Can’t Stand Rand Paul? Then Watch John Kerry Absolutely Embarrass Him Over Syria

Rand PaulI voted for John Kerry in 2004, but even then I wouldn’t have called him an “inspiring man.”  While I see him as an intelligent man, he’s just not someone that screams “leader.”

Well, yesterday I was inspired by John Kerry.  He absolutely shredded Kentucky Senator Rand Paul during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Rand is, of course, the son of Ron Paul — the man who made a career essentially off three things:

  1. Opposing war
  2. Supporting the legalization of drugs
  3. A non-existent government

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that his son opposes any involvement in Syria.

And while I still don’t know where I stand on the matter, John Kerry wasn’t going to let Rand Paul’s ignorance (and 2016 presidential posturing) run the show.  Watch the video below:

Absolutely love it.  This is what happens when a man who’s using his position in Congress to stage a future presidential run meets a man who’s simply speaking the truth.

John Kerry wasn’t there to promote war.  In fact, he repeatedly said nobody wants war.  His emphasis was on the atrocities that have been committed and our reaction to those.

Kerry said what I’ve said for a while.  Most people don’t want war, but at what point do you say military action is needed?  Also, President Obama isn’t calling for an Iraq-type war, he’s simply pushing for measures which would weaken Assad and put his corrupt regime in a position where they would have no choice but to give up power.

So the word “war” isn’t really accurate.  Let’s not forget, President Clinton ordered military involvement in Kosovo, and most Democrats see Clinton as a great man and a political hero for their party.

We’ve just been so jaded by right-wing fear mongering that we’ve allowed any mention of military action to take us back to 2003, just before we invaded Iraq.

Well I’m sorry to tell these anti-Syria people—Syria is nothing like Iraq.

But my favorite part of the exchange between Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Paul was Paul rolling his eyes like a petulant teenager that wasn’t getting his way.  It seemed like the equivalent of a “whatever” response to a situation in which the answer didn’t support what he wanted.

Because it’s the truth.  President Obama isn’t calling for war.  He isn’t calling for tens of thousands of troops to be deployed and invade another country (like I said, this isn’t Iraq). He’s calling for some kind of military action to weaken Assad and expedite the end of this horrific civil war.

So while people like Rand Paul continue to campaign around the country, trying to paint Obama as some war-mongering President, John Kerry said it best — “100% of Americans don’t want war.”

And the truth is, that’s not what Obama is calling for either.  Which, by watching this video, is something Rand Paul didn’t like hearing.

Then again, when do Republicans like hearing the truth?

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • MARTinNJ

    The only thing missing was Kerry telling Paul that ‘If you believe that allowing Assad to do use chemical weapons on his own people this time and do nothing, and don’t think Assad won’t do it again, then sir you are much too naïve to sit in this august body and make decisions about world affairs.’

    • duif73

      indeed, since Kerry is one of a handful who may even believe Assad did it in the first place, so who in fact is the naive one, the folks with the evidence showing it was the Rebels (only side to benefit) or the Government who says its Assad with no willingness to show the proof…. and World affairs…what a joke, these are US affairs, with a clear interest in the region. without that interest they would not care about what may or may not have occurred…. surely genocide ranks as highly as chemical warfare. Millions died in Rwanda and not a Shti was given… king of Belgium wiped out millions of Congolese and not a shti was given… anyway… what ever happens will happen regardless of what we all think or believe anyway since the leaders really don’t care about any of the sheep.

      • Karen Fulkerson

        What do you think are the .S. interests in Syria. They have no oil.

      • duif73

        Pipelines filled with oil, also a stepping stone to Iran and essentially strangling the regions supply of Oil and cutting Russia and China out of their oil supply line… So Syria is a stepping stone to ensure that Iran gets involved and then an excuse to attack Iran…. If this happens then many will go against the US from around the world as yet another act of aggression that is based on lies and propaganda machines equal to Hitlers best efforts..

      • Brian

        evidence please, the major pipelines are not in Syria. It is also further away from Iran than Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to make up stuff at least make it plausible.

      • duif73

        Do you support attacking or “strategically bombing” Syria.

      • Brian

        bombing their military infrastructure

      • duif73

        is that a yes you support bombing Syria – own your conviction and say yes if yes or no if no

      • Brian

        that would seem to be the plain English reading of my statement. We aren’t always the best at doing what is morally correct, but we tray to do so from time to time

      • duif73

        no it would be the plain open ending of a statement as you could later say you corrected my way of saying it and certainly did not give any real answer, as you have still not… perhaps you are a politician or lawyer…

        and this is not one of those times the US is being morally correct in my view….but that is my view and of course not fact…

      • Brian

        I don’t know, your over analyzing suggests you are a lawyer 🙂

        As a general matter, we have determined, rightly or wrongly, that chemical weapons use is much more egregious than conventional weapons. It has been this way ever since WWI. Were we to turn a blind eye, it would definitely be a moral failing in my opinion.

      • duif73

        Once again, If the evidence is correct and that Assad has indeed done it, then by all means the moral high ground lies with the US, but if it turns out the Rebels did it with the sole purpose of getting the US involved then weakening Assad with “strategic strikes” opens up for the minority rebels to take power by force and create an even more unpleasant life for the majority..

        So my hesitation stems from the apparent lack of any real proof as to who dun it 🙂

      • Brian

        it is fair to ask for proof, though I also concede that we can’t always ask for the details to be made public if it endangers our covert assets. However, as much bad press as we give to our intelligence services, they actually do a pretty good job of ferreting out the truth. Without some willingness to accept that the government is generally acting in good faith, our society cannot function.

      • duif73

        The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are well crafted to create plausibility.. not all obviously, most are somewhat aimed at the not so bright crowd…. but I must say from doing all the reading I do online and trying to figure out what seems to be the most plausible..a person can become somewhat cynical about governments true intentions..

        An interesting movie is called – The Great Culling – Our Water. Talks all about Fluoride and why is it in the drinking water when it is so toxic – totally off point..but very interesting to know the facts about Fluoridated water and the negative health implications for an entire population – Fluoride – imported from China where it is banned from their drinking water 😉

        Anyway… good luck and good night 🙂

      • Amy

        If you expect our military to go in to fight a war where both sides are equally corrupt, then yes, it is fair to ask for proof.

      • Brian

        isn’t that what I said? Also, if only one side is using chemical weapons, then they are not equally corrupt by definition.

      • Andy

        Actually if you listen to the video, Kerry does state that the information that Assad did and will do it again is going to be covered in a classified session and Kerry even invited the petulant little prick, I mean Senator Paul, to attend the classified session in case there were any questions. What cracks me up is the tag line at the bottom, “Senator Rand Paul grill Secy of State John Kerry over Admin Syria Plans”. Only Fox news would have a tag line like this when Paul is having his ass handed to him.

      • duif73

        Of course, in a classified session.. do these people not respect the population or the world who also want real proof.. a classified session means we will tell you confidentially that we actually have nothing and because you signed this confidentiality paper you are not allowed to repeat that….

        So I am sorry, none of the way this is being handled is believable. If you support attacking a sovereign state then so be it… but I do not believe Assad did this and the only leader who seems to be making sense is Putin… No wants a war apart from the few in the positions of power.. the population does not.. fix Detroit and the many other home grown problems.

      • Brian

        conspiracy much?

      • duif73

        How easy it is to use that line…. led much.

      • Brian

        well when you throw around baseless allegations of some secret plan to knowingly start a way, I think it is a fair line. Show some proof that we are going to tell the senators in that there is actually no evidence of chemical weapons used. Otherwise, just STFU.

      • duif73

        like the last war 🙂 that is still going strong.. nice thing about calling it a war on terror… never ends..

        The topic is also not were there chemical weapons used… but who used them.. lots of evidence coming out that the Rebels did..but the US has evidence they not sharing that Assad did, apart from behind closed doors of course…

        Anyway..who knows.. none of us. Bottom line is I dont agree with war being the solution..and bombing a country who does not want to be bombed will have some repercussions.. which will lead to more and then war…only a fool would think otherwise.

      • Andy

        There are countries that want to be bombed?

        I think you missed my point earlier, I was just clarifying that apparently their is some evidence through “Intelligence”, from many sources/countries, that indeed chemical weapons were used and Assad was the culprit. I was just making a point that Kerry stated as such to the forum. Being ” Intelligence” it is classified and is not something they were going to discuss in that particular public arena. I personally wish we would wait until the UN releases it’s findings, but, that is my opinion and I am not an elected official.

        I will say that anyone that uses chemical weapons, especially on their own people, is a monster and should be treated as such. Maybe a small, focused strike is enough to stop the use of such weapons in the future. If they used chemical weapons once, they WILL use them again, and the next time might be in your neighborhood.

      • Lilacgypsy

        Maybe they have shown proof ..in the classified briefing.. Since when and why does the classified data have to become front page news…? If they tell the U.S. people their knowledge then the world knows..

      • Peter Cornstalk

        Lilacgypsy, I think they already “let the cat out of the bag” since they said Assad used the chemical weapons. Why would it be secret to explain further what went on? It wouldn’t be. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to defend information that you don’t even know what it is? Even Alan Grayson says the information has been manipulated and he is a Democrat.

      • Amy

        Use Google and search for rebels take responsibility for chemical weapons. There’s plenty of stories on it. It’s not a conspiracy theory that the government is ignoring this important piece of information.

      • MyStory Revealed

        That is all Brian does. He does not answer any questions or provide any useful information. He is trolling here to lob insults, make unfounded claims of his vast knowledge and connections, and never provide so much as an opinion that could be countered with logic or intellect. I think he’s a troll, and i’m not wasting another keystroke on him. My comment that came to you earlier was intended for him. Since then, he has simply attacked me using worn out rhetoric like “conspiracy theory, take my meds and ad hominem” when I hadn’t said a word about him personally. He is either a dolt or a troll, but not a thinking, contributing person to the discussion here. Oh, his favorite is demanding proof from every person who posts, although not an iota of proof or even an idea from him. Don’t waste your time.

      • Brian

        “never provide so much as an opinion that could be countered with logic or intellect”—that would be you mr. Chemtrails! Next up tell us how vaccines give us diseases.

      • Peter Cornstalk

        I think it is a conspiracy when you say something happened but can’t explain how you know and say it is a secret to let out information about something you want everyone to know happened. You seriously buy into nonsense like that? Wow! There are many congressmen, including Democrats (like Alan Grayson) that say the story is fishy and fabricated. Fall in line with the rest of the sheep! baa! baa!

      • rick dalton

        That your opinion on the classified session only you have no proof. Plus he not declaring war the president could make the strike without their approval, Also tire of hearing how they not going t0 send their sons hell they didn’t even serve

      • LaPao

        Yes, let’s share the proof about Assad using chemical weapons with everybody, especially I’ve-been-supplying- Assad-with-weapons-and-have-blocked-every-UN-measure Russia. It’s not as if Saint Putin could use the evidence he is so adamantly demanding to help Assad prepare for a US strike against where the chemical weapons are being held…..wait a second…..

      • LaPao

        That was meant as a response to duif43 btw….

      • handcranked

        When you say Putin is the only one making sense, you lose all credibility. Putin is pretty much a dictator himself–and one that has great interest in Assad staying in power because Russia’s last foreign military base outside of the former USSR is in Syria. And Syria buys a lot of military exports from Russia. This is a strategic alliance. Obama has no such reason to make this up. If he wanted to go to war to help out the military industrial complex or was interested in oil, he could have gone to war 2 years ago.

      • Amy

        There have been 3 additional chemical weapons strikes on the Syrian military on 8/22, 8/24, and 8/25. If Assad were using the chemical weapons, why would he use them on his own army? They are trying to make an excuse to go to war again because Iraq is done and Afghanistan is winding down. The good thing this time around is that people are paying attention and the information is getting out faster. We won’t fall for another Iraq War, at least not for another generation. lol

      • Ed Hansen

        Yeah, right. Please. Lets declassify everything so the sources of information can be exposed and killed just so Mr. “duif73” can be satisfied. No more sources in the future, but at least you know about this one time, right?

      • FistOfDissent

        doctors without borders and human rights watch were the ones who came forward with the reports of sarin gas attack, moron. they’re the ones providing us with the medical documentation of it. L2facts before popping off your conspiracy theories, virgin.

      • strayaway

        Correct but Doctors Without Borders did not say who released the gas. UN inspectors were already in Damascus to inspect a smaller poison gas release. It’s odd that the Syrian government would choose that moment to kill 1,400 civilians fifteen miles away.

      • Amy

        Actually, DWB are the ones who brought back the information that the rebels took responsibility: “The group Doctors Without Borders went to the town of Ghouta, where more than 350 people were killed as a result of the chemical attack. After interviewing “numerous…doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families,” the group obtained testimony that the attack was a result of mismanagement and ignorance on the part of the rebels, who didn’t realize that they had chemical weapons.”

        From the website Global Research and the article

        Syrian Rebels admit to being behind Chemical Weapons Attack

  • bfreesun

    Paul is a piece of sh1t but Kerry is fast sliding down the toilet bowl to join him.

    • My thoughts exactly. Everything’s classified, everything’s theoretical. It’s all garbage.

      • sfwmson

        Russia arms Syria (Assad) and if you cannot see that we have to be careful here, that we need to not go around embarrassing entire countries who have been fold by Assad and his handlers (read some history–Assad’s dad did the very same thing to opposition in his years as leader—rape and murder of innocents) than you are not looking at the issue in it’s entirety. It ISN’T cut and dried.

      • MyStory Revealed

        What Kerry is saying is pure US Double Speak. I am no fan and not defending Paul. That’s just more distraction in action. All we hear ALL DAY LONG is how deeply we’re in debt (can’t afford domestic programs which are being cut/closed all day, sequesters over debt, debt, debt, debt…) WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?????? Teachers-who are already buying school supplies from their own pockets? The beleaguered middle-class tax payers who can’t find jobs? Who’s kids are going to fight this (not) war when it SURPRISINGLY escalates? Will it be (as it always is, right) the kids of these sacks of crap in Washington? WE, WE..the GOOD OLE USA have been fostering and utilizing chemical warfare in the form of phosphates/DU, agent orange, chemtrails, the list goes on and on…So, who should invade us and make US comply with international laws? The hypocrisy is nauseating. NO MORE F’ING WARS, PERIOD. They’re ALL supporting ongoing war-profiteering by the very few, literally in exchange for the lives of anyone but themselves. They’re greedy warmongering bastards. If you go along with them, you should line up to enlist or sign your kids up today. Wake up, people, wake the hell up.

  • Irish_lass

    No I do not want to police Syria. How peculiar that on the continent of Africa millions are killed in bloody civil wars and we don’t get on our high horses and engage on any level. This country is bullshitting its people. I am for isolationism. Let’s get back to building America.

    • Timm Higgins

      Let’s see, the last time we stuck our heads in the sand and were isolationists – WWII broke out – tell me did that work the way we wanted?

      • Matthew Reece

        WWII may not have occurred if America had stayed isolationist in WWI.

      • Brian

        seriously, that is your solution to WWII?

      • Chris Mack

        That’s the correct reply. Read a little history. Germany was in a terrible position after WWI, and the policies enacted by the British and the Americans against the Germans were draconian. Leaving a very poor, very desperate German population willing to overlook a lot of faults in a leader who promised them a return to significance. It can easily be argued that the British and Americans directly led to Hitler coming to power.

      • Brian

        First, Chris, the terms of the peace treaty =/= our involvement. If you read history, you know that Wilson was against harsh policies against the Germans, but the British and French pushed them. Thus, our involvement or not wouldn’t have changed it except to make it potentially harsher given a longer fight. Second, as to the draconian policies, they are much less harsh than those planned by Germany against the allies while the war was in their favor (if you read a little history). Finally, what is the conclusion from your last sentence? That neither the US or Britain should have been involved so as to avoid Hitler? Of course, continental Europe would all speak German.

      • Chris Mack

        Agreed, the British and the French pushed for harsher measures than the Americans, and got many of them. Whatever the German intentions against the allies were is irrelevant. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been involved in WWII, I’m saying that it can quite easily be argued that the terms of the reparations led to an environment where someone like Hitler could come to power. And it’s not just apparent in retrospect. John Maynard Keynes was part of the British Bretton Woods delegation and said so at the time. In fact he later wrote a book about it ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’.

      • Timothy La Noir

        I’d like to see the rationale on this statement. Really?

      • Pascal

        The rationale is that after WWI we significantly weakened and embarrassed the Germans. This made them divisive and upset at the rest of the world and allowed the Nazi party to take advantage of these feelings. The citizens felt shitted on and thereby became extremely nationalistic. As for Brian, no it doesn’t look like a solution to WWII, it’s just an opinion that’s shared by many historians as well.

      • Brian

        the punishment of Germany after the war doesn’t really have much to do with the argument about our staying out of the war though

      • Pipercat

        It was the French who insisted on the war reparations. Any question of that can be answered by the subsequent events of May, 1940.

      • Pipercat

        Kinda tough when one combatant engages in open submarine warfare on all merchant shipping, including neutral.

      • Matthew Reece

        The British were also violating the Cruiser Rules. The sinking of the Lusitania with 100 Americans on board was cited as part of the casus belli, but the ship was carrying munitions of war, so it was a legitimate target.

      • Pipercat

        That was the British and also in 1915. The United States didn’t enter the war until 1917. There was no standing law against a neutral shipping munitions to a belligerent at the time. It was a, “popular reason” and not really the primary one. Got the jingoism going at the time, but didn’t push the US into war.

        The Germans engaged in open submarine warfare twice in WWI. They backed of after the first campaign was not going as planned. In January of 1917 the Germans thought they could force Britain out of the war by isolating the island via open submarine warfare during the second campaign. By April, the Untied States declared war and the main casus belli stated was the ill fated Zimmerman Telegram.

        This is a classic example of true military blunder. One belligerent miscalculating and upping the ante to end the war; when in fact, it backfired.

        Back to recent events. I am not in favor of getting involved in a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi, which is exactly what this is. Fighting over the events of 1300 years earlier, no less. If you want to use a better parallel, think of the Spanish civil war of the 1930s. That is a more frightening prospect than all of this tangential machinations going on here.

      • Peter

        Germany declared war on the U.S. first, then we went to war… this isn’t the case with Syria, which would involve a preemptive strike against a nation in a civil war, in which both sides aren’t aligned with U.S. interests, and where the entire area is a powder keg.

      • Adam Michaud

        We supplied arms and other supplies to allied nations during WW2 before we became involved. The same was for WW1. Korea and Vietnam occured from limited involvement. There’s a difference between non-intervention and being an isolationalist. During both World Wars, we were neither. The sinking of the Lusitania and the Sussex were jumping points that got us into WW1.

      • Brian

        true, but there were large isolationist factions both in government and the general public

      • duif73

        The US would do very well to retreat into an Isolationist attitude and regroup and rebuild their own country, such a beautiful place with so much to offer if directed in the right direction…this bully and war mongering attitude is not going achieve anything but poverty and a broken economy and dollar.. where as some home building would surely turn it around with so much talent.

      • Brian

        except historically an isolationist attitude has lead to disastrous consequences

      • duif73

        China has come out all guns blazing from a fairly isolationist history…. consolidate what you good at and export that, import what is needed and grow, with a population that size there is plenty to work with.. Isolationism does not mean no contact or trade, just means stop spending money all over the world and fix the home front first…

      • Brian

        they were pretty involved in Korea and Vietnam as proxy U.S. vs. Communism conflicts. Also, Tibet. Now they are getting more aggressive in the South China Sea. Also, in an artificially controlled economy, it is difficult to say that isolationism has made them more successful

      • MyStory Revealed

        The US should invade the US, win back the hearts and minds of the people, create jobs and rebuild the infrastructure 🙂
        Oh, I forgot, we don’t have any money for that!

      • duif73

        Certain US companies supplied both the Allies and the Germans.. Prescot Bush financed the Germans to ready themselves for war… US makes money out of war, seems to be the only way to get the economy to grow is to go to war… so here is another one to ensure the pipelines filled with oil stay in US and their cronies control… anyway… those who believe that Assad did this will never listen to reason… sheep being led to the end of the world as we know it..

      • John Fritz

        Ford and the Bush Dynasty supplied the Third Reich with the tools of war before and AFTER the U.S. spearheaded the Normandy Invasion. If this had not been allowed to happen then, yes, perhaps the Third Reich would never have become powerful enough to think it could conquer Russia AND the west. T

    • Joe Vanmeter

      You said on the continent of Africa, I find it strange that you did not mention a country. Did the people involved break international laws in their civil wars? Which laws were broken and how are you suggesting we stop them? In this situation we have a plan and a reason, plus 2 million plus refugee’s fleeing their homes in a country smaller than Texas and roughly the same population density. That my friend is catastrophic pressure put on the countries they are fleeing to. Enjoy putting your head in the sand and ignoring the cry’s for help.

      • MyStory Revealed

        The person who commented to you is correct. Not only are we guilty of breaking enumerable International Laws, with impunity, we pick and choose whose oppression we give a rats ass about, throughout history, and yes African countries are just a starting point….I’ll even name you one so you believe there is a continent called Africa, where we have not only turned a blind eye, but sponsored ongoing violence…ever heard of Rwanda? How about Sudan, as a second? You and anyone promoting the idea of American morality/exceptionalism are on quicksand. I submit to you that Americans who “Keep their heads in the quick sand” about these atrocious facts (throughout history) are the main reason it is allowed to continue. It’s easier to kill the messenger than to admit there’s a problem and get involved in changing it (that’s a Democracy, btw).

      • Joe Vanmeter

        Rwanda, and Sudan both pose no international threats beyond themselves, do not have access to stock piles of chemical warfare, or nuclear weapons. Additionally the neighboring countries have expressed they do not want any form of intervention as to keep the civil wars within the borders of each country. Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are both ally countries and have made it clear that they will help the refugees as long as they can but would like for us to at least try to destroy the chemical weapons Assad is using on his people so that they are not used against them.

      • Irish_lass

        Mali, congo and Sudan are just three recent conflicts. If the logic for involvement is breaking international law than the U.S. is at risk of being a legitimate target because of Guantanamo Bay and the lack of Article 5 hearings. My head is not in the sand sir your head is in the sand. Do you think that Iran is going to sit by and watch us bomb their ally? Do you think that an already unstable middle east will be stabilized by the U.S acting alone without its major ally- England. The refugees and the poisoned are just pawns in a chess match. Think this through sir.

      • Pipercat

        Moreover, I would not be one bit surprised if an American response is exactly what Iran is hoping for. The subsequent possibilities are frightening.

      • Joe Vanmeter

        I respect the notion that one involvement operation is not going to solve all of the problems in the middle east, however we know now that Assad will use chemical weapons if he feels threatened and that is the last thing we want for our allies in the region to worry about, Destroying those weapons should be a priority.

    • LawMan5643

      That’s because we have no financial interest in the region. They simply say let those stupid Niggers kill each other! Why waste our time, money & resources on a country that means NOTHING Monetarily to us.

      • Joe Vanmeter

        And what exactly do you think Syria has to offer? Since you know so much tell us, I dare you to even claim that it is oil, because Sudan produces more oil than Syria….

      • Erik Hurley

        Easy, Saudi Arabia wants Assad gone because Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline. Syria has a large natural gas reserve that the Saudis want, Saudi is our main supplier of oil. We get Saudi their gas, Saudi hooks us up with the oil.

  • Kevin Brooke Hudson

    I don’t care for Rand Paul, but I certainly don’t believe Kerry is telling the truth. You lost me on this one.

    • Joe Vanmeter

      What would he be lying about?

    • Timm Higgins

      What’s he lying about? You say this, yet don’t offer proof otherwise.

      • Matthew Reece

        He has not proven the case that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons and that this was not a false flag operation by a rebel group.

      • MyStory Revealed

        For starters! There has already been quite a bit of “evidence” from the UN that this is exactly the case (easily found with a few web searches). We just need another war…er, Halliburton (and the likes) needs another war. Remember people, we have been told, outright, that this is a NEVER ENDING WAR on (of) TERROR. Never ending kinda means never ending. We have already been told. Why any surprise? So that the rest of us might also profit from this, there should be an International Betting Pool we can all play in, like a Warmongering Stock Market, to bet on who will will attack next.

      • Brian

        this has nothing to do with the war on terror. Not sure how Haliburton is going to make a profit if we don’t invade. Bomb manufactures, ok, but let’s be real here instead of hyperbolic.

      • MyStory Revealed

        I guess you’re going with the hyperbole that this will NOT escalate, AND a lack of awareness of how much money contractors (re-read: I wrote Halliburton and the likes…that would mean contractors) are the ones who benefit exponentially from any military operations (even the most shallow of searches would provide you information on that). In case you missed it…we’re all over the mid east in the name of “The War on Terror.” But, if you want to sign yourself and your kids up and write a check in support whatever you want to call this, don’t let me stop you.

      • Brian

        can we drop the ad hominem’s here? Or is that all you have? Why do you presume it will escalate? Did Libya escalate? Did Kosavo escalate? You are operating on a number of assumptions and conspiracy theories without dealing in facts. Contractors don’t gain much without a land campaign and bases. Nobody has the stomach for that.

      • MyStory Revealed

        This (Syria) is OUR business why? I love the way you threw out the conspiracy theory term, lets me know where you’re coming from. Its always so effective in marginalizing whatever someone says that you don’t like. Not. The person doesnt even have to have posited any ‘THEORY’ at all…That’s what’s always so funny. Can’t find a single ad hominem-didn’t call you a single name or generalize about your character or beliefs (unless my suggestion that you personally stand in line for your beliefs is an ad hominem attack to you), but that’s a good kill the messenger response, too.

        News flash…Despotic regimes have tortured, maimed, killed and oppressed their countrymen since the inception of the USA (long before, but to the point). We cherry pick who/where we care to do anything about it. We prop up, arm and overthrow despots or democratically elected govts as we see fit. WE have engaged in chemical warfare in too many instances to list. Who then should invade us and make us comply with international law? Is hypocrisy a concept you’ve ever considered as it applies to any of the aforementioned in your own country? Moreover? Do I care what YOU think when you have clearly demonstrated your “box” of available thinking? No. But it is sad. Because apologists for the USA, no matter how egregious our behavior, allow it to continue and expand.

      • Brian

        and I love the way you throw out ALL CAPS because it makes your point so much more persuasive. You can’t engage in a discussion, so I have no need for your incoherent ramblings..

      • Joe Vanmeter

        And when exactly did we use chemical weapons? I’d love to hear this one…..

      • duif73

        Vietnam, supported Iraq to use them against Iran.

      • Brian

        Vietnam? I presume you are talking about agent orange, which was targeting the jungle, not the people, did not have well understood long term effects on people, and effected many soldiers as well as a result. How about a more direct example?

      • duif73

        Supported Iraqs use against Iran… not too many examples really as you would know. Who knows, perhaps even this one, via Turkey and Qatar.

        Anyway.. none of us actually know the truth about any of this.

      • Brian

        “none of us actually know the truth about any of this.”

        Yes, which is why it is fair to protest such a blanket statement as “WE have engaged in chemical warfare in too many instances to list.”

      • MyStory Revealed

        The victims of these acts of chemical warfare know quite a bit about the “Truth” of all of this. It is amazing how cavalier the attitudes about this seem if its the US who has done it or supported/provided the use…But waittaminnit, isn’t that the case being made for invading Syria? How big do your blinders have to be to miss the hypocrisy?

      • duif73

        I don’t actually know what you are saying to me. I am against the attack completely.. I am not sure though what you are saying.. No blinders on my side as you may have noticed from my blogs thus far…

      • MyStory Revealed

        Sorry, I was not responding to you, but my comment went to the bottom of the post, under yours.

      • Angelique Guthrie

        Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein get the chemical weapons he used against his own people.

      • Joe Vanmeter

        Rumsfeld…..we already know that the Reagan admin was good at distributing weapons around the world….I’m saying name one time that we have launched chemical weapons in an act of war.

      • MyStory Revealed

        I thought everyone was well aware of the dirtiest of deeds of the US War Machine. Evidently not, as indicated by the hystrionic outrage at my mention of the US’s use of chemical warfare. It seems a lot of extremely insular people here have never heard of Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, Sulphate or Sarin Gases…not to mention what is being sprayed on us daily in chemtrails (TONS of current info on this wonderful gift from our govt). I’m no chemist, or anyone who has done deep research into these incidents. I kinda thought it was common knowledge by now, unless one is under a really big rock.

      • Brian

        chemtrails? Wow, you need to take your meds.

      • MyStory Revealed

        I see you’ve done your research. I know, its a bitter pill. So, just tell me to take mine and it will all go away.

      • Brian

        “my research” the entirety of the scientific community says there is no such thing. It is your burden to prove otherwise, not mine.

      • MyStory Revealed

        Impressive. You know the entire scientific community? Well, then there ya have it. Sure hope you and they are right. You seem to be right about everything else. So, my hope is restored 🙂 I can no disregard the high ranking military officers who have come forth and admitted their first hand knowledge and personal involvement, the (posers) scientists who have tested the materials and provided extensive information on what is being sprayed, commercial airline pilots who have testified that chemtrails are not contrails and the specific details, and leaders in myriad fields/offices, etc. who have been stonewalled by the govt. agencies on testing the volumes of materials that have been sent to them. Thanks for clearing it all up in a sentence. You should write all the experts and tell them you have solved it with your research of the “Entire scientific community.” I’m sure they will be overwhelmingly relieved.

      • Brian

        well then you should have no trouble citing to peer reviewed studies

      • MyStory Revealed

        The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most
        governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes
        can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able
        to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. Have at it. Even cursory research is overwhelming in its availability and impressive in its sourcing. Mad denial is necessary to NOT notice that something is being systematically sprayed in grids that hang and spread all over our country. Have your scientific blinders blocked your view of this?

      • Brian

        if it is so available, please provide any, any at all, that agree with you on “chemtrails” I’ll wait. Since it is so available, it shouldn’t take you long.

      • Joe Vanmeter

        Chemtrails is the most ridiculous of all conspiracies because, the air we breathe is all the same….so tell me if two people are sitting in an airlock together what good would it do for one person to release a mind altering gas that they too would have to breathe?

      • MyStory Revealed

        You are right. All of the sh*tting we’re doing in our own nest is utterly ridiculous, but it doesn’t stop us from allowing it to go on. Ignorance about “it” and denial of “it” (it being colossal polluting, even intentional, i.e. flouridated water, which someone else just mentioned here, and too many more to mention here) is in large part how/why it is allowed to go on.

      • Brian

        “fluoridated” water…is there any nonsense you don’t believe? The moon is also made of cheese (and the moon landing was a hoax).

      • MyStory Revealed

        Really? You’d REALLY love to hear it. Because if you had one iota of interest in it, rather than just playing a game of kindergarten bash-a-thon with anyone you imagine to be whatever you chose to label them, you could simply do the least bit of research yourself and find abundant examples. Why didn’t you go right to the research to prove me wrong, instead of just lobbing insults, if you REALLY CAN’T WAIT to hear “this one”, as if its just one. I have no interest in educating someone who clearly has all the answers and no interest in learning anything that might rub them in an uncomfortable way about the history of the infallible USA. Should you decide to learn anything real about our sordid history, prepare to be quite uncomfortable. There are many, many examples, including use of chemical weapons on our own troops and civilians. Its inconceivable that this is news to you. Surprise!!!

      • Joe Vanmeter

        Because when evidence of such use does not exist there is no proof to post, if there were an attack carried out by the U.S at any point then odds are very good you would heard about it. Consider that we have been pretty open about many of our most embarrassing moments in history why would we hide the use of chemical weapons? My use of “I cant wait to hear this one” is figurative in the sense that I was waiting for a response that would have totally made up. Additionally there is no way that a person who goes by “MyStory Revealed” will ever be able to keep up with me academically, so don’t waste your time thinking that you could ever educate me or anyone on my level. So show me the proof that you seem to have, I hope for your sake that its not in the form of any classified documents because whistle blowers have not fared well lately.

      • Walter

        Libya and Kosovo weren’t in the middle of a powder keg either. Neither had powerful benefactors. Libya was a nation alone and Kosovo was when the Russians were at their weakest following the fall of the soviet union. Russia has vested interest in Syria, as does Iran. And Syria has huge stock piles of chemicals that are just waiting for Assad to fall so Al Qaeda and Al Nusra can get their hands on it. We will need to secure those sites to prevent that and then the escalation will begin.

      • strayaway

        Yes, Libya escalated. After Khaddafi was disposed, order broke down. Sub-Saharan black workers were killed, northern Mali was taken over by Islamists, Benghazi, and four hundred state of the art surface to air missiles wound up in the hands of Al-Queda. The economy and social order in Libya have suffered. If any of those surface to air missiles takes down commercial airliners, there will be another round of escalation.Kosovo didn’t escalate however. it simply moved out of the European orb and became part of the Muslim world. At least Kosovo citizens are still thankful to the US.

      • Lawana

        Are you nuts??? Look at all those innocent kids that was targeted, laying there dead. Tell me, if it was your child, what would you do???

      • Brian

        Lawana, clearly I say “not my problem they aren’t Americans and don’t affect me directly” and then go shopping. Instances like this quickly separate those with moral convictions from those you do not.

      • FistOfDissent

        human rights watch and doctors without borders proved it. go back to infowars, chump.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

  • Tia

    “Because it’s the truth. President Obama isn’t calling for war. He isn’t calling for tens of thousands of troops to be deployed and invade another country (like I said, this isn’t Iraq). He’s calling for some kind of military action to weaken Assad and expedite the end of this horrific civil war.” – Yet…

    • Shawn Johnson

      You really belive it is just that easy. Get off your Liberal sites and get a peek at the full picture.

    • Common sense

      Just like our privacy, once the govt gets involved with Syria, they will never leave. This is all about protecting the threat against Israel and nothing more. Let Israel fight their own battles..

      • A. Goodwin

        The government BUILT the internet – it was a government invention. You would have to be quite naive to believe that our internet communications were ever private.

      • sarah_d

        whaaa???

  • arthursc

    As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Rand Paul is a fool just like his father, and his Libertarianism is a cruel joke. But on opposing intervention, I am with him on this, and find your arguments could easily have come from the perpetual hawks and neocons. Today Obama announces a broader attack than he and Kerry have been arguing for for weeks, to gain Republican hawk support in Congress, and Kerry, with long qualifiers, doesn’t rule out boots on the ground. Whether or not these things happen, this is a sea change from all the clamor of the past few weeks. If you think this thing isn’t going to escalate out of control, you’re missing the lessons of history, and you of all people shouldn’t do that. Kerry’s “owning” that jerk Paul is not something I would crow about, given the consequences.

    • J. Wood

      Even though I disagree with your opinion, I greatly respect that you are focusing on the real issue, staying out of war. Liberals/Progressives who opposed Bush on Iraq but suddenly want Syria make my stomach churn. I certainly didn’t support Bush, and really don’t even care that much for Rand. The fact that Obama’s supporters are more interested in shitting on Rand and rooting for Kerry out of partisanship, when they should agree with non-intervention, is the most dangerous of things. It makes me ill.

      • arthursc

        It sounds like you do agree with me, though, J.W. What do you disagree with? Won’t argue, just curious.

    • MyStory Revealed

      There are so many people here drinking the kool aid; memories less than that of a gnat…exactly what the powers that be are counting on. I’ve been called everything but a human being here for suggesting that what Kerry is saying is double-speak, and that the hawks are never going to tip-toe in, take out a few trouble makers and retreat home to mom and apple pie. Our war machine is an out of control monster, the contractors that control it are greedy monsters that will need to be fed in a never-ending war of terror. I have also be blasted, told that this has nothing to do with the war on terror, although I said war OF terror. We have already been programmed. It is never-ending…so there will always NEED to be a need (which we will find or fabricate). I just can’t believe how blind people can be to this agenda.

  • Morans

    Dear Morans,
    Don’t know what you were watching but Rand schooled that communist puppet Kerry on the issues. Kerry couldn’t even answer the questions asked. The rebels in Syria are supported by Al-Quaaada, and now the communist want to support them. You sheep get dumber by the day. Most Americans are against action in Syria and that was completely ignored as well. Funny how anyone who support a constitutional small, limited government is looked at as crazy(I guess all the founding fathers were crazy as well). If you want to live in a communist country were you can tell everyone else what they can and can’t do then move to China. If you need a so called government to tell you not to do heroin or the other million rules they have, you are nothing more than a child who is being taken care of by the so called gov.( aka corporate democracy)
    The United States is a privately owned corporation that was quitclaimed to the IMF, making your so called government a foreign privately owned corporation, Just like all corporations they can tell their employees(SSN’s) what they can and can’t do. Eat that you stupid sheep. Go NWO, reading garbage like this make me support depopulation, and false flag events like 9/11.

    • Melinda Craig

      who is Moran? Did you mean Moron?

      • Pipercat

        Erin and her family…

      • duif73

        Dylan Moran….excellent comedian – youtube and enjoy…have a laugh rather.

    • Common sense

      and who is “Al-Quaaada”? Damn you reps get dumber by the minute, I swear!!

    • Timm Higgins

      False flag like 9/11 are you frickin’ high? And Rand did no such thing. Figures the Paulbots would come out in force to defend their class idiot.

    • Joe Vanmeter

      Schooled him how, by playing the same game he has always played. “I don’t have any experience with that but I know everything about it”, that game? Rand is a joke just like the people who believe that Al quada supports the rebels. Go back to watching your Alex Jones video’s and pretending you’ll wind up in a FEMA camp for your outspoken views on the country that allows you to speak in a public forum no matter how dumb you are.

    • August ‘Gene’ Rouse

      They are against action in Syria unless chemical weapons were used. The support then changed to over 60% in favor.

    • BahlSanchin

      A most excellent Poe Troll, my friend!

  • kay in the forest

    he is drinking that water just like Marco Rubio. Dirtballs.

  • arthursc

    Communist? Tia, thanks for that bit of humor–the news is not good, and we all need a laugh now and then. Communist? Good one.

  • RockheadedMama

    When there are NO good outcomes, when it is without UN approval, when it is without even waiting for the UN investigation results, when it is without our allies, when it is without ANY Arab country teaming up with us on this – we are in the wrong. We are, once again, war mongering.

    If Congress does approve this action without forcing Obama to fully answer and explain his objectives, his expected outcomes, the possible failings, contingency plans for any failings, and the insistence that we follow our own constitution – that we must have UN Security Council approval – we are outside any bounds of reasonableness.

    I pushed and talked about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield being war criminals. I still think they should be tried as such. If Obama does this, insists on it, he is too. Certainly, this will seal his legacy. And not in any favorable way.

    • Matthew Reece

      Obama is already a war criminal for murdering civilians with drone strikes and not immediately ending the Iraq War and Afghanistan War when he took office.

      • Brian

        that is simplistic at best

      • Joe Vanmeter

        Can you name the last war that did not have civilian casualties? Drones have actually minimized such instances considering the more accurate targeting systems. So….name a war without civilian casualties?

      • Matthew Reece

        That is why all wars are criminal acts of mass murder.

      • Joe Vanmeter

        That is not the same tone you were using against Obama, you were calling him a war criminal for the use of drones, again I ask when was the last war without civilian casualties? To be fair people have used the bible (whichever version they choose to read) as justification for waging war, calling it Gods will.

    • sarah_d

      The UN has been denied entrance to Syria, so it is impossible for them to make an investigation. That being said, a unilateral response by the U.S. without UN or at least some allies approval, would be a big mistake.

  • FFf

    Wow, how about y’all watch the full video you dumb fucks. RAND PAUL FOR PRESIDENT NOW!

    • Joe Vanmeter

      Based on what? Head in the sand politics? Good idea, that way we he takes control I can come to your house kill your family and he wont do anything about it because it does not affect him.

      • duif73

        Current leaders wont care either. They will be busy financing wars and other countries while you pay and go broke.

  • FFf

    You people who support Kerry…you want a huge government? You want people making decisions for you and keeping you in the dark?

    • A. Goodwin

      Unless I campaign and go to congress – yes, I do. That’s what elected officials are for. Do I want to be in the dark – no, which is why we all get to see/hear these hearings.

    • Stokes

      I certainly don’t want a government run by corporations and the rich which is what we have now. Less government = less regulation= more corporate control and influence. We saw how that works in 2008 when Wall Street created the biggest financial crisis since the 30’s. Oh and of course all those guys are now racking in record profits.

  • Todd

    I don’t know that Kerry embarrassed Paul. I hate Rand Paul, but I agree with him on this – leave Syria alone.

  • Alan Martin

    “Well I’m sorry to tell these anti-Syria people—Syria is nothing like Iraq.” I’m not anti-Syria. I’m against bombing Syria or going to war there. I don’t know anyone who is anti-Syria.

  • Matthew Helm

    I usually agree w/ you Allen, but I don’t this time. I can’t stand Rand, but he does have a point. Kerry was speaking as if he knew for certain what Assad would do. The fact is that nobody knows – not even Assad knows what he’ll do when attacked.

    • sarah_d

      I have to agree. Rand is a jackass for so many reasons — not the least of which is his insane desire to control women’s bodies — but he is correct about needing a stronger indicator regarding Assad’s likely actions in the future. Kerry does not have any sort of ‘evidence’ to back up the assertion that Assad would gas people again. Of course, I think it’s darn near certain Assad will do so, since now that he crossed that line he will have less scruple about gassing whenever and wherever again, especially if he experiences no consequences or punishment from the international community.

    • strayaway

      “President Obama isn’t calling for war.” “He’s calling for some kind of military action to weaken Assad and expedite the end of this horrific civil war.”

      “So while people like Rand Paul continue to campaign around the country, trying to paint Obama as some war-mongering President, John Kerry said it best — “100% of Americans don’t want war.””

      That’s like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not constitute war. It was just the government of Japan calling for some kind of “military action” to weaken Roosevelt. Most Japanese people probably didn’t want war either. Hirohito was not some war mongering emperor. Kerry was making the point that redefining the term “war” is essential to spending Meals on Wheels money blowing up Syrians.

      Rand Paul simply couldn’t understand the subtle difference Kerry made between acts of war and military actions which do not require congressional declarations of war. Even after extensively badgering Secretary Kerry about whether President Obama might conduct a military action against Syria even if Congress votes it down, Kerry stuck to his guns and refused to rule out that possibility.

  • bailey78

    Those that want to go to war should be the first in line to get a weapon and head out. Let them see first hand what war is like.

  • Theresa

    I am just curious to know. What “limited action” are we talking about here? What would the US do that wouldn’t kill even more Syrian people?

  • ikesambobby

    Boy those republicans sure get dry mouth alot.

  • Jeane Marie Carlson

    Didn’t see that as a “win” for Kerry. He just kept saying the same thing over & over. “We are not going to war.” Well what the hell do you think it’s going to turn into? Libs are lying to themselves. If this was a Republican President, they’d be against it. I don’t understand, we are going to lob a couple missiles over to an area where death & destruction is already going on? If the plan is to Not destroy the chemical weapons, then it’s all for show. Taking out Assad won’t work either. Control will just be handed back to the terrorist group, The Muslim brotherhood. If anything we should do is assist the innocent citizens fleeing the area. Other than that, obviously, Let Allah Sort It Out!

  • Jeane Marie Carlson

    Didn’t see that as a “win” for Kerry. He just kept saying the same thing over & over. “We are not going to war.” Well what the hell do you think it’s going to turn into? Libs are lying to themselves. If this was a Republican President, they’d be against it. I don’t understand, we are going to lob a couple missiles over to an area where death & destruction is already going on? If the plan is to Not destroy the chemical weapons, then it’s all for show. Taking out Assad won’t work either. Control will just be handed back to the terrorist group, The Muslim brotherhood. If anything we should do is assist the innocent citizens fleeing the area. Other than that, obviously, Let Allah Sort It Out!

    • sarah_d

      I agree, except about the libs lying to themselves. Plenty of liberals are against the idea of going into Syria.
      What I don’t understand is planning and telegraphing a limited strike with no real goal — neither to oust Assad nor eliminate chemical weapons — and thinking it will either do some good or not escalate into full-scale war. It’s kind of like someone not taking his antibiotics for the length of the time prescribed – all you do is make the bacterium stronger by teaching it that your antibiotic isn’t effective.
      Big stupid.

  • Matthew Reece

    Those who are willing to consider the possibility of intervention in Syria are engaging in some interesting rhetoric. For fun, go through some of it, replace “Iraq” with “Vietnam”, then replace “Syria” with “Iraq”. It then looks nearly identical to Bush administration war propaganda.

    • Brian

      you have a very funny definition of “nearly identical” war propaganda.

  • mmiller91977

    Funny that the same people, under Dubya, could not wait to go to war, over what Sadam was doing to his own people, and IMAGINARY wmd’s.

  • gemma-gemma

    President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel,

    Violence towards Assad’s government will adversely effect the people who are living under his rule. Any military action by the U.S. will cause these people more pain, more death and Syria will be in chaos for decades. Do we really want to create a bigger problem..? … again?!?

    I think history speaks for itself. More bombs will NOT resolve this nor will it make Americans safer. We’re getting pulled into something that will continue to spiral out of control.

    I honestly don’t think we can clean up the mess we’ve made nor the mess that was there before we came. As far as I’m concerned the mission in Afghanistan was over when we killed OBL and Iraq II should never have happened. It’s time to get the out of the Middle East, North Africa and Korea; politically, militarily, economically and emotionally.

    Bombs and missiles are not ambassadors.

  • gerryjim

    I usually don’t like Rand Paul but I watched the bombing committee discussion and felt Paul brought up some good points. Kerry seems over his head in this matter. I was not impressed with him. He was like a one note Charlie, saying we aren’t going to Syria to start a war. He doesn’t know that a war won’t ensue, and chances are it will. I didn’t like how he tried to embarrass Paul because he didn’t like what he was saying.

  • gerryjim

    Kerry says he can absolutely guarantee Assad will use gas again if we don’t bomb him. He cannot say that, he doesn’t know. Paul is right. It is unknown. Kerry talked down to Paul. Paul should have objected to his tone.

  • Bobee Padilla

    I don’t care for Rand Paul, but what I got out of that is an attitude of “why bother arguing. I’m wasting my breath” The war machine is cracking up full force and is sharpening it’s swords and frothing at the mouth. In time the gas Syria used will go bad and be useless. That’s assuming it wasn’t the rebels that set it off in the first place either by mistake or on purpose. The point is, the sarin gas is just a macguffin. Horrible things happen all over the world, but we chose our battles. I guess Sarin gas is a much more horrible way to kill your own people than with machetes.

  • JeremyUT

    While I definitely do not support Rand Paul, you also lose me a bit on this article. By technical definition using weapons due to conflict with another country is “war”. We are in conflict with what is going on in Syria and want to take military action against them using weapons, just because we may not put “boots on the ground” in Syria doesn’t automatically mean it is not “war”. There is also a fail to mention what actions to take if Syria fights back. I mean we are talking about a guy who supposedly killed thousands of his own, yet we think launching some sort of strike will have him waving a white flag and just giving up? What’s not to say that they don’t make an attempt at attacking the U.S. in one way or another, then at that point to we put “boots on the ground” and go to “war” as defined by our government?

    • JeremyUT

      Let us not also forget that we would almost certainly be going at this without support of the UN, being that Russia is a Syrian ally and would most likely get the Veto on any action the UN tried to take.

  • Jonathan Harden

    Wow… After reading this, I realize you really have no idea what Rand Paul actually stands for.

    1.) what would we gain from attacking Syria?
    2.) how many more refugees will there be if we attack Syria?
    3.) do we have the moral right to police other nations?
    4.) how many civilians will die from an attack on Syria by the US (even strategic strikes cause civilian casualties. ery modern conflict after the gulf war shows this)
    5.) how many Americans would die if Russia rightfully upheld UN policies and defended Syria.
    6.) we can’t afford to go to war.
    7.) Is the evidence 100% fact? Is there enough undeniable evidence that should allow us to even consider starting a conflict which will result in thousands of people’s live to perish; possible tens of thousands?

    Attack Syria is absurd!

    • Brian

      Rand Paul stands for something other than himself?

      • Jonathan Harden

        The constitution–Unlike ‘most’ other republicans and democrats on congress.

        Reading the constitution you would see how just about every congressman and congresswoman stand for ideas contrary to that of the constitution: big government, big military, limited individual liberties.

      • Brian

        I believe the Constitution is actually silent as to two of the three.

      • Jonathan Harden

        I would suggest otherwise.

        The various articles found in the Constitution lay out the restrictions and freedoms the federal goverent is allowed to excersize. The constitution is far more favorable to state sovereignty than federal power.

        The tenth amendment also seems to support this.

        Also the founding fathers make this very clear in their interpretations of these passages. Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, and Franklin would be good places to start. Hamilton and Jefferson seem to be the most outspoken concerning these matters.

      • Jonathan Harden

        Pardon my typos. I wrote this last one on a phone.

      • Brian

        Favor toward state sovereignty does not exclude a powerful central government, the need for which was at the heart of the Constitutional Convention. You are making suggestions as to what is meant between the lines, which is along the lines of the “penumbra” that is often vilified. There are also no explicit limitations on the size of the military, which makes sense since the founders would have had no conception of modern military structures. This isn’t to say I disagree with you on the negatives of a government or military that is too large, I just think the argument needs to have foundation in the present day not trying to bend the Constitutional language to a particular point of view. (also no worries on any typos)

  • Chris Mack

    You think that’s Kerry ‘shredding’ Paul?!? Sending missiles into a foreign country and killing people is war. I don’t give a shit how polished they try to make it sound it.

    The reality is, if the US could be trusted to keeping it to an airborne military strike targeted at strategic military locations that would impede Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons I think you’d see a lot more support for it. Nobody wants to see chemical weapons used. Anywhere. The problem is the US has lost ALL credibility. In fact, their war history is worse than anyone’s. They’re the only nation to use nuclear devices on a foreign country, they have used uranium munitions in Iraq resulting in the highest rates of cancer, leukemia and birth defects ever seen. They’ve used torture and violated the Geneva convention. All the things they are supposedly ‘against’.

    The problem is even if you take the US position at face value (and who does? Airborne military strikes today, then some reason to escalate it tomorrow), the US has lost any moral high-ground it may once have had.

    I don’t know what’s really happening over there. Neither do you. What I do know is the american administration has consistently lied and manipulated to achieve its objectives, so I consider the likelihood of Obama and Kerry being full of shit to be considerably higher than the likelihood that they’re telling the truth. For that reason I believe the US should stay the hell out of Syria (and everywhere else).

  • Pitt90

    Mr Clifton,

    I like your blog as much as I loathe Rand Paul, but I must say with all due respect that I think you’re dead wrong on this topic. Let me repeat: I loathe Rand Paul. I find him a pompous windbag whose policy knowledge is weak at best, dangerous at worst. However, he asked me some serious questions about our democratic process and I think he was not answered with any skill by Secretary Kerry. In fact, all Kerry did do was make me embarrassed that I voted for him a few elections back. Believe me, I’d rather see Satan president than Paul, but I’m afraid all of Kerry’s “guarantees” don’t overwhelm the legitimate use of power questions that Paul asked.

    • MyStory Revealed

      Agreed and agreed.

  • duif73

    Just lost respect for the journalist who thinks Kerry owned anything… he simply misled the conversation away from the reality.. if any leader thinks a war will not occur if the US has the cheek to bomb Syria.. then another joke.. Syria broke a 100 year old prohibition by using chemical warfare.. the US has been perhaps one of a handful of countries to use nuclear and chemical as well as promote the use of chemical by Iraq against Iran… what a joke.

  • mscurmudgeon

    Childish, I suppose, but would love to hit Assad with some of that sarin gas, see how that coward likes it.

  • deckbose

    “he’s simply pushing for measures which would weaken Assad and put his corrupt regime in a position where they would have no choice but to give up power.”

    Give up power to whom? al-Nusra?

    • vwbtl99

      And that’s the real problem! Thanks deckbose.

  • LawMan5643

    I give the Republican party 5 years before they dissolve, they seem to find the DUMBEST people to speak for them! Just admit that you’re a bunch of racist pricks that love disrespecting the President because he’s black. You can hate the man all you want, however when you disrespect the office that’s where you’ve over stepped the line.

  • Fred Flintstone – Stone age

    I miss the days when good ‘ol George W. Bush would take us into decade long wars, without proof. Can we mock-up some BS for the UN, so we can get this war started already? 🙂

  • Lawana

    I’m so sick of this being divided by political lines. This is not about politics, it’s about human lives. It’s about what is best for America. Our politicians need to get their head out of their behind and do what is right for America.

  • John Fritz

    To say that the authorization that the President is requesting is not asking for war is, at best, a semantic splitting of hairs. It is also the wrong question. It is saying that as long as no GIs die as a result of the authorization that it is all fine and dandy. The so-called “collateral damage” that would result from the authorization, including innocent children is being dismissed by the supporters of the authorization when they say it is not “war” in the “classic” sense. The question that should be asked is, “In light of the ongoing devastation that the Iraqi people are suffering as a result of the U.S.’ use of depleted uranium in that country, by what moral authority can we impugn any other country for their war crimes?” It has been said that evil is the lie that prevents the liar from seeing their own darkness, and instead projects accusation of such darkness towards others. The U.S. needs to clean up its’ own house before going abroad to spend its’ lives and fortunes for the sole benefit of its’ military/industrial complex.

    • MyStory Revealed

      Be prepared to be blasted for this. I have been duly informed that I am a (fill in the blank with sophmoric name calling) for suggesting that the US has a long history of using chemical weapons. Evidently there are some Americans who don’t know a thing about our uncomfortable history.

      • Brian

        perhaps you could give the persecution complex a rest and try providing facts instead?

  • Jessica Jay

    oooohhh !!!!! he just got served !!!!! hahahahaaaa !!!!

  • Walter

    Kerry doesn’t embarrass Paul by any stretch if the imagination. I am not a Paul supporter by any means, but Kerry is mistaken when he say’s it’s not a “war.” They are all lawyers and masters of the double-talk. You attack a country with weapons, you’re at war. Not a “police action.” Not an “intervention.” War. Declaration is not needed, as evidenced by Korea and Viet Nam. Limited strikes can easily escalate if, perchance, the Syrians sink one of the destroyers attacking them. Will the US just wring its hands, or will it call on fighters and bombers staged in Jordan, Turkey, etc. to further degrade their capability to respond to attacks?

    As far as Assad using gas, the jury is still out on that. All that is known is that sarin gas has been used and anywhere from 300+ to 1400 people died as a result. There is alleged intel, but there was intel pre-Iraqi invasion too that proved fallacious. In this day of computer imaging and photoshop, who can be sure what’s real and not. And as rep. Burgess stated, after seeing the intel, that it’s “pretty thin” evidence.

  • David Buchanan

    I agree that Kerry properly exposed Rand Paul as a shallow poser. However, this article goes to great lengths to say that Syria is not Iraq while, at the same time, advocating for regime change in Syria “put his corrupt regime in a position where they would have no choice but to give up power”. Do you really believe that there is some type of non-risk military action which will topple Assad? Or that the absence of Assad will immediately cause flowers to bloom?? How has that worked in other countries?

  • Karen Fulkerson

    I have a few words for Rand Paul.
    ‘Better to remain silent and thought to be a fool than to open ones mouth and prove it”.

  • Wildlion

    Why the botox??
    Good argument though !!

  • Scooby-Doo

    People all around the world myself included, celebrated Barak Obama winning the Election, He wont the Nobel Peace Prize which was a Joke, because he had done nothing to earn such a prize. I thought he might change the US’s shocking Foreign Policy Record.
    Syria prior to the Civil War WAS & still is a Dictatorship, but it was Secular & moderate in Comparison to the Wahabbi Saudi Regime, a regime that has been the largest sponsor if Islamic terrorism, lets not forget 600 family members of 9/11 victims wanted to take members of the Saudi regime to court, but they were blocked by the US Government at the time. WHY ?
    Another thing that really annoys me is Hypocrisy, Israel used Chemical Weapons in Lebanon & Gaza, the US used Chemical Weapons in Iraq.
    Was anyone brought to justice for this, NO, because the US & Israel make up their own rules.
    The US backing the Rebel/Jihadists will come back to haunt them, just like it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and now look at the State of Libya, it’s a mess with Islamist Jihadists running amok.

    • Brian

      “US used Chemical Weapons in Iraq.” citation please.

  • FistOfDissent

    doctors without borders and human rights watch were the ones who came forward with claims of sarin gas attacks. it was DWoB who were running field hospitals that received some survivors. they were the ones who documented everything and made the claim it was a nerve agent attack.

    looneytarians just go back to infowars or better yet, talk a walk and get out of your parents basements.

  • Carol Ann Hunigan Booher

    he should have asked him if he had approved bush / chaney to go to war?????

  • Michael

    Nevermind the presumption, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that Assad is the one responsible…

  • Joe

    Ummm….. his name is Randy! Not Rand… has he changed it officially? Why do they leave the Y off? Just because his wife calls him that, does the media have to also? I mean look it up his name is Randy!

  • Joe

    Ummm….. his name is Randy! Not Rand… has he changed it officially? Why do they leave the Y off? Just because his wife calls him that, does the media have to also? I mean look it up his name is Randy!

  • Aanna1123

    Rand Paul, so very obviously, shows his ass over and over again. Like father, like son!

  • Matt

    Wow. John Kerry questioning Rand Paul reminded me a lot of Bill O’Liely questioning one of his guests he disagrees with. I remember now why I stopped watching that show years ago.

  • Joe

    Remember Randy Paul is a juvenile in every way imaginable. Just because his father ran for President, he thinks HE has to also! Like I said Randy is a juvenile trying to please his father.

  • SophieCT

    Geez, John–you’re the SOS–wave a vial of yellow cake uranium and be done with it. /s

  • Mark Hartley

    There are many reasons we should not go into syria, One of them is our country is on the verge of fiancial collapse. We are already involved in two wars, while giving millions in military aid to egypt. We cannot afford another war. I think that getting involved in syria is a mistake and that the american people do not want this. I also think that our politicions have a agenda in syria and that no matter what the public opinion is they will do what they want anyways.

  • Political.kung.fu

    I love how the Fox News crawl says “Senator Paul grills Secretary Kerry over Syria plans” what jack asses.

  • Arturo Jacobo Saiz

    Stupid is where Rand goes when rational thought is not an option for him…

  • Arturo Jacobo Saiz

    Stupid is where Rand goes when rational thought is not an option for him…

  • christian_707

    What a bunch of bull. It starts like this and then in 3 years they’ll still be around asking for more time to solve our neighbors problems. It won’t solve anything and the only thing we’ll get is those countries will hate us even more. This is yet another complete waste of our taxpayer money and none of our business.

  • PhysicsWon

    “President Obama isn’t calling for an Iraq-type war, he’s simply pushing for measures which would weaken Assad and put his corrupt regime in a position where they would have no choice but to give up power.” What an imbecilic statement. Assad and his people know quite well that they either win this thing or they end up like Gaddafi. There is no “give up” option. And whoever wins in Syria will have a long list of people with whom to get even. The rebels know that as well as Assad does.

  • Getting harder to fool US!

    Absolutely LOVED how Kerry embarrassed Rand Paul by pointing out how the United States is going to hire the Ringling Bro’s and Barnum and Bailey circus to parade a bunch of clowns riding elephants in front of Assad. I am sure that will distract Assad’s forces long enough for the “rebels” to mount a counter attack where they won’t use DEPLETED URANIUM to kill innocent women and children on the other side of the conflict.

    Rand Paul is such an idiot for thinking that we’d actually go to quote ” War ” unquote. That would mean the US would actually have consider using some of its men and women who happen to be in the quote “military aka armed forces ” unquote who happen to be engaged in other circus er uh quote ” peace keeping ” unquote missions in the middle east quote ” theater ” unquote of quote ” operations” unquote!.

    Who does Rand Paul think he is fooling?

  • whatever

    yep 100% of Americans don’t want war, so lets just call it something else!
    Ba da tshhhh (rim shot)!

  • JohnnyInJersey

    Looked to me like Kerry wouldn’t let Rand talk. I hate when politician speak over another attempting to speak.

  • katherine norton malek

    Rand Paul is a clueless little twit grasping for relevance in an arena he has zero experience in. This was his aborted attempt to use a session for his own anticipated campaign. Too full of his own perceived importance to even realize he made a bumbling fool of himself. All he did was repeat sipping more water to fill the void when he had nothing intelligent to say. Brain blank – take another sip of water. Enjoyed watching Kerry chew him up & spit him out. Like a 4th grader debating fact with his principal. I’ve seen 8th grade mock debates with more meat. WAY out of your league, Paul. Way out.

    • a 9th grader

      Perhaps you learned your argumentative skills from that debate? Sure sounds like it!

  • michael

    kerry is the naive one.

  • Joe Blunt Ltp

    I get that Rand Paul is using this as a chance to broaden his appeal in politics. What I don’t get is the liberals falling in line behind Kerry who says that dropping bombs or sending out missiles are not the actions of war. That just sounds like double speak. We have no guarantee that those actions would not entangle us further or draw in other countries into an actual war.

    Further, if these actions Kerry is seeking approval for, are so important, where is the coalition of countries seeking the same response? Kerry is pushing unilateral action, the same headstrong course that the US took in the lead up to Iraq. Of course they are not the same situation, but why is the world not on board with this?

  • Hans

    So ‘progressives’ are against “Opposing war” and against “Supporting the legalization of drugs”. At least some honesty. Nazi scum.

  • Josh

    I wouldn’t classify that exchange as an embarrassment at all. Kerry used semantics to sugar-coat what will indeed be a war in Syria. Pathetic.

  • Jonathan DeWitt

    I disagree with your apparent definition of the word war and John Kerry’s also. Any time we take military action with the intent to remove a government from power or to weaken a government with the intent to enable others to do so we are in fact at war with that government and I would say that anyone who denies this has deluded themselves and their audience. Our troops may not be in harm’s way or may be in a limited fashion but the people we are attacking will suffer the same consequences be they right or wrong. By not declaring war we make it sound clean and we trick ourselves into believing that we are not at war when we in fact are, therefore it is much to psychologically easy to get the populaces permission to wage war and we keep ending up in these small regional wars around the world with no end in sight. When we wage war in this fashion we tend to think we are not at war because we didn’t declare it and our boys are not dying. Well sure as Hell somebodies boys are dying when we bomb the Hell out of a city and anybody that thinks we did not go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan is a damn fool. When we entered those fiascoes we were all told it will be easy we will drop a few high tech bombs and prance all the way to Kabul and Baghdad. I think that it is shameful for this country to wage war against a foreign government and not formally declare war. We are hiding behind the very thin veil of a technicality and I think that if we are going to go about the ugly business of militarily removing a government from power we should call
    a spade a spade stand up and be proud of our actions or we should sit down and shut the hell up. If we as a nation cannot stomach the word or cannot make the total commitment by declaring war then we are just proving our lack of commitment to the people we are claiming to aid and the people of other nations around the world. That lack of commitment is as obvious as the nose on our collective faces and it proves our and the Presidents lack of leadership. It damages our reputation on the international stage and makes all these despots think that we are weak and incapable of a long term commitment.I personally believe we should commit as a country to war against the Assad regime and we should be willing to commit the monetary resources and the troops on the ground to maintain the peace after the fact until the UN can establish a legal, stable government after the fighting is done and this might require conscription. Now before say “oh there he goes committing our sons and daughters to war” I have two draft age sons that mean everything thing to me and I would go if called too. If we are unable or unwilling as a nation to do this and we cannot convince our partners around the world to help foot the bill then we should just stay home. We, our
    partners and other countries in the region are unwilling or unable to enforce
    the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq so we have left behind unstable corrupt
    governments, the people we went to protect are still dying and we look like fools on the world stage. A fat lot of good we did those poor souls.

  • Peter Cornstalk

    You can tell Allen Clifton has a degree in political science because he is not smart enough to do much other than make up inflammatory facebook pages and articles like this just to keep the sheep fighting amongst one another. News Flash: Democrats and Republicans are all in it together folks!

  • Steve Rosenberger

    I loathe Rand Paul. L-O-A-T-H-E. But I don’t believe John Kerry “embarrassed” anyone but himself in that hearing. “The President is not asking you to go to war!” Really? That’s odd. Because, if someone lobbed 2 or 20 or 200 cruise missiles at Washington – I’m pretty sure we’d be calling that a fucking ACT OF WAR! I’m not wrong, am I? Maybe the President is playing 12-dimensional chess and has a higher purpose in taking this tortured path on the Syria question. Maybe it will have the dual benefits of getting us out of the quicksand of Middle East warfare we’ve been mired in for almost 20 years – AND the GOP will be torn to shreds in the violent political undertow this storm is generating (taking Paul & Cruz & Boehner & McConnhole & Cantor & Ryan et al down with it). That would be a win-win. Probably too much to hope for. But in the end, I’ll be glad if Congress buries Obama’s request for war powers against Syria in an avalanche of NO votes. We can’t fix it. We can’t afford it. It is NOT our responsibility. And we will not know peace until we can say no to war.

  • Bluegrassriver

    Rand Paul seems like he wants to protect Assad from everything that might be used to punish him. Now, Assad is the best friend of Iran so why is Rand Paul so pro-Iran now? Paul can’t ever admit this limited action is not war because he loses his mind if he does. But we all should be asking why does Rand Paul want to be best buddies with Assad and Iran who want to wipe America off the map?