Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Terrible Call By Rand Paul

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 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.

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.

8 comments:

  1. He dug up Reagan's corpse again just to make sure everyone drew the right inference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's because there is a backup plan to this. At least to avoid making the American people look like they're powerful enough to stop things in government. The neocons and and politico types and war hawks would rather give the credit to Putin, a fellow statist, instead of having the American people, or people in general, realize they stopped it. Sure, Putin was a major player, but it was the American people the reason why Congress members were running for the exits and why Obama had to make some effort to persuade the American people.

    They were negotiating with Putin and his minions. They, the parasites, the government parasites, were fighting against the producers, the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the same article Bob, "Concerns remain that if the vote passed in the Senate, the White House may consider that authority enough to wage a strike."

    I think that is why Rand is trying to stop the vote, presumably in the Senate only. Stopping the vote means Obama would have to attack without any Congressional approval at all. This will make him reluctant. I know it sounds strange that Obama would attack with only the Senate voting yes, but we live in strange times. Heck, the man claims the authority to attack without any approval from either chamber. Surely he is wily enough to attack with the approval of only one chamber.

    In any event, Rand desires the Presidency far too much to be trusted with power. You are right about that Bob. However, on Syria, he has been fighting the good fight against the war. I tip my hat to that. All libertarians should cheer that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wenzel is correct here. There is no reason to delay a vote. The House would vote against war and in the Senate it would be very close. It would show that there is no taste for an attack on Syria and that if the president attack, it would be against the wishes of the people. It would highlight the difference between the people and the government elite. It is terrible that Rand wants to stop this vote.

      Delete
  4. He doesn't want his buddy, Mitch, to have to vote "no."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is about the only explanation I've read that makes sense.

      Delete
  5. Rand Paul does not know a damn thing about foreign policy, economics, or anything that is relevant to his job as a Senator. He's easily the most ignorant person in DC.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rand's still trying hard to appeal to the idiots who think zombie Jesus will return and subdue all of Israel's foes before rapturing Israel's allies into heaven. It's hard to pander to imbeciles and not sound like an imbecile, especially when you're an imbecile like Rand.

    ReplyDelete