RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,689
On now. C-SPAN 2 -- blasting arming "moderate rebels" as a bunch of BS.
UPDATE TWO: VIDEO!
UPDATE THREE: Better video -- official video from Senator Rand Paul YouTube; includes attempt to separate war vote and continuing resolution & shutdown by Mikulski acting for Reid.
UPDATE: Ok he's done. I'm posting a live text update archive from The Guardian here ... the prick paused his live updates to spew BS and shill for McCain/ISIS, so I've cut that out:
1:37pm ET
Calling it a “sad day”, Paul has called for a separate vote on spending for the Syrian rebels, instead of attaching the arms provision to a general spending bill.
“If there is a theme that connects the dots in the middle east it is that chaos breeds terrorism. What much of the foreign policy elite fail to grasp though, is that intervention to topple secular details … from Hussein to Gaddafi … it’s the same history … the pattern has been repeated, time and time again. And yet what we have here is a failure to understand, a failure to reflect on the outcome of our involvement in Arab civil wars. …
“Secular dictators, who frankly do terrorize their own people, are replaced by radical jihadists who seek terror not only at home, but abroad. …
“Yet here we are again, wading into a civil war. I warned a year ago that [intervention] in Syria’s civil war is a mistake. … I warned that [arms] will be used against the US and Israel. … We’re fighting against our own weapons … This body wants to throw more weapons into the mix!
“Then maybe they will fulfill what they have boasted. So yes we must now defend ourselves from these barbarous jihadists … But let’s not compound the problem by arming these feckless rebels!”
1:38pm ET
“Assad was our enemy last year – this year he’s our friend. Had all those air strikes occurred last year in Syria, today Isis might be in Damascus. Remember that the unintended consequences of intervening in these thousands of long civil wars.
“Had the hawks been successful last year we would befacing a stronger Isis, likely in charge of all Syira, and most of Iraq. Intervention is not always the answer. “
“Some will argue … we didn’t have enough intervention … We have not been sitting around doing nothing. Six hundred tons of weapons have already been given to the rebels.”
“It’s a mistake to send more arms to the Syrians. … They sent 29 tons in one month, but there are rumors that the Turks are not quite that discriminating, that many of these weapons went directly or indirectly to [Isis].”
“They say the definition of insanity is doing teh same thing over and over again and expecting a different result … perhaps, by throwing all of these weapons into the civil war, we’ve degraded Assad’s ability to counter [Isis]. … Perhaps we’ve created a safe haven.”
“Isis has grown stronger because we’ve been arming the resistance that Isis is a part of.”
He’s now listing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and others as having provided a huge amount of weaponry to the rebels, saying “it doesn’t sound like there’s a dearth of weapons, it sounds like there’s an abundance of weapons.”
1:40pm ET
“No one really knows where all these arms are going to wind up.”
Paul says that Germany is arming only the Kurds because they understand that “it’s a mess”.
He says “we have no idea” whom we’re giving arms, and whether they’re moderate or radical. “It is chaos!”
“The biggest group that we give arms to is currently the Free Syrian Army, which currently has three different people claiming to be in charge of the Free Syrian Army. We don’t even know who’s in charge!”
“Half of them have defected! Half of them are now fighting with the jihadists!”
“We’ve proven time and again that we don’t know how to vet” the Syrian rebels.
1:42pm ET
“Listen carefully, your representatives are giving [millions] to people who are tactically allied with al-Qaida!
“I asked the secretary what [the justification] for this war is and he said [the 2001 AUMF]. … That vote had nothing to do with this. You are a dishonest person if [you argue that]. You are intellectually dishonest.”
“It’s intellectually dishonest, and … I said it the other day, Mr President, what you’re doing is unconstitutional, and illegal.”
Paul is referring to Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony before a Senate committee yesterday, during which he and Paul had a fraught argument about the administration’s rationale.
1:44pm ET
Paul is now saying that “some of the groups we’re providing arms to aren’t so excited about Israel. Surprise.”
“I had said this: mark my words, some day our words, and our dollars, will be used against us and Israel. … and mark my words, if these people get a chance, they’ll attack Israel next.”
“Who are we really arming? What will be the result? Where will the arms end up?”
1:47pm ET
“I’m a skeptic of this administration’s policies, but this is … a bipartisan problem. I do share this administration’s belief that [Isis] is a threat to America.
“Radical jihadists have run amok in the Middle East because of intervention.
“Gaddafi kept [radical Islamist militants] in check … was he a great person, no, but he was a terror to his own people.”
“Here’s the great irony of this: [the 2001 use of force justification] is meant to be used against terrorism, against al-Qaida – the Syrian rebels [work with] al Qaida! … We’re [arming] people fighting in the trenches with al-Qaida – by this justification we could fight the people [we’re arming]!”
1:52pm ET
“It’s not that I’m against all intervention, I do see Isis as a threat to us – but I see our previous policy as having made it worse!”
“There are valid reasons for war. They should be few and far between. … They should not be [hidden] in the pages of a 1,000-page bill and shuffled under the rug!”
He’s now excoriating his fellow congressmen and women for not being present to debate the war, calling them out for having opposed President George W Bush but failing to debate military action against Isis.
1:57pm ET
“We shouldn’t go to war sort of meandering our way through a spending bill.”
He’s now talking about former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, saying that his conclusion is that “We have to either leave Iraq, or protect our embassy. … I think we’re doing the right thing just in the wrong way.”
His argument about the weighty requirements of war lead him to the second world war and FDR’s proclamation about a “day that will live in infamy”. He continues to expound on what he thinks should be much stricter justifications for war, though he does not suggest what those might be.
“I’m not sending any American soldiers. I’m not sending your daughter or your son … The people who live there need to step up. The Kurds are fighting … The Iraqis need to step up.”
“I expect the Saudis to fight, and the Qataris and the Kuwaitis.”
Despite a Pentagon suggestion that US troops could “accompany” Iraqi forces in “close combat” missions, the president and State Department have emphatically rejected any “combat mission” for American soldiers.
Paul says he won’t vote to send any American soldiers – in line with the administration – but then moves again to his attack against Congress about their lack of interest in debating whether national security is actually at stake.
2pm ET
“I would have voted to authorize force, but it needs to be done [in accordance with] the constitution. … If both sides vote for the war, it will be a war of the American people, and not the war of one man.”
He says the founding fathers would be “very disappointed” and that the pilgrims came to the US because they didn’t want a king to direct them into his personal wars.
Looping back to Obama, Paul now attacks the president for hypocrisy, saying “he now does everything he criticized” as a candidate.
21m ago
After warning that Assad or Isis will gain the upper hand by chaos wrought from the careless armament of the Syrian rebels, Paul has entered a tangent about a Christian who was killed by rebels.
“I don’t know who these rebels were, but they’re fighting the same people that we’re arming. … For all we know the rebels who killed [that Christian] could be part of the Syrian opposition.
“Will they [have] American interests? Will the recognize Israel? … I’m going to guess [the answer] will be a big goose egg.
In his argument about the unknown motivations and factions of Syrian rebels, he now talks about Sharia law and “death panels” for marriages. He’s describing an anecdote of a Pakistani woman stoned by a mob and then arrested by police. “These are the countries that you’re sending money to! … I say not a penny to these people! Why are we sending money to people who hate us?”
“We could just have a rule: no money to people who hate us.”
2:04pm ET
“The recent history of the Middle East has not been a good one. … We should be quite wary.”
“I would like President Obama to reread the speeches of candidate Obama … The candidate seemed like he would be the person to protect the right of Congress to [declare] war. … Our founding fathers gave [that right] to Congress – exclusively.”
Paul ridicules Obama’s policy for military action against Isis, saying it’s a stance of “whenever it’s convenient you guys get around to it”.
“The president and his administration see this vote just as a courtesy, not as a requirement. Even if Congress votes against it, he [would] just do it anyway.”
Paul quotes the constitution and says the president’s most troubling action is “the usurpation of power”.
2:07 pm
“Democracy is messy, it is hard to get everyone to agree to something.”
He says Obama hasn’t come forward and asked Congress to pass legislation on immigration, spending and war, among other issues, and loops back around to what he sees as the executive branch’s grab for power.
He works a Jefferson vote in, repeating how the legislative branch has the power of war “exclusively”, and then gets back to some colorful mockery of his colleagues in the Senate and the House.
“The ridiculous and the absurd must be led to rest.”
“Toppling Gaddafi led to a jihaidst wonderland in Libya … Toppling Hussein [created chaos. … The moss-covered, too-long-in-Washington crowd [says] ‘War, war!’”
“What we need is for someone to shout ‘War war, what are we fighting for?’”
“These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didn’t like.”
2:12 ET
Back to Paul, who is returned yet again to his theme that “we have enabled the enemy that we must now confront.”
“The emperor has no clothes. Let’s just admit it. The truth sometimes is painful. We must protect ourselves from radical Islam, but we should never ever arm radical Islam.”
“So as we’ve sent 600 tons of weapons, Isis has only grown stronger.”
“The barnacled purveyors of war should admit their mistakes, and not compound them. Isis is now a threat, let’s get on with destroying them, but make no mistake, arming rebels in Syria will only make that more difficult.”
2:17 ET
And with that Paul yields his time
UPDATE TWO: VIDEO!
UPDATE THREE: Better video -- official video from Senator Rand Paul YouTube; includes attempt to separate war vote and continuing resolution & shutdown by Mikulski acting for Reid.
UPDATE: Ok he's done. I'm posting a live text update archive from The Guardian here ... the prick paused his live updates to spew BS and shill for McCain/ISIS, so I've cut that out:
1:37pm ET
Calling it a “sad day”, Paul has called for a separate vote on spending for the Syrian rebels, instead of attaching the arms provision to a general spending bill.
“If there is a theme that connects the dots in the middle east it is that chaos breeds terrorism. What much of the foreign policy elite fail to grasp though, is that intervention to topple secular details … from Hussein to Gaddafi … it’s the same history … the pattern has been repeated, time and time again. And yet what we have here is a failure to understand, a failure to reflect on the outcome of our involvement in Arab civil wars. …
“Secular dictators, who frankly do terrorize their own people, are replaced by radical jihadists who seek terror not only at home, but abroad. …
“Yet here we are again, wading into a civil war. I warned a year ago that [intervention] in Syria’s civil war is a mistake. … I warned that [arms] will be used against the US and Israel. … We’re fighting against our own weapons … This body wants to throw more weapons into the mix!
“Then maybe they will fulfill what they have boasted. So yes we must now defend ourselves from these barbarous jihadists … But let’s not compound the problem by arming these feckless rebels!”
1:38pm ET
“Assad was our enemy last year – this year he’s our friend. Had all those air strikes occurred last year in Syria, today Isis might be in Damascus. Remember that the unintended consequences of intervening in these thousands of long civil wars.
“Had the hawks been successful last year we would befacing a stronger Isis, likely in charge of all Syira, and most of Iraq. Intervention is not always the answer. “
“Some will argue … we didn’t have enough intervention … We have not been sitting around doing nothing. Six hundred tons of weapons have already been given to the rebels.”
“It’s a mistake to send more arms to the Syrians. … They sent 29 tons in one month, but there are rumors that the Turks are not quite that discriminating, that many of these weapons went directly or indirectly to [Isis].”
“They say the definition of insanity is doing teh same thing over and over again and expecting a different result … perhaps, by throwing all of these weapons into the civil war, we’ve degraded Assad’s ability to counter [Isis]. … Perhaps we’ve created a safe haven.”
“Isis has grown stronger because we’ve been arming the resistance that Isis is a part of.”
He’s now listing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and others as having provided a huge amount of weaponry to the rebels, saying “it doesn’t sound like there’s a dearth of weapons, it sounds like there’s an abundance of weapons.”
1:40pm ET
“No one really knows where all these arms are going to wind up.”
Paul says that Germany is arming only the Kurds because they understand that “it’s a mess”.
He says “we have no idea” whom we’re giving arms, and whether they’re moderate or radical. “It is chaos!”
“The biggest group that we give arms to is currently the Free Syrian Army, which currently has three different people claiming to be in charge of the Free Syrian Army. We don’t even know who’s in charge!”
“Half of them have defected! Half of them are now fighting with the jihadists!”
“We’ve proven time and again that we don’t know how to vet” the Syrian rebels.
1:42pm ET
“Listen carefully, your representatives are giving [millions] to people who are tactically allied with al-Qaida!
“I asked the secretary what [the justification] for this war is and he said [the 2001 AUMF]. … That vote had nothing to do with this. You are a dishonest person if [you argue that]. You are intellectually dishonest.”
“It’s intellectually dishonest, and … I said it the other day, Mr President, what you’re doing is unconstitutional, and illegal.”
Paul is referring to Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony before a Senate committee yesterday, during which he and Paul had a fraught argument about the administration’s rationale.
1:44pm ET
Paul is now saying that “some of the groups we’re providing arms to aren’t so excited about Israel. Surprise.”
“I had said this: mark my words, some day our words, and our dollars, will be used against us and Israel. … and mark my words, if these people get a chance, they’ll attack Israel next.”
“Who are we really arming? What will be the result? Where will the arms end up?”
1:47pm ET
“I’m a skeptic of this administration’s policies, but this is … a bipartisan problem. I do share this administration’s belief that [Isis] is a threat to America.
“Radical jihadists have run amok in the Middle East because of intervention.
“Gaddafi kept [radical Islamist militants] in check … was he a great person, no, but he was a terror to his own people.”
“Here’s the great irony of this: [the 2001 use of force justification] is meant to be used against terrorism, against al-Qaida – the Syrian rebels [work with] al Qaida! … We’re [arming] people fighting in the trenches with al-Qaida – by this justification we could fight the people [we’re arming]!”
1:52pm ET
“It’s not that I’m against all intervention, I do see Isis as a threat to us – but I see our previous policy as having made it worse!”
“There are valid reasons for war. They should be few and far between. … They should not be [hidden] in the pages of a 1,000-page bill and shuffled under the rug!”
He’s now excoriating his fellow congressmen and women for not being present to debate the war, calling them out for having opposed President George W Bush but failing to debate military action against Isis.
1:57pm ET
“We shouldn’t go to war sort of meandering our way through a spending bill.”
He’s now talking about former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, saying that his conclusion is that “We have to either leave Iraq, or protect our embassy. … I think we’re doing the right thing just in the wrong way.”
His argument about the weighty requirements of war lead him to the second world war and FDR’s proclamation about a “day that will live in infamy”. He continues to expound on what he thinks should be much stricter justifications for war, though he does not suggest what those might be.
“I’m not sending any American soldiers. I’m not sending your daughter or your son … The people who live there need to step up. The Kurds are fighting … The Iraqis need to step up.”
“I expect the Saudis to fight, and the Qataris and the Kuwaitis.”
Despite a Pentagon suggestion that US troops could “accompany” Iraqi forces in “close combat” missions, the president and State Department have emphatically rejected any “combat mission” for American soldiers.
Paul says he won’t vote to send any American soldiers – in line with the administration – but then moves again to his attack against Congress about their lack of interest in debating whether national security is actually at stake.
2pm ET
“I would have voted to authorize force, but it needs to be done [in accordance with] the constitution. … If both sides vote for the war, it will be a war of the American people, and not the war of one man.”
He says the founding fathers would be “very disappointed” and that the pilgrims came to the US because they didn’t want a king to direct them into his personal wars.
Looping back to Obama, Paul now attacks the president for hypocrisy, saying “he now does everything he criticized” as a candidate.
21m ago
After warning that Assad or Isis will gain the upper hand by chaos wrought from the careless armament of the Syrian rebels, Paul has entered a tangent about a Christian who was killed by rebels.
“I don’t know who these rebels were, but they’re fighting the same people that we’re arming. … For all we know the rebels who killed [that Christian] could be part of the Syrian opposition.
“Will they [have] American interests? Will the recognize Israel? … I’m going to guess [the answer] will be a big goose egg.
In his argument about the unknown motivations and factions of Syrian rebels, he now talks about Sharia law and “death panels” for marriages. He’s describing an anecdote of a Pakistani woman stoned by a mob and then arrested by police. “These are the countries that you’re sending money to! … I say not a penny to these people! Why are we sending money to people who hate us?”
“We could just have a rule: no money to people who hate us.”
2:04pm ET
“The recent history of the Middle East has not been a good one. … We should be quite wary.”
“I would like President Obama to reread the speeches of candidate Obama … The candidate seemed like he would be the person to protect the right of Congress to [declare] war. … Our founding fathers gave [that right] to Congress – exclusively.”
Paul ridicules Obama’s policy for military action against Isis, saying it’s a stance of “whenever it’s convenient you guys get around to it”.
“The president and his administration see this vote just as a courtesy, not as a requirement. Even if Congress votes against it, he [would] just do it anyway.”
Paul quotes the constitution and says the president’s most troubling action is “the usurpation of power”.
2:07 pm
“Democracy is messy, it is hard to get everyone to agree to something.”
He says Obama hasn’t come forward and asked Congress to pass legislation on immigration, spending and war, among other issues, and loops back around to what he sees as the executive branch’s grab for power.
He works a Jefferson vote in, repeating how the legislative branch has the power of war “exclusively”, and then gets back to some colorful mockery of his colleagues in the Senate and the House.
“The ridiculous and the absurd must be led to rest.”
“Toppling Gaddafi led to a jihaidst wonderland in Libya … Toppling Hussein [created chaos. … The moss-covered, too-long-in-Washington crowd [says] ‘War, war!’”
“What we need is for someone to shout ‘War war, what are we fighting for?’”
“These barnacled enablers have never met a war they didn’t like.”
2:12 ET
Back to Paul, who is returned yet again to his theme that “we have enabled the enemy that we must now confront.”
“The emperor has no clothes. Let’s just admit it. The truth sometimes is painful. We must protect ourselves from radical Islam, but we should never ever arm radical Islam.”
“So as we’ve sent 600 tons of weapons, Isis has only grown stronger.”
“The barnacled purveyors of war should admit their mistakes, and not compound them. Isis is now a threat, let’s get on with destroying them, but make no mistake, arming rebels in Syria will only make that more difficult.”
2:17 ET
And with that Paul yields his time
Last edited by a moderator:
