Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Rand Paul Statement on Syria

Typical hedged word stuff that he hopes will keep the neocons at bay:
The United States should condemn the use of chemical weapons. We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President.

The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States.
Why should the US even be involved in ascertaining if chemical weapons were used? What if it is determined, one side or the other did use chemical weapons? What then?

As far as I am concerned, bullets, bombs and cruise missiles launched from ships can kill people just as dead as chemical weapons.


  1. Rand can go one of two ways here, he can promote freedom and the rule of law by pointing out the illegality of attacking Syria and warning of the far reaching consequences of doing so, which will result in him being opposed by all of the power brokers that he has been cultivating, and quickly being marginalized within his own party, or he can issue a statement giving lip service to the constitution, and when the war starts, throw his support to the President, because we must "support the troops" or some other hogwash.

    I'm betting scenario number two is a lot more likely that scenario number one.

  2. When did Wenzel become anti-neocon ? didn't you beg POST not to fire your neocon buddy Rubin ? all you do is cry and moan, Rand has already did more to the cause of liberty than you will ever do

  3. Anon @2207(x2)&20:08-

    Wenzel is no neocon- he has documented Rand's multiple "compromises" on liberty and exposed him as a wolf in Austrian wool.

    Please FOAD.

    Dale Fitz