I’m not a big fan of Rand Paul, mostly because he was a Kokesh-hugger when Kokesh ran for Congress a few years back, but, Paul has been making more sense lately. Yesterday, he wrote an op/ed in the Washington Times in which he turned John Kerry’s 1971 question to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back on Kerry and asked, “How do you ask a man to be the first man to die for a mistake?”. Then Paul finally addresses the questions that I’ve been asking here for the last few weeks;
To the extent that Mr. Kerry made a case at all — along with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel — the secretary was not very convincing. Even as the committee predictably approved authorization of the use of military force, the administration still failed to demonstrate any clear national security connection the United States has in Syria. The supposed justification for intervention to stop the use of chemical weapons still does not tell us how military action would actually deter their use. We’re still not absolutely sure about the origins of their use.
Meanwhile in another Washington Times article, Democrats discuss how they’ll hold their noses and vote with the President;
“There were people who said, I love the president; I trust the president; he’s like my son. But we just — as one lady said — she said, I disagree with my husband, but I love him to life. And so, you know, you’re going to have those disagreements,” said Maryland Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings. “We all have to, I think, look at this not just in a vacuum of what’s happening today, but what’s going to happen with regard to future generations.”
Another Democrat who attended the briefing, Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota, said that while there are “no good options,” he is leaning towards voting yes, pending the language of the final resolution.
“To me, there is enough evidence that there has been a chemical weapons attack, that it was authorized by the regime and I believe that we have to demonstrate that you can’t do that,” he said. “I want to make sure that it’s narrow enough that people in Minnesota and people in this country and people around the world understand that it’s about these chemical weapons.”
There are no good options, they’ll just vote for war-like actions in Syria. I wonder how they’d vote if the President wasn’t a member of their own party. No, I don’t really wonder. Does anyone admit to supporting George W. Bush’s adventures just because they liked him as the president. Wouldn’t we be called vacuous lacking in any intellectual depth if we said that publicly? So how do these cretins think they can get away with making these comments?