! It is unconstitutional and foolish and we as Americans will not allow this to happen!"



There are already enough people opposed. I would say 91% is enough. He needs to use that to his advantage. If he is the only one out there loudly blasting what 91% of America is opposed to, he would be the most popular politician in the country!

Yeah, because it worked so well for Ron Paul...

 

[JJ2]

Yeah, because it worked so well for Ron Paul...

Americans were in favor of the Bush wars. It wasn't 9% approval.