Rand Paul Makes Ridiculous Comments Following Obama’s Syria Speech

rand-paul-doesnt-get-itYou’d think being that Rand Paul’s father was in politics much of his life, he’d at least know a little something about government.  But the more this guy speaks, the more clueless he appears to be.

Following President Obama’s speech to the nation where he addressed questions he’s received from Americans about Syria and outlined his new hope for a diplomatic approach, Rand Paul felt the need to prove once again that he just doesn’t “get it.”

Speaking on Fox News (shocking, I know), Senator Paul showcased either his inability to understand the English language, or that he didn’t watch the president’s speech.

Paul said, “I think what he needed to lay out for the American public was a compelling American interest or national security interest in Syria.”

He went on to say that Syria has nothing to do with U.S. national security and isn’t a threat to us.

Funny thing is, Obama did exactly what Paul claims he didn’t do.  He explained why allowing Syria to use chemical weapons without any kind of response emboldens our enemies, and opens the doors for other nations to do the same thing.  How accepting the use of chemical weapons could then lead to, in the future, our military facing the very real possibility of chemical warfare.

The president also made it clear Syria doesn’t have the capacity to be a threat to the United States, but for the reasons he laid out before, their use of chemical weapons does pose a possible threat to U.S. national security.  Maybe not right now, but in the future.

I guess Paul didn’t catch that part.

But the most ridiculous part of his comments came when he seemed to imply that people like him are responsible for the fact Syria has now not only admitted to having chemical weapons, but is willing to reveal their locations and turn them over to international authorities.

“Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table.  But one thing is for certain.  The chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign.  If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn’t be looking at a possible solution today.  The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said ‘slow down’ allowed this possible solution to take shape.”

Come again?

It was President Obama who didn’t push Congress to come back early to debate this issue.  It was President Obama who decided to seek Congressional approval before any sort of military strike.  It was President Obama who wanted this to go to a full debate.

Because let’s be clear, President Obama did not need Congressional approval to conduct limited airstrikes in Syria.  He chose to allow Congress to be involved.

And as I outlined before, I believe this Syrian deal is exactly what President Obama had in mind all along.

So it’s preposterous that someone like Rand Paul is trying to imply that his actions, and those like him, were also big players in this deal being reached.  That it wasn’t just the threat of military action.

Senator Paul, answer me this: If many members of Congress had already opposed any hint at our involvement in Syria, why then wasn’t a deal brokered for Syria to surrender their chemical weapons prior to Obama’s threat of military action?

The answer is pretty simple.  Because Obama’s threat of military action was the cause of the deal being offered.  

Rand Paul’s desperate attempt to bash the president no matter what he says or does is simply deplorable.  I’m almost certain if President Obama came out later this week and said a deal had been reached to avoid military action and remove chemical weapons from Syria, Paul would spin it somehow into the president caving to “pressure” from people like him.

But what it really comes down to is Rand Paul is simply out of his league.

He’s a boy trying to play a man’s game and he simply doesn’t understand the fact that he’s vastly outmatched.

So while Rand Paul is playing partisan politics, trying to pander to his right-wing base, Obama is acting like something Paul will most likely never be…

The President of the United States.

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

  • sbusbee

    It is fascinating how Obama’s supporters are saying that, like PeeWee Herman, he “meant to do this.”

    Why in the world would a sitting president of the most powerful nation on earth purposefully abdicate his position of leadership to our old enemy Russia? Why would he weaken his leadership on the world stage by appearing to be at odds with his own people and wishy washy on his foreign policy?

    Appearances mean a lot in politics. When our president embarrasses us to the world community I certainly hope that he didn’t “mean” to do it.

    • Rene Erives

      Sbusbee. Wether he meant to or not is irrelevant at this point. More innocent people will not die. This is what matters.
      The old and primitive way of handling the lives of others by weighing each other’s balls on a world stage needs to come to an end. We are no longer primitive apes. We are the result of 4.5 billion years of evolutionary success and we need to start acting like it.
      We are no weaker than we were last week. If anything, we are stronger. Try equating this as a parent giving a child “the look”. No violence needed.

      • sbusbee

        How is this like a parent giving the look? Obama was running to get the belt until the cooler head of Putin (the reasonable parent?) stepped in and said, “Now honey we can solve this without spanking.” So Obama is the chagrined parent who has lost respect in the eyes of the child.

      • wildclover

        No, Syria is the kid talking back and pushing the normally calm and peaceable parent to extreme measures, and Russia the older brother going “dude, hey dude, you better quit, he means it”. Russia was in a scramble to get this solved. I smelled panic mode. Some little bug got put in their ear during the summit that convinced them this wasn’t just talking big…maybe reminding them about Obama being wiling to risk the raid on Bin Laden despite the fact it would piss off Pakistan. Maybe the peacenik John Kerry told them true they needed to do something if they wanted to maintain their friend in power. Russia wrung its hands and says “but we would look weak, Assad would look weak” and Kerry told them he’d give them an excuse, a solution that would give them points for being civilized peace brokers and Assad points for reasonableness, Kerry makes his “off hand” comment- after a lifetime in politics and diplomacy, it wasn’t an accident- and Russia goes “AHA, wait, this might solve things-let us talk to our good friend”.

        Obama gets what he wants without bombs, Russia gets brownie points to help deflect the demerits for their gay rights record, Assad gets to live. Obama also gets to shut up the war wing of the republicans who have been agitating for us to get involved for 2 years. And those of us with knowledge of diplomatic posturing and politics get to sit back with our popcorn and watch Mitch and other republicans flip and flop all over the place to try and avoid agreeing with anything the President does.

        No, Obama is the parent who picks his battles and manages to get the kids in line without spanking.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Putin’s head is no cooler than Obama’s. They are both leaders & we all share the same sandbox. It is called equality & diplomacy – something both Putin & Obama know about but people such as yourself don’t. Are you a FOX News watcher? I have heard that they are seriously misinformed.

      • sbusbee

        Sorry, I don’t have cable. I prefer not to be brain-washed by MSM.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        I don’t have cable either. Don’t watch much news on TV. Prefer BBC or PBS as they are at least fair & balanced & neither one can be called MSM.

      • Phil the observer

        Putin was an Adult… and there my friends is an Oxymoron

      • jchastn

        We have yet to see if this can be “solved without spanking”. Assad is a squirmy worm and Russia might just be buying him some time. I won’t believe anything Assad says until the UN is dismantling those weapons.

      • William Carr

        You mean that Obama was talking to Putin about this from a full YEAR ago…

        Obama gets to be Bad Cop, Putin gets to be Good Cop.

        Syria gives up the Serin. And afterward Obama and Putin trade a high-five.

    • SherylSimpson

      he didn’t abdicate to Russia, he followed his own Constitution by letting Congress decide. and the point was to make Syrai quit with the chemical weapons, so why do we care if it was President Obama, Congress, Russia or Rupaul that made it happen?

      • Debi Lovell

        very true

    • motherunit

      sbusbee: I don’t believe President Obama abdicated his position. Russia, as an ally of Syria, was in a better position to talk them into giving up their weapons. This move could also open the door for better relations between Russia and the USA. I also don’t believe he was at odds with his own people, as polls show the vast majority of Americans want to avoid US military involvement in Syria. Wishy washy? No, it was brilliant. He did not embarrass us. I am proud of my President.

      • gmart

        As a friend of mine often says, “Obama’s playing chess while [Congress, GOP, fill-in-the-blank] is playing checkers.”

      • Steven Wilkinson

        Folks, you seem to think this is over. Syria has not turned over their chemical weapons. The U.S. has not agreed not to use force in Syria. Congress has tabled their decision to give the U.N. time. We have maybe 45 to 60 days for the U.N. to coordinate the turn over and accountability of the Chemical Weapons. What happens if Syria does not comply. Point of Fact, the president is not required to notify Congress until 60 days from the start of the military action. At the 60 day point Congress is required to review the situation and decide if continuing combat operations is approved. President Obama did not need to ask Congress and if Syria does not turn over the chemical weapon President Obama has the constitutional authority to implement what ever operation his staff recommends.
        This is not Over!

      • motherunit

        No one said it’s over. But, I do believe that everyone is taking a step in the right direction.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        EXACTLY! Golf Clap

    • Lala Jaymes

      How did POTUS Obama ABDICATE to Russia? How is our stance WEAKENED? It is amazing when folks like you don’t even have the INTELLECT to follow the game properly…but then when you’re used to playing checkers…a sophisticated game like chess WOULD confuse…face it…your side got PLAYED once again…get used to it

      • sbusbee

        We are weakened by our enemies seeing that we can be manipulated. Just lob a gas canister or two and U.S. will come and fight your wars for you. And Putin gets to be seen as more rationale by stepping in with his “diplomacy” that will, in the end, only benefit his own agenda.

      • wildclover

        But we didn’t come fight their war for them. Obama spent all kinds of time broadcasting that he was going to bomb Assad, despite public and world opinion. He then tossed the ball to Congress when they predictably cried foul when Obama suddenly was going to do what they’d been calling for for months. Congress then predictably chewed and flipped and flopped, their right wing war instincts warring with their hatred of Obama for daring to be President. A few quiet words at the summit, an “off hand” comment by Kerry, and Russia gets to save their client’s ass by seeing a brilliant solution to avoid war….realize if we’d attacked, Assad would have been squealing to Russia for help, and Russia isn’t stupid enough to actively go to war with us. So we get what we want with some good traditional saber rattling, done very effectively, and no expense, Congress actually is forced to do some work, and everyone gets something they want.

        We were manipulated? We magnificently manipulated them, and gave them some crumbs so they wouldn’t hold it against us. Putin gets cred only with his allies- a panicked seizing on a sentence in John Kerry’s speech looks more like desperation than being rationale. They can spin it nicely for their clients though. Assad gets a reprieve, and the excuse of caving at the request of an ally rather than fear of attack….this is important if you know anything at all about the ME culture or dictators in general.

        We ended up in Iraq because Saddam wasn’t given a way out from his posturing which would allow him to save face. Giving Assad an “out” via Russia means we are not getting into another decades long war.

      • Chuck Peretti

        wildclover, you are obviously the smartest in this bunch.

      • Hewhowalkswithhim

        Name one time when somebody lobed a gas canister of Sarin gas and killed 1400 people. Iraq? Afganistan? Name one US soldier in 20 years who dies from an Al Quieda Sarin gas attack.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Isolationism, your argument, Sir, got us two world wars, and the loss of many American lives because we held back so long that we had to be attacked to act.

        Either we are or are not on the world stage. This president knows this as well or better than many of our past presidents.

      • strayaway

        Isn’t that Dick Cheney’s argument?

    • Debi Lovell

      abdicate? hmmmm his pressure got Putin to finally do something, Obama is a master chess player and a lot of people miss that, they are too busy trying to criticize instead of actually watch what he is really doing

      • Hewhowalkswithhim

        I know a lot of people commenting on line are not in the US. There is a Propaganda war going on. I am sure some Tea baggers give Thumbs up without thinking as well.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        YOU nailed it. Of course he is. His background as a community organizer equipped him to be just that with humans instead of chess pieces.

        I sometimes miss what he is doing, only later to see the pieces start to come together and reveal his strategy.

      • Debi Lovell

        yep I’m finding it interesting trying to keep up with his moves, but it keeps me engaged and yes I’m looking for what his end game actually is hagd

    • Jake Criss

      Wow…Do you live on this planet?

    • Obama: Putin, I want you to put pressure on Syria to hand over its chemical weapons. Assad won’t do it if we suggest it.

      Putin: I won’t do it.
      Obama: Oh, come on Putin! It’s not in your best interest to allow Assad to maintain his chemical weapons cache, and we will strike if we have to. You will get all the Credit! You need something like this after the Pussy Riot debacle.

      Putin: Okay. I’ll do it.

      Obama: Great! Wait for John Kerry’s public announcement casually suggesting the idea. That’s your cue.

      • My point is you do not know what was said behind doors, and sometimes true leadership is not about taking the credit.

      • sbusbee

        You really believe that? Fascinating.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        It sounds more plausible than your goofy statements. These are adults. They are smart. Putin has been around for a LONG time & he wants to remain in power. This is not the same era or regime in Russia. The COLD WAR IS OVER – has been over for a long time & is not coming back. Russia IS our ally now. It has been a long time since we worried about the “Russians coming.” …Adults play a lot of games. The US is lucky that we have a master at last.

      • Debbie Bock

        I have yet to see a republican with a cogent thought! I’d be so embarrassed to be as UNINFORMED as these twits seem to be….wtf people…….there is INTERNET….you can be as informed as most of us! 😀

      • terry herbert

        Obama is playing a FANTASTIC game of poker here. He knows when to hold um, Knows when to fold um, and there’ll be time enough for counting when the game is done, And you’re right David, Assad would never have listened to Obama, only Putin, Iran or China have any clout in Syria, Obama stayed strong with his threat to bomb, even I think, deep down he didn’t want to attack, but can you imagine what the G O P would have said had he said nothing ? after his RED LINE speech saying he would attack if the line was crossed, they would have bloody slaughtered him. The second part of the game was not to recall the house and the senate to vote, not like Stupid Cameron did in the U K. He waited until the G20 to have his chat holding a full house, and when he got back he sent Kerry around to drum up support, and nation after nation were signing up, this is what triggered Putin to act, and even now he’s delaying a vote because he thinks he wont win it. If diplomacy works he would have solved it without firing a shot, but the threat is still hanging over Assad if it doesn’t work out, I think he’s sitting with a Royal Flush and a winning hand. and I wouldn’t bet on him not pulling this deal off.

    • yarniac

      I think we finally have a president who can play chess without getting mad and swiping the board.

    • Hewhowalkswithhim

      The way I see it is we threatened to put Assad in the Video Library with Murdering Dictators we Knocked off right next to Saddam and Kaddafi. Russia heard an offhand remark by Kerry and ran with it to buy Assad some more time. We just got Syria to ratify a Treaty without firing a shot. How well did Bush do with North Korea? He gave them Aid and in exchange they started testing Nukes.

    • Alex Peterson

      This is not a pissing contest. This is actual diplomacy in action. Russia stepping up is HUGE! Pairing with Putin over this is NOT weak. Letting Russia take the lead IS NOT WEAK.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Yeah, how did that song go “Know when to hold em’ – Know when to fold em’ – there’ll be time enough for counting when the dealings done….” Obama knows how to play the game & so does Kerry & Biden has probably forgotten more about foreign policy than some of these GOPTP people have ever learned.

      • strayaway

        Agreed, except for the word “letting” in your last sentence. When the majority of Americans oppose Obama and McCain’s proposed attack on Syria, when there is virtually no international support for such an action, and even the Pope leads a 100,000 person anti-war rally directed at President Obama, there wasn’t much choice.

    • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

      Why is it abdicating power? Syria is much closer to Russia than to the USA. If they DID use chemical weapons it would be Russia who felt the fallout.

      The President only embarrasses those who really DON’T have a clue.

    • ProudinMO

      sbusbee you a complete idiot. Of course he meant to do this. It was his plan all along, why can’t you see that? How could it happen otherwise? Putin is not going to just happen to offer a solution if Obama hadn’t put him up to it. Obama is way smarter than Putin ever thought about being. They have some deal behind the scenes, that is obvious. If Putin has any other motives it is to get Obama to put his missiles away.

      This stuff is way over your head so just go away. Let Obama do what he does best and lead the country. Everything he does is for the good of the world and if you can’t see that you are blinded by Rush Limbaugh.

    • William Carr

      Well, it’s easy.

      Obama didn’t want to invade Syria. He DOES want to get rid of their WMD, and has been working on that for over a year.

      So, August 21st happened, and he saw an opportunity.

      Get tough with Syria, put the headlock on them.

      Russia sells Syria their weapons, so they block the UN from acting.

      But… delay by throwing the ball to Congress, let things get tense with Syria starting to squeak in terror, and then have John Kerry casually mention that they wouldn’t have to launch the cruise missiles if Syria surrendered their WMD to be destroyed.

      Syria would have refused an outright demand. They spent millions on their poisons.

      But… under pressure, they’d give up the WMD to their buddies, the Russians.

      The Russians leaped at it, because Putin wants to be the big man, the peacemaker.

      Oh, and BTW, Russia hasn’t been our “enemy” for quite a long while.

      Obama gets what he wants, no shots are fired, Russia gets to brag about being the go-to guy, and Putin walks tall for a month.

      And, BTW… Obama also reinforced that a President SHOULD go to Congress rather than launch strikes, unless it’s a true emergency, as when Clinton found out where Osama was hiding.

      That WAS an emergency. Missed him by fifteen minutes.

  • Debi Lovell

    Very true, and the media keeps saying he is a potential 2016 presidential candidate, that is scary if you can’t come up with someone who might have an inkling what is really going on

    • Who? Rand Paul or Putin? Because the Republicans sure love Putin. He’s the savior of Obama. He’s all about human rights and bringing peace to the world. Putin/Assad 2016! Meanwhile, Pussy Riot rots in a jail cell for dissenting political speech.

    • strayaway

      Let’s hope that the Democratic party will run a candidate who opposes military interventionism, warrantless spying on US citizens, using the IRS as a club against political rivals, and executive ordered wars such as the Libya debacle. Why have so many commenters here suddenly begun sounding more like Dick Cheney then Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson?

      • Patty Ramirez

        That would be Hillary Clinton.

      • iroots.org activism

        The same Hillary who voted for Iraq, ‘patriot act, FISA and everything else…

      • strayaway

        “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [That would be Hillary Clinton, 1993]

        Hillary supported President Obama’s attack on Libya and voiced her support for a strike on Syria. I am unaware of Hillary opposing warrantless spying on US citizens. Perhaps you could quote her doing so?

        I was thinking more like Grayson, Wyden, or Udall.

      • Patty Ramirez

        I have no problem with Libya or with Syria. I am in support of a limited, precise surgical strike with no boots on the ground. And, even though I object strenuously to the Patriot Act, the President has had to pick his battles. The time is over for old, white males. It is time for a Woman to lead this country.
        .

      • strayaway

        Unintended Libya fallout led to racial attacks on sub-Saharan Workers in Kenya, Behghazi, the Islamist conquest of northern Mali, and the acquisition of 400 state of the art surface to air missiles by Al-Queda. Perhaps, everything would instead go as planned in Syria but I doubt it. So we will have to disagree on the efficacy of such “surgical strikes”. It sounds so sanitary but the reality is missing limbs and some dead children. We do agree on the Patriot Act.

        old and white: The average age of Presidents when elected is 55. Hillary will be 68 and the second oldest of all US presidents if elected. What you are saying is that it’s time for an old, white, woman who supports the same policies as those old, white Presidents and Obama.

      • Patty Ramirez

        No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that any woman, no matter her age, is better able to run a country than an old white male. At some point I hope to see Julian Castro run for President and win. And Benghazi was unfortunate, but that is all it was. It might not have happened if the Republicans had not cut the funding for Embassy Security, but who knows?

      • strayaway

        Good, I’m glad it’s ok for Hillary to be old and white. Benghazi was especially unfortunate for embassy staffers but more people were killed in Mali. I hope none of those surface to air missiles bring down passenger airliners. Like you say, if Republicans hadn’t cut embassy security funding, that incident might not have happened. Taking it back a step further, if Khaddafi had not been overthrown, all these things almost certainly wouldn’t have happened. Libya’s economy has also tanked since being attacked.

      • Alfredo Vazquez

        Are you even reading what you are saying??? Thats the most retarded thing to come out of your mouth yet…that just because of the sex/race they are already better then anyone else…they hypocrisy in your comment is outstanding.

      • dancerboots

        The oldest Presidents in modern history:
        1. Reagan..would turn seventy 18 days after being sworn into office.

        2. H.W. Bush..64 years and eight months
        3. Dwight Eisenhower..62 years and three months
        4. Gerald Ford..sixty one years old
        5. Harry Truman..sixty years and eleven months.
        6. Richard Nixon…fifty six years old
        the youngest president to be sworn into office
        Barack Obama at 47 years and 5 months
        Bill Clinton at 46 years and 5 months

        JFK at 43 years and seven months
        Theodore Roosevelt at 42 years and 10 months.

      • sbusbee

        Wow, you managed to be ageist, sexist and racist all in the post.

      • William Carr

        Well… except any recent surveillance was done WITH warrants… you’re thinking of Bush, right?

        Now, Bush wiretapped people without warrants. Went right around the FISA Court.

        The IRS wasn’t used as a “club” against political opponents… unless you’re referring to Bush, AGAIN. And Nixon, of course.

        The Cincinatti Office of the IRS is in CHARGE of determining what groups deserve Tax Exempt status. They were, in fact, doing their job.

        And America only assisted the UN with Libya… the President has the right to use military force that lasts less than sixty days, and, well… we do have binding Treaties with the UN.

        But hey, good work spouting all the Republican talking points !

      • strayaway

        I was thinking more about the recent Snowden/Guardian disclosures which include NSA activities under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Senator and President Obama voted for Bush’s phone wiretapping and then expanded those powers.

        The IRS bottled up almost entirely Republican supporting groups in an election year and shared private Romney information with Democratic operatives. That’s what I was referring to as using the IRS as a club. People go to jail for voting twice. This was a much more serious crime. If you mean committing crimes was made part of the IRS’s job, I suppose you are right.

        You forgot about the provision that the US must be under attack for a president to use military force against another country without the consent or declaration of war by Congress. The UN never specifically authorized the bombing of Libya or overthrow of the Libyan government by anyone. Libya had ended its nuclear bomb program and had not attacked the US. You forgot the other fig leaf. Initially, Obama claimed NATO required the bombing except the NATO Charter only allows attacks if a NATO country was attacked. None were attacked.

      • William Carr

        You really don’t get logic or reason, do you?

        The IRS was doing it’s job. It didn’t “bottle up” Conservative groups. They applied for tax exempt status.

        They don’t NEED tax exempt status to practice politics.

        In fact, the 1913 law says that politics makes you ineligible for 501c4 status.

        NONE of the Tea Party groups lost their 501c4 status, although one Progressive Women’s group did.

        This meme that the Right Wing has been spreading that the IRS somehow committed a crime is crapola.

        298 groups were surveyed. 98 were Conservative.

        None of those lost their claim to be Tax Exempt.

        Wake up and think for yourself. Tax Exemption is a benefit you apply for, it’s not a Right.

        Bush decided, quite independently of Congress, that he had the right to perform Warrantless Wiretaps.

        Obama shut that down immediately after taking Office.

        Today, the NSA operates under the permission of the FISA Court that Bush ignored.

        As for the Patriot Act… it’s what the GOP wanted when they were in charge. And they got it renewed by putting it as a rider in the must pass Military Funding Bill.

      • strayaway

        Nice obfuscation; 98 were conservative, 2-3 were liberal. Even Malik Obama’s very questionable application was fast tracked although he didn’t seem to live on the same continent as his mailing address. With a number like 98-2, one might prudently think the IRS is taking sides. Of course, it is possible that this uneven number is coincidental. Those conservative fundraising groups were neutralized during the election cycle. Either this was coincidence or design. 98-2 suggests design to me. I never quarreled with the law. It was the rather uneven application (98-2) of the law regarding pro vs. anti Obama applicants.

        You seem to have not noticed the Snowden revelations and fondly referring to the secret courts; the ones with the ambiance of totalitarianism. You mean the Patriot Act that was passed with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. Sen. Feingold (D) was the only Senate vote against it. The Patriot Act that was renewed. The Patriot Act that was not overturned during Obama’s first two years in office with a complimentary Democratic Senate and House. Note: Bush is no longer President. The buck no longer stops with him.

      • Common sense

        Maybe it wasn’t overturned in that time because they were working on more important issues such as the recession and the bailout. Meanwhile, how many times has the Rep house tried to appeal Obamacare? Seems to me one group are doing things to help the country and the other is just blocking it.

      • Boo Hoo

        I suppose the concept that conservatives are more likely to con the system for tax exempt status because they are morally inept never occurred to you.

      • strayaway

        No, because I’ve never seen any studies indication that “conservatives are more likely to con the tax system”. That is conjecture unless proven otherwise. Do you mean not paying taxes, receiving benefits from those taxes, or both? Do you mean “conning the system” legally or illegally? 98-2, the number of conservative vs. liberal tax applications held up during an election cycle by the IRS, on the other hand, is a real, not imaginary, number.

    • marla

      This is the best fodder for when he does run. Keep giving him the rope to hang himself!!

  • Shannon

    Michele Bachmann floated the same “Syria is no credible threat to the US” b.s. I’m a liberal democrat; I voted for Obama; no, he hasn’t done everything I want to see. BUT, are you really going to give him credit for having super-ESP? What I think is going on here is a self fulfilling prophecy. Administrations (maybe excepting Bush II) listen to the winds of public opinion. If the public had given a big old ‘meh’ to talk of strikes, he would have struck. So in this very limited vein, I agree with RPaul. If people of all political stripes hadn’t voiced objections, we’d already be there.

    • Jake Criss

      Wow, the crazies are out tonight. I just wish they had brains.

      • Pipercat

        Are you mad? That would make them…… diabolical!!!!

    • I guess you have Super-ESP. Because how would you know that?

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Shannon knows because Shannon has allowed the GOP leadership to educate her. They did it by that best of all information sources, lies and rumor.

        I nearly fell for their BS a couple of times, but I tend to research, best as I can, the claims being made. She, unless Shannon is he, apparently gets information only vetted by the GOP.

      • G-Unit

        lol

    • Justin Tierney

      please, I’m asking nicely….quoth the Bachmann nevermore~!~!

    • Reynard Vulpes

      You chide another for thinking Obama has ESP then exhibit your belief in your own mind reading skills: “he would have struck”

      You don’t and can’t know that, and it’s not logical. The process I see in your thinking is that of the linear fundamentalist … that there are only two choices in all matters. He obviously has a great many more options, and he’s demonstrated in the past he knows them, uses them, and succeeds with them … sometimes I don’t like his successes (being a moderate conservative myself) but I can’t deny his skill as a chess player.

      Very fast on his feet, actually.

      I’d vote for him again if he shows up down the road after the next president.

      If I were his enemy, as some here seem to be I’d use the term, to describe his handling of this and other issues, as guile. He is clever.

      After all, didn’t he come from Kenya and fool us all successfully with his birth place? LOL Now THAT is sly and tricky, no?

    • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

      Why does Obama NEED to listen to public opinion? He’s not running for reelection and doesn’t need congressional approval to conduct military operations. He can do anything he wants for a limited time in regards to military action. He was elected to be Commander In Chief. You are not even close to being a liberal democrat if you agree with RPaul on anything.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed, this is a Republic and not a Democracy!

      • William Carr

        No, it’s a Democratic Republic. I see the Home Schooling thing isn’t working out well.

      • Pipercat

        Actually, it’s a Constitutional Republic. I guess you don’t see too good there Tiberius. We have no direct elections on the federal level, only the illusion of one, The Electoral College. No referendums or votes of confidence. The President is head of State and the Government. Until the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislators. Over the years, there have been some change as to how certain officials are elected -the aforementioned 17th Amendment-, but we are by no means, a Democracy. Look at the United States Senate! Now go back and drool on your massive collection of Jeri Ryan and Terry Ferrel pictures…

      • dancerboots

        You have conveniently left out the House of Representatives that do use the democracy vote…mob rule..the majority in the House vote of 218 passes the legislation..If it were not for the Senate it would be mob rule..thanks to the abuse using the filibuster…the Senate has become mob rule as well and led by the minority party…essentially Democrats have been held under mob rule since 2011 with the entrenchment of the Tea Party. They continue to abuse it with the Hastert rule in the House where the majority of the majority party must approve a bill before it can be brought to the floor for a vote.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed! Actually, convenience never entered into it because of the complexity of the issue. Hey, let me one up you… all the one vote decisions in the Supreme Court. Look how the legislative process is being held hostage by threats of court challenges. So much for representative government.

  • Michael

    The President is morphing into W right before our eyes: unilaterally seeking military action.

    • Darkthunder

      Excuse me? If he were anything like W, he would’ve sent troops, bombs you name it, without seeking congressional support, without consulting with the US allies. Both of which, Obama in fact -did-

    • Jake Criss

      Get informed.

    • Really!? Have you been in a dead zone for the last 24 hours. Catch up with the new developments, man.

    • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

      Last time I checked, Obama never said he talked with his heavenly Father & he was going with what GOD supposedly said. At least Obama makes decisions based on information & he did ask congress. He threw the ball into Congress court & congress went – duh, we’re still on vacation. Tell me another story, Micheal….

    • jchastn

      You are buying the right media koolaid and drinking it before you even get it out of the store…

  • Diana Reichardt

    Mr Paul doesn’t know much does he? I am happy that they have a found a better way to handle the situation. I don’t think we as a nation want another war if it can be avoided. Let us hope this will solve the problem. As far as Mr. Paul is concerned, he is only after one thing and that is to run the President down. . However, the only thing he has done is show his ignorance once again.

  • Hewhowalkswithhim

    Rand Paul’s plan as President is to ask China for Blueprints on how to build a great wall. In case you did not know, the China that built the Great Wall fell because they hid behind a wall and did not want to be involved with other countries. Learn from History or start learning a 2nd Language.

  • Phil the observer

    I say to Paul Rand…If you want to run with the big dogs, you better grow some legs…

  • Phil the observer

    Or whatever the hell his name is….Damn auto correct

  • Obama doesn’t need Congressional approval for airstrikes against Syria? Come again?????? He most certainly DOES need Congressional approval. It’s in the Constitution that a President must have approval from Congress to make war. We’ve violated this law so many times that we’ve forgotten it. GW Bush violated it. Clinton violated it. Bush Sr. violated it. Reagan violated it. Unlike his predecessors, Obama should actually follow the law this time. And don’t give me any of this BS about it only being “limited airstrikes” or some other euphemism. If we shoot missiles at people, if we kill people with bombs, that’s war. It was war when Japan attacked us in airstrikes (with no boots on the ground) at Pearl Harbor and it would be war now. Furthermore, we’re in violation of international treaty if we do this without UN support. If we go in and kill a bunch of people against the wishes of the international community, we continue our status as a rogue nation. STOP already! We’ve meddled in the Middle East enough. We’re being sold snake oil by both the Democrats and the Republicans.

    • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

      No he doesn”t cupcake. The president can commit military resources with out congressional approval for up to 60 days with a 30 day extension for withdraw as Commander in Chief. It’s the LAW look it up!

      • strayaway

        The War Powers Resolution “provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.””(wikipedia)

        Congress has not authorized a strike on Syria. The US is not under attack nor has it been attacked. The Constitution only empowers Congress to declare wars. Bombing a foreign country is an act of war. Dennis Kucinich sued the Obama administration for violating the War Powers Act in Libya and noted that event was an impeachable offense.

      • William Carr

        Kucinich was full of it.

        The US didn’t commit a single soldier to Libya, supplying refueling, radar, and reconnaissance.

        We’re partners with the UN; supporting them is not an Act of War.

      • strayaway

        Hostility toward Kucinich? There is always the Obama-Hillary wing of the Party. Kucinich never claimed US soldiers were sent to Libya. His concern was the trampling of the Constitution and even the War Powers Act. You forgot to mention all the million dollar Tomahawk missiles that exploded in Libya. Maybe all that Meals on Wheels money didn’t have to be sequestered. The priority, however, was to spend it buying things from Raytheon.

      • Common sense

        Then what was VietNam? A police action.. and yes the president can send troops and bomb another country WITHOUT Congressional support

      • strayaway

        According to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare wars. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution “gave President Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of “conventional” military force in SE Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist “any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty”. This included involving armed forces.”” (wikipedia) Whether or not the Vietnam War was technically Constitutional, Johnson waged war WITH Congressional support.

    • William Carr

      No, Congress must DECLARE War.

      But the President, according to the War Powers Act, can act without Congressional Approval in an EMERGENCY.

      Obama decided this was serious but NOT an emergency, and went to Congress.

      If we went by your logic, we’d have had to go to Congress before taking out Bin Laden.

      He was in Pakistan, a foreign Nation, and we had no agreements with them regarding seizing fugitives without permission.

      We didn’t ask THEM to grab Bin Laden, because, well…. he was living thirty miles from the headquarters of their Intelligence Service.

      That would be like Ted Kazinski living thirty miles outside Langley, Virginia, and the CIA having no clue he was there ?

      Yeah… I think if we’d asked Pakistan to arrest OBL, he would have been warned and simply slipped away.

      And they KNEW that was why we didn’t ask.

      And Obama didn’t go to Congress, because one of those airheads in the Tea Party would have blabbed.

      Hint; the CIA office in Benghazi WAS classified before Darryl Issa told everybody about it.

      • strayaway

        Addressing only your point about going to Congress to take out Bin Laden: The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11: The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        A Letter of Marque and Reprisal could have been issued by Congress to take out Bin Laden. Some people consider the initial Congressional resolution to take out Bin Laden and the Taliban as a de facto Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Having accomplished both of those goals, I don’t know why our troops are still in Afghanistan.

  • Daniel Moore

    Maybe in 5 or 10 years these dolts will figure out what a brilliant President we have. But I doubt it.

  • Brett Anderson

    Just another example of the Right-wing replying not to actual Obama, but an imaginary Obama.

  • Tina Israel

    I think you could have just said “something Paul will NEVER be!”

  • Filip Verschelde

    Allen Clifton, you have it exactly right, I’ve been saying this from the first speech Obama made. And now we can see the cards fall in place, exactly how he planned it.

  • Republic Of America

    HEY dumass…MAYBE in the FUTURE Iran , Russia, or some other country will attack us So we should pre empt and strike first. DUMASS

  • ricklee228

    My hat is off to you Mr. Clifton, you took a steaming hot pile of crap
    espoused by, shall we say the source of said crap, and politely and correctly called the gentleman out on his comments. I especially appreciated your predicting his spin on when or if the chemicals are turned over.
    When it comes to Rand Paul and anything he says I immediately recall this saying, ‘I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person’, always fits.

  • ditomagik

    OK..here’s what I see here. I was disappointed to see that only those who already sided with Allen Clifton were reading and commenting. I always hope to see people who don’t already agree, taking the time to read these articles and try be open minded about what is being said here. I was glad to see that SHANNON posted a well written comment on her views on the issue. Even though I didn’t agree with her every point, it was clear to see that she was taking in what she had read. I would like to note that she was instantly and verbally jumped by many of those posting here. Good Grief!.

    I personally wish these sort of articles would reach those who need to know more and understand more about our political climate is right now. I wish we could convince more people to see things our way, and work together to rebuild our damages and our ‘National Pride’. (Not the Democratic of Republican pride) You know, “a kinder and better way.” The way our ancestors worked together to build a better life for their children to inherit.

    Throwing down the gauntlet every time someone disagrees with a point isn’t gathering followers in our convictions. It’s setting up the battle lines, and I don’t really believed that this is what Allen Clifton or Rachel Maddow are trying to do here at all. The idea is to build up our front lines before the election with information and education, not attacking anyone who dares to challenge our talking points. If all we have is claptrap, drivel and name calling, we are not getting anywhere. We are defeating the purpose.

    • ProudinMo

      You speak as if the dissenters have enough intelligence to even comprehend any of the salient points. I’m sorry to say that while your heart is in the right place you are hopelessly naive.

      The Faux News crowd have no intellect or desire to see the truth. You can’t reason with them. We just have to simply out number them and shout them down when necessary. It’s a hard fact of life but nevertheless it is what it is.

      • ditomagik

        My point. Someone has to stop all this hatefulness and fighting. We should all be working on getting our numbers and votes up. Let’s get working on getting a sensible group in Washington again, who are willing to do their jobs. If I am hopelessly naive about that happening, so be it. Better that then giving up, and joining the opposition in these yelling matches.

  • Nathan Buchanan

    Does it really need to be stated that Rand Paul made a ridiculous statement? When DOESN’T he say something ridiculous? Poodle headed douche bag has no clue about how anything works, he only got elected because KY is afraid of educated black men so they elected an uneducated white one.

  • CynicalSam

    I’ve heard several people say that Obama is a very good chess player. Of course a peaceful resolution was his intention all along. He’s been several moves ahead of anyone else and has been working with Putin towards this outcome for about a year now. Rand Paul couldn’t win a game of tic tac toe.

  • doxielady

    That only proves how much these right-wingers are so out to get Mr. Obama, one way or another. If the President says the world is round, they will say no, it’s square, etc.

  • elaine stenzel

    Pauls comments were laughable,if not idiotic,what the heck was he thinking,I think he was trying to act like a grown up..but sadly did not succeed.

  • Walter

    While Obama laid out “why” Syrian alleged use of CW was of US security interest, I find his arguments mostly sophistry. A lot of conclusions were drawn for which there is no proof or even precedent. If there was a crisis regarding CW use, it was of his own making by drawing the “red line” and then having to back it up. We eagerly allowed Iraq to use them and use them quite effectively to save themselves from Iranian human waves, and that did not result in worldwide use of them in conflicts. If we fear them being used against our troops in the future. perhaps that is a good enough reason not to deploy our troops across the globe and stick our noses in every country’s internal affairs. If we fear them falling into the hands of terrorists known to be operating in Syria, why strike the Syrian forces, weaken them, and give them the opportunity to acquire them if Assad should fall? And, going back to the beginning, if we had called for peaceful resolution that did not require the departure of Assad, it’s quite possible that this could have been settled long ago. We expected him to go the way of Gadhafi and when he didn’t, we had no back up plan to resolve the situation in a peaceful manner, because by then, the civil war was in full rage.

  • iroots.org activism

    Always love the but-Obama-was-playing-11th-dimensional-chess argument! Obama, McCain and Pelosi wanted to bomb Syria a month ago and you damn well know it. The only reason he couldn’t bring himself to do it was because of massive public outcry (on the left and right) and a real threat of impeachment if he attacked a nation w/out congressional approval.

  • Lyola M Roeske Shafer

    It’s time for Republicans to realize who their masters are. Why did Romney go abroad to raise money for his campaign?

  • rick dalton

    Talk about a brain dead idiot he give a whole new meaning to it. He either didn’t watch the speech or he was drunk and didn’t understand it since 62% of the America people approved of what the president said

  • Mike

    I am definitely no fan of Rand Paul, but I do not agree with Obama that the use of chemical weapons in a civil war in another country constitutes a threat to American security. If it were, why didn’t we go after Iraq when it used chemical weapons many years ago?

  • Michael Erdman

    According to Rand Paul, he’s responsible for the sun coming up every morning. What a delusional idiot.

  • Donald Meinshausen

    Ohbombya refuses to disclose any evidence that sustains his bombing lust and refuses to acknowledge that Russia and China have threatened to retaliate against Saudi Arabia who wants to pay for this war or against the US. I used to support the Dems as they were pro-peace, pro whistle blower and against the drug war. Sure looks like that Rand Paul has those credentials now.

    • Pipercat

      I’m sorry, but juvenile word play on the Chief Executive’s name opens you to ridicule, sarcasm and finally being thrown to the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog!

  • Ted Seay

    >How accepting the use of chemical weapons could then lead to, in the future, our military facing the very real possibility of chemical warfare.

    The first use of chemical weapons has been banned under international law since 1925; all use, defensive or otherwise, has been prohibited since 1993. Our military first faced chemical weapons in 1917.

    “Accepting the use of chemical weapons” is, in this context, an incredibly specious argument…there are various ways to enforce international law, and mechanisms in place that we have worked hard to make functional.

    Is there no interest in hearing what UN inspectors have to say? If not, why was this issue so important in 2002 with Iraq?