[Video] Rand Paul vs. John Kerry at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria 9/3/13

[eleganz]

It wasn't great but I'm not as worried, not THAT many people watched the hearing today. Its all about how Rand gets on the headlines during the duration of this debate, not just what happened today. How does Rand come out on top in the long run?

 

[fr33]

From what I've read tonight on conservative sites and commentators, they were pleased with Rand. People here are sometimes too hard on him.

 

[jtstellar]

i am already beginning to forget what kerry said

it was that void of substance. something about some mysterious top secret info only he is privy to, and that he has been to war. he may have had some emotionally provocative sentences when put together, but rand still had the best substantive one-liners and soundbites and it would work well in media reruns

 

[eleganz]

I know a neocon who is RAHRAH'ing behind Obama/Kerry on this one.

These people are fucking pathetic.

 

[economics102]

I'm really proud of Rand. He doesn't have the sense of moral authority in his voice that his father had, which makes it tough to argue with someone like Kerry. But Rand is silver-tongued and clearly does his homework, preparing clever, original talking points and such. He hit Kerry with everything he had. It was a David vs. Goliath moment, and I don't think he necessarily succeeded, but I'm just glad he threw the stone.

He did push Kerry into a corner that may become important later. He's drawn public attention to this and that will help Amash and co. in the House try to whip the resistance together.

 

[MRK]

I love how the guy at the end responded essentially by saying "I'm not going on record in defense of this even with a ten foot pole..."

 

[randomname]

I'm really proud of Rand. He doesn't have the sense of moral authority in his voice that his father had

I felt Rand was actually channeling his father's voice but in all the bad ways

He made good points but his voice was all over the place, not well composed, he sounded jittery/rambling/nervous, whiny, insecure, unprepared. im probably being too hard on him because the contrast is so big against an impressive guy like Kerry. Maybe thats why McCain was facepalming as well, it really did feel like David vs Goliath.

I'm sure he's well aware of that though and will shine soon enough.

 

[69360]

So, when US soldiers die will it then be "war in the classic sense"? Because Kerry is lying to everyone. Right now there are US boots on the ground in Syria. How exactly does everyone think they decide where to launch cruise missiles at? There are special forces and CIA spotters on the ground right now. There are also special forces and CIA personnel on the ground to handle passing weapons to the AQ rebels. So when one of them is shown dead on TV will it be "classic war"? How about when terrorists blow up Incirlik airbase or Assad launches a missile at it? It's 30 miles from the Syrian border, they don't tell you that in a pretty rose garden speech. They also don't tell you that Syria has modern Russian anti-ship missises that can hit the 6th fleet in the Mediterranean?

All of this from that bastard who threw his medals over the white house fence because the US had no strategic threat from Vietnam?

 

[JCDenton0451]

The problem we face is that so long as people accept the moral responsibility of the US to police the world, inverventionists will always have the upper hand in this debate. When Kerry says that bombing Syria reduces the chances of Assad using chemical weapons in the future, it's really hard to argue with that, so long as you accept that the US national interest lies in stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.

The same rationale can be used to justify any possible intervention, including in Iran.

 

[JCDenton0451]

John Kerry: "We need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people..."

Frankly, the only answer to that is "no we don't"/"not our concern". Kerry's pro-war arguments are based entirely on a liberal internationalist sense of morality: using the power of the US military to reinforce the international norms that they created. Once you've conceded the moral high ground to John Kerry, you have lost the argument.

At some point someone will have to rise up and say it's not our job to solve the worlds problems...

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The problem we face is that so long as people accept the moral responsibility of the US to police the world, inverventionists will always have the upper hand in this debate. When Kerry says that bombing Syria reduces the chances of Assad using chemical weapons in the future, it's really hard to argue with that, so long as you accept that the US national interest lies in stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.

The same rationale can be used to justify any possible intervention, including in Iran.

Hell, the same can be said about our own government. Are they going to strike themselves?

 

[69360]

The problem we face is that so long as people accept the moral responsibility of the US to police the world, inverventionists will always have the upper hand in this debate. When Kerry says that bombing Syria reduces the chances of Assad using chemical weapons in the future, it's really hard to argue with that, so long as you accept that the US national interest lies in stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.

The same rationale can be used to justify any possible intervention, including in Iran.

BS, first off, nobody has provided any proof at all of who actually used the chemical weapons. Second it's a very valid argument that if Assad was the one who used them, he will use more of them in retaliation to a US strike.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Hell, the same can be said about our own government. Are they going to strike themselves?

No, but they would use whatever force necessary to crush the "tea party/patriot/right-wing extremists". They said as much.

It's not about compassion as much as it is about reinforcing the international (their) order.

 

[JCDenton0451]

BS, first off, nobody has provided any proof at all of who actually used the chemical weapons. Second it's a very valid argument that if Assad was the one who used them, he will use more of them in retaliation to a US strike.

Ordinary people are not in the position to examine the evidence personally and reach their own conclusions. They'll just have to rely on what the authority figures tell them and most authority figures "concluded" that Assad did in fact use chemical weapons. So, for the purposes of domestic political debate we'll just have to assume that intelligence is always right and barbarians are barbarical.

Now, the moment you accept that the US has a moral responsibility to save the Middle Eastern people from their barbarical rulers, the debate is lost.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think its great that we have someone like Rand in the U.S. senate to take on these assholes. If it wasn't for Rand then our views would have almost zero representation in these matters. But part of me would give my right nut to see Ron Paul in the same situation, and see what kind of questions he would ask that smug douchebag.

And yet some people on this forum think we shouldn't continue to elect liberty candidates through the GOP. We need to double our efforts and get Rand some allies in the Senate and get Amash and Massie allies in the House. Why would we deviate from a strategy this is getting our views heard and where we're able to confront these warmongers on national tv and maybe even throw a monkey wrench into their diabolical plans?

 

[Barrex]

The problem we face is that so long as people accept the moral responsibility of the US to police the world, inverventionists will always have the upper hand in this debate. When Kerry says that bombing Syria reduces the chances of Assad using chemical weapons in the future, it's really hard to argue with that, so long as you accept that the US national interest lies in stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.

The same rationale can be used to justify any possible intervention, including in Iran.

It is not hard to argue against that at all.
Few main options for Assad:
1.Assad is cornered by USA and starts losing badly and only possible path to victory is to use all his weapons on Israel, USA military bases around Syria and rebels.
2.Assad sees that he can not win and gives chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Hezbollah uses it on Israel.
3.Assad sees that he can not win and flees to Iran. Al-Qaedas first goal is to rush to chemical weapons and take it. They would do it without any problems. No one would dare to stand up against them since there would be chaos and those with weapons were fighting on same side with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda starts executing Christians, Alaweets, Sunnis, Kurds. Later chemical weapons are used to start terrorist attacks all over the globe.
4.Fairytale/best case USA scenario: They bomb Assad. Assad gives up and runs away. Non-existent or so far irrelevant pro western, democratic, civilized branch of rebels becomes most dominant and manages to stop Al-Qaeda and extremists, secures all chemical weapons, keeps Christians, Alaweets, Kurds and other completely safe and forms new government.


Next elections in Syria are in 2014. They seem far but maybe they are best chance for eventual peace.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Something sad about McCain being right next to Rand. It is like he was surrounded by a brood of vipers.

Welcome to legislative bodies in the 21st century.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

[h=1]Rand should ask Kerry: Will you flip flop on Syria as you did after voting for Iraq war?[/h]
Rand can be bit tougher on war monger actors. Kerry is a dope and can be undone very quickly.

If Kerry brings up FP Obama regime claims based on Israeli/UK intel sources, he should be reminded that they had also provided intel to US that Iraq had WMDs.