Thursday, September 18, 2014

OMG Here Is Rand's Warning Against Intervention in Syria

Rand Paul today took to the Senate floor to offer a unanimous consent request to separate the Syria rebel funding language from the Continuing Resolution. Rand then delivered a foreign policy address outlining his opposition to arming the Syrian rebels. 

It included this:
I warned a year ago that.involving us in Syria's civil war was a mistake...that someday the arms we supply would be used against us, or Israel.
I will leave you to decide why he puts a special emphasis on Israel.

He goes on to make clear that he has no objection to attacking ISIS in Iraq:
 Now, even those of us who have been reluctant to become involved in the wars of the Middle East feel that American vital interests are at stake, that our consulate, our embassy are threatened and that left to their own devices ISIS will fulfill what they have boasted—an attack on us at home.
So, yes we must now defend ourselves from these barbarous jihadists..
Then, Rand pretty much makes clear he is not against U.S. intervention, overall, but just the method of intervention:
I am a skeptic of this administration’s policies, though I share their new-found belief that the jihadists in the region are the biggest threat.

Where I differ is whether to arm the same side as the jihad...

It’s not that I am against all intervention. I favor striking ISIS.

I supported the decision to go to war with Afghanistan after our nation was attacked on 9/11.

There are valid reasons for war. And importantly, there are ways to do it and ways not to do it.

Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography: “War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.”

I believe that he had it right.

America should only go to war to win...
I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate.

I will not vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory...
ISIS is now a threat.  Let's get on with destroying them.
So there you have, couched in anti-war against Syria rhetoric, Rand is for war. His function for the elite, and likely why he gets so much mainstream press coverage, is precisely because he plays this role. He warns about the dangers of interventions, but in the end calls for war---in this case, against a group of some 30,000 that are somehow a "threat" to the U.S.

If you can stomach it,  the full text of Rand's speech is here.


  1. Rand versus Rand

  2. I think Rand is articulate enough that he could win a war of words with Fox News and the Neocons regarding their constant lies about everything. Explain to the Fox News viewers that everything out of O'Reilly's mouth is a lie and that it was Obama's and Hillary's warmongering that created a jihadist Mad Max Zone in Libya and then in Syria.

    O'Reilly told his minions just this week that "The Syrian Opposition has been fighting ISIS by itself because President Obama wouldn't help them".

    How can anyone with a media platform lose a debate with a liar like that? Apparently, I think more of Rand's debating skills than he does.

  3. So Rand does not think he could debunk O'Reilly. This is what I wrote after seeing O'Reilly's monologue on April 17, 2014:

    "In past few weeks, we have Gareth Porter’s new book demonstrating that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. As Seymour Hersh has reported, it was the Turks who launched the poison gas attack in Syria in order to blame it on Assad. And in the Ukraine, it was the US which sponsored the violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Facts do not matter to the lying and vile Bill O’Reilly. He stated all of these monstrous lies in a 3 minute period last night in his opening monologue:"

    "Over the years, Mr. Obama has been confronted with evil. The Mullahs in Iran, for example, trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If they do so, the world will be in grave danger because (inaudible) jihadists would certainly use nukes if they could. In 2010 President Obama warned Iran.
    OBAMA: Now as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations there should be no doubt they too will face growing consequences. That is a promise.
    O'REILLY: To his credit, the President led sanctions against Iran but to his discredit, he pulled the sanctions too early. And now nobody knows what will happen with Iran's nukes.
    In Syria, the tyrant Assad killed innocent civilians by gassing them.
    OBAMA: I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command the world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.
    O'REILLY: Again Assad did use the weapons but there were no consequences. And he has not been held accountable. That's weakness.
    Finally, Putin's aggression in Ukraine.
    OBAMA: What I have said consistently is that each time Russia takes these kinds of steps that are designed to destabilize Ukraine and violate their sovereignty that there are going to be consequences.
    O'REILLY: But again, there have been few consequences for Putin and the situation could erupt into war at any time.
    The truth is that at this point in history, President Obama is powerless, powerless to stop evil aggression. It's not his fault alone. His party, the Democrats, want no part of confrontation and some Republicans are isolationists as well. Generally speaking, there is no will in America to fight evil unless we're directly attacked. The result is danger and a weakening of presidential power.
    Mr. Obama is seen around the world as a man who will accommodate not right and wrongs. Therefore the power of America has declined. We cannot stop aggression, our allies are not confident we will help them if they get into trouble.
    The situation we have now is almost exactly the same as what President Jimmy Carter experienced in the late 1970s. The question is will the next president be able to restore American power as Ronald Reagan did?"
    And that's "The Memo"

  4. This guy is one of the biggest disapointments of our time.