Ron Paul vs Rand Paul on the Vote to Attack Syria

Below is a great summary and analysis by Ron Paul of the events in recent weeks surrounding  the US attempt to rally support for an attack on Syria and the rejection of the plans by the American people. Also of note, at approximately the 2:25 mark, Dr. Paul points out that the vote on an attack was pulled in the House and Senate because the Administration did not have the necessary "yes' votes. Dr Paul goes on to say that it would have been better to have the vote. This is exactly my thinking and I raised the same point last week when Rand called for a hold on the vote. I wrote:

Rand Paul is now calling for a "permanent hold" in Congress on the vote to authorize military force against Syria.

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."[...] A "no" vote out of the House would show that there 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.

It would show further weakness of the empire. Rand wants to stop this?