Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Congress Couldn't Even Vote to End Iraq War After It Was Over

And so it may not be over


mr. paul in washington

In his seven hours long and counting filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) brought up his failed attempt at revoking the authorization of the use of military force in Iraq after Barack Obama failed to postpone the end of the war. Paul tried to revoke the authorization by amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in 2011—the amendment failed with only 30 yes votes (only three Republicans joined Paul; Jim DeMint, Dean Heller, and Olympia Snowe). Less than a year later, the fact that that authorization for military force remained in effect helped the administration redeploy military (special ops) forces  to Iraq without controversy or, for that matter, coverage. Spotted by the Nation, in the fifteenth paragraph of a contemporaneous New York Times article (below the digital fold):

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

The last U.S. commander in Iraq before the troop withdrawal told a Senate committee last month that the situation in Iraq remains "fragile." As Rand Paul reminded us today, the authorization of military force is still in effect, so the door to war remains always open.

NEXT: Court Rules Google Not Liable for Weird Autocompletes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rand Paul is quickly becoming the only politician I would ever be happy to vote for. Most other times I’ve voted it’s been out of spite to cancel out the vote of my progressive friends.

    1. Maybe you haven’t been told the story of Aqua Buddha.

      1. Fist, do you honestly think I’d vote for him if it weren’t for Aqua Buddha?

        Get your head out of your ass.



            1. Page 9 of the April edition. Unfortunately I’m quoted along with the likes of anon, Fluffy and A Serious Man. So the triumph is somewhat diminished.

              1. I’m quoted in the print edition? Where can I see this?

                1. I’m quoted in the print edition? Where can I see this?


              2. Really? Is the quote on this website? I don’t get the print edition, because I am a greedy libertarian and I need that money to open sweat shops.

            2. Don’t encourage him. His ego is already the size of the Regula I research station; we don’t need it getting bigger.

              1. Psh, I was quoted in the April 2012 edition, and Lucy was the one that informed me of my being quoted.

              2. Mine… is… superior…

                1. The Hat Tip scenario frequently wreaks havoc on commenters and the site. As I recall you took have tried for a hat tip three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?

                  1. It had the virtue of me not really trying.

                    1. Hahaha. You chumps are bickering over a few words in a print edition, when my two-day old baby got used to solicit away your money by no less than Matt Welch.

                      Not to mention that we got a two-page spread in the Reason Reader.

                      Fucking pikers. Especially Fist.

                    2. So you’re telling me that you’re already whoring your daughter out for the cheap, ephemeral praise of internet strangers?

                      For a baby named Reason…

                    3. So you’re telling me that you’re already whoring your daughter out for the cheap, ephemeral praise of internet strangers?

                      No. What I’m saying is that I did that when she was just two days old. I’ve since stopped and will only do so again for personal financial gain.

                    4. Well, given how things are currently going, I’m pretty sure the U.S. dollar will be about as cheap and ephemeral as internet praise by the time she turns about 10.

                    5. …when my two-day old baby got used to solicit away your money by no less than Matt Welch.

                      Way to sell out.

                  2. You know who else had a final solution?

      2. Can someone please explain this Aqua Buddha meme involving Rand?

        1. He said something when he was in college about “worshipping aqua buddha” that got out during his Senate campaign.


          “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”

        3. Some woman said that and some other people “kidnapped” her (without using force or threatening her) and demanded she pray to Aqua Buddha, or something like that. Google it if you want to know more.

        4. Hmm, that’s an oddly specific allegation to make so I imagine there must be some kernel of truth to it.

          Then again that just sounds like wacky shit lots of pot-smoking college guys engage in.

          1. I don’t think he denied it.

            The lady wasn’t mad or anything either, it was a stoopid story, that his opponent thought was some sort of gotcha, that was so goofy that nobody cared.

            1. Everyone who went to college has something worse or sillier than Aqua Buddha.

              It was a joke here in KY.

              1. Yeah, my take on it was that Conway thought it was a winner and went with it, and the story was reported as a hit piece, but most people thought it was silly hijinks not worth anything more than a chuckle.

  2. Less than a year later, the fact that that authorization for military force remained in effect helped the administration redeploy military (special ops) forces to Iraq without controversy or, for that matter, coverage.

    Do you really think the media would have given a shit if it had been revoked? Because I sure don’t.

    If this administration can get away with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, you really think an authorization’s going to slow them down?

    1. They didn’t need one for Boots on the Ground in Libya.

      I mean come on. This whole filibuster is because Holder can’t just admit that the administration doesn’t have constitutional authority to assassinate American citizens on American soil without due process.

      They don’t give a FUCK about getting “authorization” to do a DAMN THING.

      1. “I am familiar with getting away with various things and I don’t know Jack shit about the Constitution. So, can we murderdrone American citizens on US soil? I don’t know, we might be able to, I’m not ruling it out.”

      2. What I don’t get is why the admin doesn’t just lie to get this over with, and then do whatever the fuck they want in the future, including droning US citizens in the US with no imminent threat. It’s not like the media would give a shit, and objections by RP and the like could be met with “evolution of understanding” excuses like BO uses for every other one of his flip flops (Iraq, debt ceiling, Gitmo, etc)

        1. Uh…I’m not sure how the Obama administration could drone someone in the United States without anyone noticing.

        2. If anything, there is too much focus on the “Drone” aspect of this. A team of Navy SEALs being sent to whack someone on our soil would be just as bad.

          But I think BO just prefers to wait it out rather than make ANY concession on his powers

          1. +1 drone and a navy seal twirl

          2. This and the fact that the discussion is only about US citizens. The Bill of Rights applies (or at least was intended to apply) to everybody, not just US citizens. But given how hard it is to generate outrage even for these kind of acts against citizens, I can understand why people aren’t focusing on including foreigners

          3. I think the focus on drones might be in part political to make the larger point about not being allowed to kill citizens without due process.

            Drones are a newer technology (new tends to scare people) and the reality of drone usage is that there will be the possibility of misfires and collateral damage. Too many people, when discussing the Seal Team kill squad, will think “well, gee, I got no problem with killing bad people as long as I’m fine”. But when it comes to drones, living next door to a bad man puts you at severe risk.

            1. “I think the focus on drones might be in part political to make the larger point about not being allowed to kill citizens without due process.”

              Exactly where he is going and rightly so.

        3. Murderdroning someone in the US is a pretty big deal. If they lie about it and then do it, there would be a shitstorm, especially because they said they couldn’t do it. However, if they just keep being slippery and the compliant media lets the issue die, they never lied and if they do end up murderdroning someone, the shitstorm will still happen but will be much less, because no one lied.

        4. Because…if you don’t make principled decisions you can create the justification later

  3. That man has a bladder the size of a school bus.

  4. While I seriously doubt there will ever be another Republican / Conservative / Libertarian president, it is fun to fantasize about Rand Paul in the Whitehouse.

    1. it is fun to fantasize about Rand Paul in the Whitehouse.

      You mean White House. Unless you’re fantasizing about Rand Paul sodomizing the junior Senator from Rhode Island.

      1. Pass the eye bleach.

    2. Democrats in 1868: “The Republicans saved the union and have the opportunity to disenfranchise southern Democrats. There will never be another Democratic president!”

      Republicans in 1948: “FDR won four elections in a row, and we won WWII under his auspices. He died, and his vice president just beat us in an election. The Democrats control the entire south, and if anything they’re just becoming more popular. There will never be another Republican president!”

      Democrats in 1984: “Jesus, we just lost the election by almost 20%! Reagan won 49 states! There will never be another Democrat president!”

      Republicans in 2013…you get the idea.

      1. There may be another “Republican” president, but if there is it’ll be along the lines of the last few: GOP will stand for gifts to old people and the spending will continue to grow.

        1. robc prediction time, you can throw this back in my face in 3-4 years if you wish:

          If Paul wins on this filibuster, whatever that even means, then he wins in 2016.

          1. The best thing for him would be for the white house to ignore him and he actually collapses on the floor of the senate. That’s a story that even the most sycophantic of the press won’t be able to ignore.

  5. This is amazing.

  6. The comical thing is…this mfer is supposed to be an idiot, but he speaks for hours on end without a teleprompter…and now quoting…Hayek

    1. Imagine the Genius in Chief attempting this.

      1. He would have put himself to sleep within 90 minutes

    2. Well, in prog speak ‘idiot’ means ‘anyone who disagrees with us.’ Actual intellect is irrelevant.

  7. Rand may be my hero at this point. This is incredible.

  8. He’s not limiting this to domestic drones. He is clearly against Executive Dept. executions without probable cause.

  9. Tell ya what…

    When this man runs for President, there will be none of the “we have no idea what he really stands for” bullshit. This is a manifesto.

    It also clears up a lot of misconceptions about what he meant by previous statements that the media has either spun or gotten wrong.

    This is fucking great.

    1. I have considerable faith in Rand as a POTUS. To me, the true test of his character though will be if he fails to get the nomination, and say someone like Rubio or Jindal gets the POTUS, will he still be fighting the good fight in questions like this when it’s a GOPer who wants to wear the ring of power.

      1. Actually, I think Ron…Rand…Jefferson…would all tell you to forget about the faith. His arguments are rational, and equitable and that is all that should matter

      2. He does seem to be a bit more politically pragmatic than his dad.

        What I’d like to see him do, in such an instance, would be to run third party and make it clear he will do the same in every election until he’s nominated by the Republicans.

        I know that’s not reasonable, but it would warm my black little heart, nonetheless.

        1. In that case, he could have a lot of political power simply because all the Democrats would rediscover their civil liberties concerns once it was a Republican President. He’d be like the Mainer ladies, except on civil liberties.

          1. A lot of power by staying in the Senate, I mean.

  10. Say what you want about Justin Raimondo, but he’s a lot of fun on twitter. He and I just double-teamed the editor of Mother Jones for calling Rand a racist. Greenwalds joining in now

    (I’m the guy that said I hope a drone hits him, teeheehee)

    1. This is just great and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

  11. Dude seems to know what he is talking about, I liek it.


  12. If you think Johnny`s story is neat…, a month ago my girlfriend’s half sister basically also earned $6327 working a twelve hour week from their apartment and there co-worker’s step-mother`s neighbour was doing this for 10-months and easily made over $6327 part-time at there pc. applie the instructions on this web-site…

    1. Sorry, I already got a job as Rand’s pee-bucket holder.

      I just bort a mazaraty with my sining bonas.

      1. Oh, pissboy…

        ahh…wait for the shake.

        1. “It’s good to be the senator…”

  13. Off to watch The Americans. Will check up on filibuster after 11.

  14. Rand is still going strong. Rubio doesn’t speak extemporaneously very well. Cruz was OK, little preachy, but OK. Thune looks like he just showed up to make sure people know who the fuck he is. Lots of praise all around for Rand, though. These guys are all licking his dick for a cabinet position tonight. I can’t stop smiling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.