In one corner, wearing white shorts and coming in at 52 years old, currently in his second term as president of the United States, Barack Obama!
And across from him, wearing red, the newcomer making hay, Kentucky’s own Senator Rand Paul!
That’s kind of what this whole should-we-or-shouldn’t-we Syria military strike discussion has felt like. The president and his administration, repeatedly flexing their muscles to try to build support for a strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the use of chemical weapons; and Rand Paul pushing, pushing, pushing, pretty much all by himself, to make sure this is what really should happen.
And that’s how John David Dyche of the Park City Daily News frames it in his recent piece.
“Kentucky’s junior U. S. Senator and probable 2016 presidential candidate, Republican Rand Paul, opposes President Barack Obama’s proposed American military action in Syria. ‘I think it’s a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war,’ Paul said.
According to Paul, ‘All of the bad things that you could imagine are all more likely if we get involved in the Syrian civil war.’…But Obama has already stated the administration’s position. He says not responding with force to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime ‘increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future.’”
For how little Congressional support Paul seemed to have, the anti-war voice had been quite loud and boisterous. So the fact that he’s been able to not only make it into a debate, but truly swing some peoples’ views, is a testament to how in-touch Paul is with the American people. It’s a demonstration of his political acumen.
And it’s kind of shocking that so few Congressman seem to agree with his pretty-darn-simple logic, as Duche writes:
“Paul says that administration policy is ‘to fight for stalemate then they want to negotiate a settlement.’ He thinks the Obama team believes that U. S. military action will balance the power equation and force Assad to the table.
But Paul repudiates that strategy. ‘I’m not sending my son, your son or anybody else’s son to fight for stalemate.’
Paul’s position is simple. ‘We fight when we have to.’ Since we do not have to fight in Syria, we shouldn’t.”
We found out which philosophy won the Congressional vote. It clearly was between the arguments of two men: One a sitting president, the other a junior senator from Kentucky. Not many junior senators or newly elected Congressmen would have taken on the challenge…and won!
Listen to Rand’s response to Obama’s Syrian speech of Sept 10, 2013.
Finally someone on Capital
Hill is willing to speak out and
stand firm for our personal
freedoms, our God-given
rights and all man's equality.
Here you can keep up with the
latest insights and events in
Paul World, helping our hero
restore the Constitution...
and take our country back!