Syria

Rand Paul on Syria: The U.S. Was not Attacked and the President Needs Congressional Approval

Imagine what the past 15 years would have been like here and abroad if American foreign policy followed the Constitution.

|

Reason

Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky, has released a brief but compelling statement to the American missile strike in Syria:

"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked. The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different."

Paul led the charge against Barack Obama's attempt to intervene in Syria back in 2013. That principled stand led to him being smeared (along with Michigan Rep. Justin Amash and other proponents of a restrained foreign policy) as a "wacko bird" by Sen. John McCain. Paul was right then and he's right now.

NEXT: Neil Gorsuch Officially Confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court

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. Now now, Nick.
    If you’re not in favor of bombing Muslims for peace, that means that you must support dead babies gassed by sarin. What do you have against babies, Nick?

  2. I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate.

    Make me. -DT

  3. Rand Paul has a little curl right in the middle of his forehead. Which explains a lot. Because when he’s good he’s very, very good, and when he’s bad he votes to approve Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

    1. I can’t fault him too much for that. He knew he was going to go through and he wanted to give a big FUCK YOU to the Dems who focused on every possible wrong issue to attack him in a vicious personal smearing instead of focusing on actual issues that mattered.

  4. Christ, what a reasonable response.

    1. Yeah. But where is McCain’s rebuttal? Oh, that’s right, he is furiously masturbating in the Congress bathroom.

      1. Singing his favorite tune: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”

  5. “Doing nothing” is of course a positive choice with consequences, especially for the global military superpower, so it’s interesting to wonder whether requiring congressional approval for “doing something” isn’t arbitrarily biased in favor of one set of consequences (in the case of a dysfunctional Congress, humanitarian disasters going unchecked).

    1. Yeah it’s crazy to think we don’t want one person controlling whether or not we enter military conflicts abroad. And if you can’t get what you want from congress well then it’s totally ok to ignore that because you can get what you want.

    2. …”(in the case of a dysfunctional Congress, humanitarian disasters going unchecked American involvement in illegal wars being avoided).”

      FTFY.

    3. Who knew Tony would suck a Republican warboner?

    4. Tony the interventionist? It’s more likely than you think?

      Let’s think about some of the humanitarian disasters currently going unchecked… Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba…

      Tony, do you propose we, a global military superpower, are obligated to put a stop to these ongoing humanitarian disasters?

    5. Other than having a Dem in office, it seems the easiest way to make the Dems pro-war is to share a bunch of videos of dead kids on Facebook

      So much for that tiny hope of an anti-war coalition coming back

    6. This really is the difference between libertarians and progressives. Libertarians, in my experience, are quite happy to admit to agreeing with a progressive on occasion. Tony, a progressive, would defend Trump rather than agree a libertarian senator had a valid point.

  6. “Imagine what the past 15 years would have been like here and abroad if American foreign policy followed the Constitution.”

    Imagine what the last umpteen years would have been like here and abroad if the federal government had followed the Constitution period – abiding by the 10th Amendment, no creatively expansionist reinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause, the actual meaning of “general welfare” (as per James Madison – the ultimate authority on the matter), etc. etc.

    1. That is just crazy talk. You need to be sane and rational — like Tony.

      1. Tony can only be considered sane and rational on a relative basis – relative to Charles Manson that is.

        And even then it’s a close call.

  7. “Imagine what the past 15 years would have been like here and abroad if American foreign policy followed the Constitution.”

    What, precisely, is your objection to W’s conduct here? He went to Congress to get his AUMFs. He may have done stupid things, you might argue he lied to Congress to get them, but the Constitution doesn’t prohibit stupid wars or lying to Congress.

  8. I like how the headline reads on my iPhone

    “Rand Paul on Syria: The U.S. Was not Attacked and the President Needs Nick Gillespie.”

    Yes, he does.

  9. Last fifteen years? What are Korea and Vietnam, chopped liver?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.