What the hell is this?
The vote to authorize an attack is likely to go down to certain defeat in the House and may even go down to defeat in the Senate. Why would you want to stop such a vote? If anything, you would want to speed it up and lock in the House "no."
Bloomberg's whip count in the House shows 10 NO votes for every YES vote on Syrian war vote http://t.co/pWAzUYJ08DA "no" vote out of the House would show that their are so many in the public against an attack that House members feared the public backlash if they voted "yes.". That would be a great thing. It would further put President Obama in the very awkward position of having to go against the House, if he chose to attack Syria.
— Rep. Alan Grayson (@AlanGrayson) September 10, 2013
It would show further weakness of the empire. Rand wants to stop this?
Further, Rand's call for "trust but verify" implies that the U.S. has a role to play in Syria, in the first place. Specifically, he said:
We have to trust but verify whether they're going to be sincere. All of us are concerned about Syria's chemical weapons. No one wants them used on civilians or our soldiers.When viewed from any other perspective than Rand saying whatever helps his presidential prospects, his comments are simply incoherent. He is not consistently anti-interventionist, he is simply pro-Rand.