Skip to main content

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks during the 38th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington February 10, 2011. The CPAC is a project of the American Conservative Union Foundation.  REUTERS/Joshua Roberts    (UNITED STATES - Tags:
There are countless good reasons to oppose a U.S. military strike in Syria, but apparently the good reasons aren't enough to satisfy U.S. senator and 2016 GOP hopeful Rand Paul, who responded to President Obama's speech last night with this ridiculous claim:
Twelve years after we were attacked by Al Qaeda, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by Al Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with Al Qaeda.
Aside from the fact that Rand Paul apparently didn't listen to the president's speech before responding to it—the only new thing President Obama said in his speech last night was that he asked Congress to postpone a vote on supporting military action to give diplomacy a chance—the logical conclusion of Paul's claim is that he must support forming an alliance with Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

Obviously, that would be a ridiculous thing to say (even though Assad makes the same argument as Paul), but it's no more ridiculous than what Rand Paul said.

It's one thing to argue that striking Syria would be counterproductive and not in America's national interest, but claiming that the President of the United States is trying to forge an alliance with al Qaeda is just about the least convincing argument you can make against military strikes in Syria. It's every bit as dumb and inaccurate as John Kerry's "Munich moment" remark, except Paul is fortunate that most people don't pay much attention to him, because he's just a senator filled with hot air.

Still, the next time Paul claims that President Obama is trying to forge an alliance with the people who attacked us on 9/11, there's one question I'd like to see someone ask him: Does he think Osama bin Laden agrees?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM PDT.

Also republished by My Old Kentucky Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We do have to be very careful (6+ / 0-)

    about the Syrian rebel groups, some of which are Al-Qaeda affiliates.

    Anyone still thinking that wanting to own a gun is normal? Wanting to own a gun is an immediate indicator that you should be the last person to have one.

    by pollbuster on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:40:18 AM PDT

  •  It could be worse: (8+ / 0-)

    He could be advocating that we support $$ a brutal military coup in Egypt that overthrew a democratically elected government.

    Oh.. perhaps that's not the best example to use.

    The U.S. interest in Syria has nothing to do with humanitarian or other sympathetic reasons - it is simply a manifestation of Real Politik.

    Speaking Real Politik.. Kerry is meeting with Henry Killinger to discuss Syria.  No doubt, Kissinger will heartily advocate for a peaceful solution.

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:41:01 AM PDT

    •  So what do you expect us to do in Egypt? (8+ / 0-)

      I don't understand a lot of arguments coming from basically the isolationist left.

      If we get involved, we're just American imperialist assholes who want to dominate the world and interfere with the internal affairs of other countries.

      So by that argument, we SHOULDN'T intervene in Egypt even if their wonderful Muslim Brotherhood government which was basically overthrown through popular demonstrations gets pushed out of power.

      If we don't get involved, we're hypocrites because we're not going to Egypt and deposing their current government and putting Morsy back into power.

      Same problem as above.

      There are no easy solutions.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:53:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes there are. (5+ / 0-)

        It's called, "Minding Your Own Business."  You should try it.  

        Also, give me a break with your "isolationist" crap.  We are free to engage in diplomatic relationships and we are free to trade with any country we'd like.  That's not an "isolationist" as you might like to call it.  It's what peaceful and civilized countries should do.

        •  So we SHOULD deal with Egypt? (3+ / 0-)

          What is the point of bringing Egypt into this then? I'm guessing you don't believe there's any reason to criticize the US for dealing with Egypt, since the deposing of their government and internal crackdowns are internal affairs that according to you we shouldn't be getting involved with anyway.

          But hey, we can still rip the US over it, since ripping US foreign policy whether we intervene (we're somehow imperialists over Libya) or don't intervene (we're not intervening with Egypt's horrible government) has been in season for many elements of the left for a long time.

          What about Rwanda? Lets say we could have intervened with low risk and saved a lot of people being killed, but it would involve military force. Are you against that? That wouldn't be minding our own business.

          Kosovo? That certainly wasn't minding our own business. Congress actually declined to authorize force on that one.

          I would argue that saying that we should "mind our own business" when people are being needlessly slaughtered throughout the world and we could do something about it is "isolationism."

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:27:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not everybody thinks Kosovo was such a huge (0+ / 0-)

            success.  The news media in the United States are claiming that Milosevic caved in to NATO because of the bombing, the indictment of Milosevic as a war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal and a last minute opaque threat by President Clinton that perhaps he might agree to a ground invasion of Kosovo after all.  More objectively however, Yugoslavia got what it went to war over, namely the retention of Kosovo within Yugoslavia.

            The bombing destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure of Serbia, caused widespread pollution (including a massive oil slick on the Danube, the source of drinking water for 10 million people),  killed 2000 Serbs and injured 6000 more. Many road and rail bridges were destroyed, along with factories and industrial installations including the only oil refinery, all oil storage depots, the only car factory, pharmaceutical factories, rubber factories and power stations. Schools, hospitals, etc.  All this was supposed to be part of humanitarian action.

            It's good to applaud the return of the Kosovo Albanians, but many of them in bombed and burned homes, murdered Serbs.  Some 250,000 Serbs, Roma and moderate Kosovo Albanians were "cleansed" from Kosovo.

            NATO troops were on the ground in Kosovo providing one soldier to every thirty citizens of Kosovo when this cleansing went on. Why were they totally ineffective in preventing this outrage?  

      •  As a woman, getting rid of the Brotherhood (0+ / 0-)

        can only be positive and lately, I tend to view things as to how women will fare.

      •  What I'm suggesting is this: (0+ / 0-)

        Look for the common thread of "Real Politik" as the motivating factor when we are told we "must" intervene on humanitarian grounds.

        Neither this administration (D) nor an (R) one actually gives a shit about the humanitarian needs of a populace.

        It is marketing to get you to go along with military adventures, which - as a coincidence I'm sure - advance the Real Politik goals of remaking the Middle East.

        I'm drawing a comparison because - if we are motivated by humanitarian concerns, then why do our humanitarian concerns appear to be very selective?

        It's bullshit.

        And I highlight Egypt to show how utterly and in-your-face transparent the policies of Empire are.  On the one hand, we're wanting to bomb Syria.  Obama even gave a speech about how Assad needed to step aside and allow Democratic Reforms to take place (in 2011).

        What about Egypt?  Oh - that's different, eh?  Military coup, brutal repression.. yet not only do we NOT propose bombing them (Egypt).. we continue giving their brutal military dictatorship $$.

        But oh how we need to intervene in Syria on humanitarian grounds and allow Democracy to take hold, eh?

        Humanitarian reasons, democracy, White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium.. Iraq/Iran/Syria/Libya - but not Egypt or Saudi Arabia, eh? --

        The policies of our 1% driven Empire are so transparent I am truly astounded more don't recognize them for what they are.

        I seemed to recall we invaded Kuwait to liberate it from Iraq.  We saved them from Iraq and gave them Democracy, right?  No. We put a royal family back in power.

        Example, after example, after example.

        Waking Up Yet?

        The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

        by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:08:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

        We SHOULDN'T intervene in Egypt.

        US Foreign policy is based in capitalism and hypocrisy, P.J..

        Remember when Rummy was selling Saddam Hussein's army anthrax and bubonic plague ingredients from his pals in the US pharmaceutical industry?

        •  Ok, we shouldn't intervene in Egypt (0+ / 0-)

          Why are people ripping the US for dealing with supposedly dictatorial governments like Egypt if we're not supposed to get involved?

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:34:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Kissinger isn't dead yet? Jeez (3+ / 0-)

      Makes one start to believe "only the good die young".

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing can clarify Syria except Obama (14+ / 0-)

    If he's for the regime, then the Republicans are for the rebels. If he's for the rebels, then Assad is great. If he's for striking at something, then it's wrong.

    Prior to this, it was a mess too complex to see a hero in.

    Everyone's innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:43:08 AM PDT

  •  I haven't listen to this guy... (8+ / 0-)

    …until recently but the more I do the more I believe he's whacked. Why are people embracing him?

    For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    by Maroon watch on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

    •  Any who's anti-war is good, according to some. (3+ / 0-)

      The doves haven't exactly been paragons of principle throughout this.

      Did you know that chemical weapons suddenly became no big deal as soon as Assad used them?

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:38:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's pretty hypocritical of you (0+ / 0-)

        US policy has been to ignore chemical weapons unless they are used by "bad guys." We were cool with Sadam gassing the Iranians and then his own people because it was in our "National Strategic Interest."

        Chemical weapons are aweful, and Assad is a monster, but bombing him has very dangerous and bloody implications. US bombing will lead to even more killing down the road, and that blood will be on our hands.

        "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

        by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of me? What am I, Ronald Reagan? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gator Keyfitz

          My opinion of chemicals warfare is exactly the same now as it was a month ago, a year ago, and twenty years ago.

          That others - Ronald Reagan, Syria doves, that sort of people - have allowed their responses to chemical warfare to bob and weave according to momentary whims and convenience says absolutely nothing about me.

          People's opinions about chemical warfare should not depend on what they want our Syria policy to be.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:47:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't just mean you, I meant Syria hawks (0+ / 0-)

            I highly doubt Obama, McCain, or any of the Syria hawks would be talking about intervening if this were Saudi Arabia gassing it's citizens. We picked Syria because they were "bad guys," not because we really care about chemical weapons.

            And if we care so much about Chemical weapons, why don't we make Israel and Egypt sign the weapons ban. They're one of 7 states (including Syria) that hasn't signed it.

            Finally, one can oppose chemical warfare without supporting incredibly stupid interventions that will only lead to more killing. If this was an African, East Asian, or European civil war, I would support intervention to stop chemical warfare. But even an "unbelievably small" military action by the US will have HUGE implications in the middle east.

            "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

            by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:22:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a Syria hawk. Obama's a Syria hawk. So's Kerry (0+ / 0-)

              I've seen nothing to suggest that our position on chemical weapons is a pretext; after all, we're not the ones who've invented a new position on them since August 21.

              As someone actually does care about chemical weapons, let me take a crack at the difference between Syria and Israel/Egypt: Syria is gassing people by the hundreds. Israel and Egypt aren't. Surely, you can see the difference between a guy who has a rifle in his closet and a guy who walks into a theater and starts killing people. Surely, you can see this even if you don't think people should have rifles in their closet.

              Finally, one can oppose chemical warfare without supporting incredibly stupid interventions that will only lead to more killing.
              It would be nice if a lot more Syria doves knew that, and didn't feel the need to write "Dead is Dead" diaries in order to argue against the intervention. I'm not the one you need to explain this point to; the people who suddenly discovered, thee weeks ago, that chemical weapons are no big deal should be the ones you make this point to.

              You raise an interesting point in your last paragraph. But let's turn that around; if US strikes would have huger implications if they happened in Syria than in East Asia, wouldn't the waging of chemical warfare itself have similarly huger implications?

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, chemical warfare is more dangerous in ME (0+ / 0-)

                Especially in Syria when there are so many terrorist groups in Syria right now (Hezbollah, Al Qaeda etc.). But if we bomb Syria, it will draw in more terrorist groups, particularly Shia militants.

                I hope Assad turns over the weapons, but who knows if he's even able to turn them all over. Some might be in rebel controlled areas, and some might be in contested areas. How are we supposed to secure those weapons?

                This could turn into a regional war between Shia and Sunni (with Kurdish Nationalists fighting for their own territory). Iraq could be totally destablized. Iran and Saudi Arabia may get involved to fight for domination of the gulf region. Terrorist groups and national armies will all be vying to control the chemical weapons. It would be a bloodbath and a tragedy, but not one we should participate in.

                The role for the US right now should be to provide a home for the refugees and deescalate the situation through diplomatic means. Throwing bombs at Syria is a very provocative act, and  could drag us into a long and costly war.

                "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

                by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  A testament to GOP dishonesty (17+ / 0-)

    which is always couched in a way that manages to hook the uninformed:

    Twelve years after we were attacked by Al Qaeda, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by Al Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with Al Qaeda.
    He could have genuinely said we have no business getting involved in someone else's civil war. But, he went for the full monty and actually accuses Obama of allying with Al Qaeda. Red meat for Obama haters. Thats what the GOP has been all about since 2009.
    •  "Obama now asks us to be allies with Al Qaeda." (9+ / 0-)

      It's quite hard to imagine a more vile thing to say, but that's exactly why wackadoodle Rand Paul is a sitting US Senator and I'm not.

    •  He only said that (6+ / 0-)

      because he doesn't have the guts to say in public "Obama is a Muslim."

      Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

      by milkbone on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:56:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd thought of that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milkbone, unclebucky, Matt Z, Old Sailor

        I suppose before 2012, one could argue that he was just polticking; trying to help Romney beat Obama. But, in Obama's second term, with no chance Obama could run again, what is the point of making such a vile comment - other than pure hate.

        •  Rand Paul is in love (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy

          with the policies laid out by that great humanitarian and exceptional writer, Ayn Rand. Her ideas are not only hurtful, they are hateful. Read "Atlas Shrugged" to get a good idea of how she thinks. She is next door to a Nazi in many of her racist and hate filled opinions. Her description of an "ideal culture" is almost exactly like that of Hitler. And Rand Paul, as well as Paul Ryan think that her ideas are utopian.

    •  It's true though (2+ / 0-)

      The rebels are mostly Al-Qaeda and other Islamists at this point. What Rand Paul leaves out is that Reagan also was allied with Al-Qaeda when they were fighting the Ruskies.

      This has been standard American policy for years, America will happily support Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group so long as they are fighting Russians, Iranians, or anyone we don't like.

      "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

      by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:12:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, they're not "mostly" al Qaeda and Islamists. (7+ / 0-)

        They are mostly Syrian nationals, the Arab Spring protesters and defectors from the Baathist military. The jihadists make up about 15-20% of the total. You might as well denounce the Spanish Loyalists as "mostly" Stalinist communists.

        And rather than supporting the al Qaeda factions, the administration has been working to steer weapons away from them.

        The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not pro

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:40:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If extremists are a significant part of revolution (2+ / 0-)

          The extremists typically are the ones that form the government. Just look at the Russian Revolution or the Iranian Revolution. Both involved many people across the ideological spectrum, yet it was the most extreme and ruthless who took over (Bolsheviks/Islamists). And those were mostly peaceful revolutions. In a civil war, it could get far uglier.

          Al Qaeda and other militant groups are far more organized and ambitious than any of the secular rebel groups.

          Furthermore, many Shias, secularists, and other minorities are supporting Assad as a lesser of two evils.

          "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

          by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:49:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But extremists don't always take over. (0+ / 0-)

            Very moderate elements of the American revolution came out on top, for instance. Remember Shays' Rebellion?

            Also, the notion of the Nusra Front as the best, most organized faction used to be true, but it isn't anymore. They can't get near Damascus anymore, were driven out of Homs, and are off beating up hapless Kurds in the north. Meanwhile, the western-backed elements of the FSA were making so much trouble for the regime that they gassed them. A lot of this turnaround is a consequence of the aid and training they've been getting from western powers and Jordan.

            The threat you're talking about is meaningful, though. That's why the administration has made the promotion of the moderate factions its main priority in Syria. That's what the link is about.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:55:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hope you're right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe from Lowell

              I'd love to see a secular democratic group take over which respects the rights of christians, shias, women, and kurds. I'm totally in favor of arming/funding the secular rebel groups.

              I just don't want to use our military in this conflict in any way. If we do, it will likely draw in more extremists to fight against the US. It will also make Iran more likely to get a nuclear weapon.

              "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

              by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:10:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I opposed intervention for 2-1/2 for that reason. (0+ / 0-)

                The chemical attack changed things for me, because I think that the return of chemical warfare to the world stage, the collapse of the norm, and the proliferation of the weapons represent an even more important issue than the Syrian Civil War.

                But if this deal can be worked out, so that the norm is reestablished, Assad disarmed, and Syria signs onto the CWC, we absolutely should not become directly militarily involved, for the very reasons you say.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:50:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  As long as Prince Bandar (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnnythebandit

              and Qatar keep supporting extremists, the chances of moderates wielding power is slim to none. Its almost a foregone conclusion that any rebel government would be dominated by the Salafi.

              From a UN report: "Of particular concern to the UN is the growing influence of radical elements in the opposition, who outrank the “fractious” moderate forces. "

      •  What you leave out (0+ / 0-)

        Is the people Assad is allied with--Iran and Hezbollah.

        Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

        by NCJan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:45:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly why we should stay out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NCJan

          This is turning into a sectarian proxy war between Sunni extremists (funded by the Saudis) and Shia extremists (funded by Iran).

          We need to stay out militarily, try to negotiate a peace settlement, and take in refugees. Doing these things will make America much more respected in the region as international humanitarians, rather than feared and hated as violent imperialists.

          "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

          by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:08:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't think this is true: (0+ / 0-)
        The rebels are mostly Al-Qaeda and other Islamists at this point.
        But yes, a large Al Qaeda presence through a growing al-Nusra:
        Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.

        The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.

        However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra's core fighters come from Iraq's post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

        http://www.policymic.com/...
    •  They hate him. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, Matt Z
  •  Seriously, GOP? This is what you have become? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bherner, joe from Lowell, Matt Z, Jeremimi

    Just run Jeb Bush and let him lose to Hillary and let us be done with these freaks.

  •  It was a pre-taped response right? (6+ / 0-)

    Probably why he was incoherent.

    I mean, more than usual.

  •  Rand Paul, 'serious' candidate for president, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrississippi, VPofKarma

    ladies and gentlemen.

    What. A. Boob.

    Halitosigone® can lead to rare, but serious, side effects such as spontaneous combustion and moderate to severe pit stains.

    by bherner on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:49:36 AM PDT

  •  At least he knows that... (12+ / 0-)

    the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't responsible for 9/11.

    I'm looking at you, Michele Bachmann.

  •  Here's a question (4+ / 0-)

    Is it possible for someone to be worse than Al Qaeda? Cannibal Nazis? Communist aliens with mind control rays?

    If so, then we may someday find ourselves actually wanting to ally with AQ against a worse evil. See: WWII, Stalin, Hitler.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

  •  He probably does think Osama bin Laden agrees (8+ / 0-)

    After all, every Republican I've ever met has given credit to George W Bush, not Barack Obama, for killing bin Laden.

  •  Obviously he must be taken seriously - he's . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VPofKarma, JVolvo

    standing in front of the flag!  Just like:

  •  Would you (6+ / 0-)

    buy a used car from this man?

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:57:55 AM PDT

  •  Assad deserves credit (0+ / 0-)

    He´s been demonized and I have no doubts that the´s a dictator & that he´s ruthless, and lots of other things. Yet he now does whats necessary to avoid a military conflict with the US, and he does seem to actually consider handing over strategic assets (which the CW are to him). That alone shows that he actually isnt in the class of thugs like Idi Amin or Pol Pot (dare I say Hitler?) as some would have appeared to insinuate.

    •  Not buying it- (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, marsanges, joe from Lowell

      Assad is a smooth liar and a suck up (to Putin).  

      •  yeah, I´m not sure either (0+ / 0-)

        its a major unknown, but if he´s actually serious about this and goes through, then he should also be credited for it.

        its not good to think that actors must be either just good or just bad.

    •  Which one of the 1400 gassed victims (3+ / 0-)

      or 100,000 other Syrian casualties, not to mention millions of refugees would you like to forward your "Assad deserves credit" message to? What the everlovin F? This comment had me almost speechless (obviously not, since I commented) but we are now classing thugs? on DKos?

    •  Assad is willing to turn over CW to avoid... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edwardssl, Gator Keyfitz

      air strikes that would destroy even more important assets, like his air force, and the air fields that bring him weapons from Russia.

      The only thing he deserves credit for is knowing how to save his own skin.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:47:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forgetting history (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marsanges, Moravan

      Just before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban capitulated and said they would turn Bin Laden over the the U.S.

      George Bush refused the offer and invaded anyway.

      Just before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein agreed to let UN inspectors in to determine if he had chemical weapons.  

      They came in, he didn't have them, George Bush still invaded.

      Sounds to me like Assad is in the same category as the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

      It's Obama who up to now at least seems to be different from Bush.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama is certainly different (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Moravan

        his entire handling of this is certainly different of Bush´s "we fire at who we want when we want" approach.

        Yet, I cant get myself behind Obama´s approach either, yet, since in effect he has added to Bush´s undercutting of international law by saying that if the UNSC didnt give him the authority to use force, he´d do it anyways.

        This entire affair of Syria is too multilayered for any black and white approach. Yes its a good thing if an illegal, but also useless American strike on Syria can be avoided - for the sake of the international community, which should at some time actually begin to rebuild the idea of rules binding nations.

        Yet on the other hand, Obama didnt seem to care much about the plight of the Syrians as such, rather motivated by the Chem Weapons issue. Is that good? France/Hollande has a much more straightforward interventionist approach for Syria´s sake. That I can rather get behind " in principle", but it would involve a rerun of Iraq. Anyone want that, "for Syria´s sake"?

        And then there´s the apparently growing islamist (that means, rabidly radical islamist) faction. Anyone want to remove Assad, however many people he has slaughtered, so that Syria falls into the hands of people who cut off unbearded heads?

        Saddam was a butcher, we all know this, and he had Halabja on his hands, we all know this too, and yet there are absolutely sane voices (e. g. womens voices) in Iraq who look back and wish for Saddam back rather than the current religio-fundamentalist resurgence, Sunni or Shia variety. Are those voices immoral because they point to the secular side of Saddam´s tyranny as a lost good?

        Of course they arent, they are sane. The actually insane thing is this desire to see the world in just black and white terms, in which there are either thugs, which are all indiscriminately thuggish, unless they´re with "our side" in which case they must be good, since we must be good. That kind of view is infantile and not worthy of thinking fellows. Instead, there´s a real world out there, and in that world Assad is who he is, a butcher too, but not necessarily the worst among the available options.

        Whether this new twist of giving up his CW stockpile is serious or whether its a ploy to put America off its militancy by letting time go by, remains to be seen. Yet if its real then it shows that Assad´s (his regime´s) nature is not quite as unpolitical thuggery as the infantilists want to paint it.

    •  As a strong "No War" leftie I say No Fucking Way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marsanges

      Assad is trying to hang on to power, period. When Russia moved forward on the CW diplomacy front, he had no choice.

      He was not the chosen successor for his brutal father, he ended up The Guy because his brother died. He's the Oops Leader-by-default, he overreacted to the Syrian protests re "Arab Spring" and he's led his country into brutal civil war.

      No props from me.

      I will agree that he's not Hitler and Pol Pot's lovechild as some here have argued.

      Just a petty dictator in way over his head.  At best, he'll abdicate with $$$ to some 3rd party country and hide in a palace til he dies or is brought up for charges (eg Liberian strongman Charles Taylor).

      As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

      by JVolvo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:01:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To be fair, it's not just Rand Paul saying it (3+ / 0-)

    The difference is Paul is saying Obama WANTS to help Al-Qaeda which is ridiculous.

    But I've seen more than few similar comments on diaries lately (minus the Obama wants to help terrorism part). People on both sides have said that any strikes may help Al-Qaeda and we'd be better off with Assad in power (or if the civil war goes on). I've seen at least a few comments claiming that Assad couldn't possibly have used poison gas, and that this very likely could have been a false flag operation by Israel/Saudi Arabia/the CIA/Al Qaeda types.

    It's interesting how this situation has brought certain elements of the right and left together (on both sides of the issue and for different reasons).

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:02:12 AM PDT

  •  You are being silly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    The reasonable interpretation of Rand Paul's comments is that parts of both factions here are our enemies.

    Parts really do not care about us, because we have out own problems.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:06:47 AM PDT

  •  I see what you did here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shahryar, Fixed Point Theorem

    The Title

    Rand Paul asks Americans to form alliance with Assad regime
    The Text
    the logical conclusion of Paul's claim is that he must support forming an alliance with Syria's Bashar al-Assad.
    Not the same.  

    Just sayin'

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:06:50 AM PDT

  •  Those drone-struck al qaeda militants (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    Must find our way of expressing our friendship curious.  Strange alliance, that one.

  •  Why, that's almost as silly as me saying Rand Paul (5+ / 0-)

    allies himself with white supremacists...oh wait, never mind.  

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:07:29 AM PDT

  •  Al Queda is allied with the Rebels (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    So like I am not understanding your argument.

  •  Rand Who?™ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, NCJan, Hohenzollern

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

  •  There are countless good reasons to wear earplugs (0+ / 0-)

    anytime Ron Paul opens his pie hole.

    Living the austerity dream.

    by jwinIL14 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:16:24 AM PDT

  •  I'm so confused: :-( (3+ / 0-)

      Last week Rand was in bed with Assad, because he was "protecting Christians".   Now this week he has called for Assad to be Killed is the CW's are linked to him.   And then the cherry on the top - that President Obama is pro-Al Queda.

        Did Rand simply forget that Assad failed to protect said Christians and now are being "forced to convert religion" by some of the foreign rebels.  

        This may be a classic case of Rand taking all sides in a discussion and then long after the matter is settled, drag out whatever talking point that matches the "winner"....that requires neither intellect or reasoning.  

  •  Rand Paul speech sounded like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCJan

    high school 'Speech 101'.

    •  That's how he always talks (0+ / 0-)

      Or maybe 2:00 A.M. drunken fraternity speech 101.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a small point, (6+ / 0-)

    but one worth making: 3,000 Americans were not killed in the September 11th attacks. In the WTC alone, more than 50 nationalities were represented.

    There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from Midtown and how late is it open? -- Woody Allen

    by Mnemosyne on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:21:54 AM PDT

  •  Another GOP/Libertarian/Baggher... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edwardssl

    Inserts foot in mouth so deeply he can walk on it.

    Meh. Libertarians. Meh. Bagghers. Meh. GOPers.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:26:47 AM PDT

  •  Rand Paul (OWOS) political party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCJan

     (Opposite of Whatever Obama Says) OWOS

  •  Peace in our time? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heftysmurf, marsanges, Rich in PA

    The anti-Obama policy folks, both right and left, have won this round.  

    But while war should be avoided, the question is whether the costs here are worth it?  

    Here is the more immediate and obvious price to be paid by all this:

    - the rehabilitation of Bashar al-Assad.  Thanks to Russia's deft diplomacy (they don't call them a Nation of Chess Players for nothing) he is now again a player, an actor in the supposed solution

    - since none of this is linked to an agreement for a cease fire or political solution, the war will go on - death, refugees, deepening radicalization of both sides, deepening internationalization of the conflict; at best it will go on without chemical weapons (which remains a  very optimistic outcome given the difficulty of getting rid of CW stockpiles, especially in the midst of a civil war)

    - Putin in the driver's seat; yes, the man who runs a massive kleptocracy kept afloat by energy revenues gets to pose as guarantor of the world order; the man whose government basically has issued a hunting license on homosexuals and ethnic migrants and waged wars in the Caucasus that included systematic atrocities that make Abu Ghraib look like Sunday school; guess we better hope W was right when he looked in his eyes and saw a decent partner

    - as for the supposed strengthening of the international prohibition against use of CW, bear in mind that the lesson here is not that you should not use them - it is that, for God's sakes, don't use them so promiscuosly that it gets on Western TV and websites to the extent it cannot be ignored; CW had been used previously in Syria (which was why the UN inspectors had been there in August) and nothing had come of it due to its small scale

    - also bear in mind that CW disarmament, assuming it can be accomplished here, can be reversed quickly and relatively easily; it is unlikely that Assad, having avoided sanction for actual use of CW, would face airstrikes just for re-arming if he decides later he needs to

    Speaking of the Syrian War - our lack of involvement doesn't mean no war.  This is shaping up to be the Middle East equivalent of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648).  The face-off includes regional heavyweights on all sides, many of which have proxies with an ability to inflict terrorism around the globe.  The various sides, thanks to oil revenues, will not lack for funding (in essence, US consumers will, along with others around the world, be funding these wars as well, due to the economic impacts).  In other words, this will go on and on and on, simply because the various sides are well-matched and perceive the stakes as too high.

    The US (and Europe) have apparently decided to sit things out and hope for the best.  I doubt anything we say as to how the wars are conducted will be taken seriously from this point - countries willing to stomach rows of children killed by nerve gas will stomach quite a lot.

    Cross your fingers and hope for the best, that's basically US foreign policy now on wars, genocides, etc.  So long as it doesn't cross those big oceans, it is not something we consider of national consequence.

    Maybe this is for the best.  It is clear from the debate on Obama's Policy that America itself has changed.  Our mindset is more similar to earlier times in our history, when we just wanted to be left alone.

    Will Fortress America, a la Rand Paul, work in an increasingly interconnected globalizing world?  

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:37:10 AM PDT

    •  So will (0+ / 0-)
      countries willing to stomach rows of children killed by nerve gas will stomach quite a lot.
      countries willing to stomach torture.

      The U.S. has been adrift from the moral high ground for a number of years now.
      All that you say could possibly be true...or not. I doubt that anyone advocating the "Obama policy" can honestly assure less nefarious results that could be brought on by militant intervention by the U.S.

      But while war should be avoided, the question is whether the costs here are worth it?  
      I'm wondering why "war should be avoided" if the cost is too much? Do you see that as the policy of both the left and right as "they have won this round"?

      one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK

      by Klick2con10ue on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the lines have been redrawn and bar lifted (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Moravan, Gator Keyfitz

        In essence, the Americans and Europeans have implicitly endorsed the whispered notion that it is better realpolitik to "let them fight it out."  Let the Arabs and Persians exhaust each other.  Maybe some third parties get dragged in, e.g. Kurds, Turks, etc., but that is an acceptable cost.  No number of dead from that part of the world, no matter how they die, is worth one American or European life.

        This is basically the policy followed during the Iraq-Iran War, where CW was used on a large scale.

        I am not sure I buy the argument that because George W. Bush's Administration authorized torture, the USA has no moral standing.  We have had intense domestic debate, including in Congress, over these policies and Obama was elected partly to change them.  You can spend all your time bashing the USA for any number of sins, real or alleged, but all you end up doing is restricting our influence, even when we want to do good.

        Example:  the US opposes human rights violations in country X

        DKOS: don't listen to the US!  They committed war crimes!

        How does that improve the situation in country X?  I bet you can find sins on the hands of every country in the world, a ready excuse for inaction.  You get to pose as morally pure, but the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)
          No number of dead from that part of the world, no matter how they die, is worth one American or European life.
          with your contention. However, I beg your pardon....
          You can spend all your time bashing the USA for any number of sins, real or alleged, but all you end up doing is restricting our influence, even when we want to do good.
          I used the word "adrift" to indicate that there was a time that the U.S. could be confident in its boast. Your example is ludicrous. In no way have I or DKOs, for that matter, been instrumental in deprecating the U.S. in the worlds eye. Any loss of moral standing is the direct result of the governments own acts.
           

          one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK

          by Klick2con10ue on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:25:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We must read two different blogs then (0+ / 0-)

            The USA is bashed constantly here in unfair or illogical ways.  You cannot deny the wrongs America has committed.  But people use them as if they were handing down moral thunderbolts that should end all discussion.  Obama gets more hate here than Assad.

            Back in 2006 this was much less common.  Over the last few years the fringe left has gotten into the driver's seat.  It started in 2008 when Hillary Clinton and her supporters were demonized on DKOS - ironically, in favor of Obama, who has now of course become the new demon.

            Now, you cannot just be a loyal Democrat who disagrees.  You stray and you become a Fascist Warmonger, a puppet of the Inverted Totalitarian state.  Diaries using language like this get hundreds of instant recommendations from some magic circle while diaries that reflect even the views of Democratic leaders like Pelosi disappear into the digital abyss.

            "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

            by FDRDemocrat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:44:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, (0+ / 0-)
              Now, you cannot just be a loyal Democrat who disagrees.  You stray and you become a Fascist Warmonger, a puppet of the Inverted Totalitarian state.  Diaries using language like this get hundreds of instant recommendations from some magic circle while diaries that reflect even the views of Democratic leaders like Pelosi disappear into the digital abyss.
              you know everyone has gotten their feelings hurt if they stay around here long enough. The internet does not allow for the transparency that is essential  to polite society to moderate outrageous behavior.  It's a failure of the medium.
              The USA is bashed constantly here in unfair or illogical ways.  You cannot deny the wrongs America has committed.  But people use them as if they were handing down moral thunderbolts that should end all discussion.  Obama gets more hate here than Assad.
              You have to look at the disparateness of the multitudes posting here with regard to age, experience, and intellect. That said, there have been an excruciating number of disappointments from those that are supposedly acting on our behalf. Enough, I believe, to drive even the most congenial of us to the fringes.

              one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK

              by Klick2con10ue on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:33:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  We did bad things so we can't do anything now. (0+ / 0-)

        We're in the time out room, then?  

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:23:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what else could be done? (0+ / 0-)

      if this does shape up as you say as the regions thirty years war then what else can be done than to sit it out?

      a) The thirty years war left a continent in ruins. So would this if it came as you suspect. Such a war cant be "won". It can only be survived, and the survivors children will have to rebuild.

      b) After the actual 30yrs war, the continent was able to rebuild in no small extent due to the increasing worldwide extraction economy. There is no equivalent of that on hand for the Middle east. To the contrary, Climate Change looms on the horizon, and together with oil depletion will turn the entire region destitute. In this war, they can only spend the power they have - when its spent, there´ll be nothing left to rebuild on.

      There was actually an article recently explaining that Syria is in unusual and deep prolonged drought since 2008, and that this drought has destroyed the small scale agricultural base of the country, and that this has turned marginal rural people loose and into the cities by their millions, where there is nothing to share either, and that this fact more than anything else contributed to Assad´s losing control of the situation with traditional means.

      If that article is anywhere near right, then what can be the solution to this civil war? Can there be any? Even if one half of the population massacred the other, if there isnt even a sustenance basis left for the remaining half, then what?

      •  US intervention is inevitable... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marsanges

        I know I am in the minority on this, but I don't think the US can or will remain on the sidelines.  Perhaps until the next President, but by then the war will have become truly regional.  We have too many interests and allies involved (Turkey, Israel, Jordan, etc.).

        So what then? The Thirty Years War ended with diplomacy - the Treaty of Westphalia, which more or less reflected a stalemate of exhaustion.  When one side or another perceived itself as winning - the Hapburgs and their allies early on, the Swedes at another point, the French later - then peace efforts waned.

        However - and this is key - the powers that brought an end and a compromise were those that had thrown their weight on the scales.  They had bargaining power in the most naked sense - armies and money.  Implicit in that bargaining power was the ability to reply to force with force again, if the other side wanted to renew the struggle.  The ultimate diplomatic outcome was a reflection of this power stalemate.

        The US can play a role in some sort of grand bargain to end the conflict, at a point where the parties are ready for it.  But our leverage to do so, whether we actually involve ourselves militarily or not, will be a reflection of the parties perceptions of our ability to do so.  In other words, the US and the Belgians can both mouth the same pieties for peace - but the US will be listened to because we have aircraft carriers, cruise missiles and the ability to use them.

        I know this sounds terribly old-fashioned.  But this, sadly, is still how humans conduct their affairs.  They size up their opponents, determine whether they can get away with X or Y, and then reach a compromise based on mutually agreed upon threshholds of pain.

        I wish it wasn't this way.  Maybe someday it will be different.  But today, now, particularly with people like Assad, Hezbollah, Jordan, Iran, the Turks - all of whom consider this struggle essential to their national interests if not physical survival - these old power calculations are the ones that will matter.

        The Pope can issue homilies.  You can raise Gandhi from the grave to spin wool again.  But this will only end through cold calculations of power.  This remains as true now as in 1648.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:30:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Paul again with the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    provocative irrationality.

    He's not a stupid man, but his judgement is wildly distorted, he's mean-spirited as hell, and can't be trusted under any circumstances. In short, please shall we make certain he never gets his hands anywhere near the levers of serious power? Please.

  •  Starting to regret your bedfellows? (0+ / 0-)

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:41:49 AM PDT

  •  I see this same argument every day on Daily Kos. (6+ / 0-)

    It really is a vile thing to say. Maybe this will be an "Oh my God, what have I become?" moment for some members of this community.

    Slandering a large, diverse group of Muslims as "al Qaeda" just because it's momentarily convenient for a policy you want is Not OK.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:42:12 AM PDT

  •  Strange Bedfellows (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice

    Evidently the rebels are being taken over by Islamist extremists and Assad is a gas hurling genocidal tyrant.  I'm OK with Rand joining either side, but the rest of us, we're going to sit this one out.  Destroy the gas and let them work it out.  Whoever wins is going to hate us anyway.

    William Hamilton practices Law and is a writer and community activist in the Charleston, SC area. He can reached through www.wjhamilton.com

    by wjhamilton29464 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:45:10 AM PDT

  •  I want to see Rand debate McCain on this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, JML9999, Matt Z

    they both want to support some side in all this and both are wrong but them meeting would be hilarious

  •  Wow, such an ill-fitting suit. (Much like his (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, Matt Z

    opinions).

    Ayn sucks. Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer.

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

  •  Attacking Syria would have been an irrational (0+ / 0-)

    move.   Most of the rebels there are jihadists and many allied with terrorists like alqaeda.   Assad may be a bad dictator, but the rebels are worse.    

    I cannot stand Rand Paul in many ways, but he was right to oppose the war.    After being wrong on everything, he finally did something right and opposed the war.

     

  •  I think you may have linked the wrong article... (0+ / 0-)

    The article you linked doesn't make any mention of "forming an alliance with Assad". Much to the contrary, Paul is advising that we stop trying to play Team America World Police and keep out of it.

    Next time you fabricate a clearly false headline, try to be a little less obvious about it...

    (Unless this whole thing is what you kids call "snark". In my old age, I'm getting increasingly worse at detecting sarcasm online...)

  •  Rand Paul wants to pacify the Middle East (0+ / 0-)

    so Israeli Jews will have a new place to go when the Evangelicals take over the so-called Holy Land.

    Sodomy Insane Cuccinelli

    by mojave mike on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:39:50 PM PDT

  •  Anybody else see Paul talk to Wolf Blitzer after (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smileycreek

    the Speech? I was absolutely awe struck with the stupidity. He basically said anything short of removing Assad was a bad idea. But at the same time made it sound like helping the opposition would hand Syria over to Al Qaeda. What would removing Assad do, ya moron?

    •  Not to mention that Rand Paul (0+ / 0-)

      had formulated his response before even listening to the speech, which was not handed out in advance.

      Why bother to get the facts or make a logical argument when you can just rile people up with 'Obama Bad'?

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Oh, I used to be disgusted
      Now I try to be amused
      ~~ Elvis Costello

      by smileycreek on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:48:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  worst idiot in senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    What more can it take to convince any American that Rand Paul is a half baked clamshell?? He does not belong in congress, at any level and ought to be in a padded cell. He wants us to be allies with the Assad regime. Does this clamshell even KNOW Assad gassed his own people??

    Dear god, it is to be hoped that that the people of KY will realize what a hopeless loony goon this guy is and fire him.

    Or better still elect him to run for the rethug presidential nomination in 2016. By then he will have made more gaffes than Bachmann on a good day!

  •  He looks like (0+ / 0-)

    a 70s porn star with the 'do and 'stache

    It puts the lotion on its skin

    by Nada Lemming on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:01:11 PM PDT

  •  I read plenty of that here on Daily Kos. (0+ / 0-)

    Is it only bad if Republicans say it?

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:20:32 PM PDT

  •  Article (0+ / 0-)

    He gets dumber with each statement he makes! "You" join Assad, Paul! I bet he''s waiting for you!

  •  The only thing keeping zombie OBL rising from the (0+ / 0-)

    sea bed is zombie Reagan.

  •  Rand Paul is one (0+ / 0-)

    reason why voting libertarian is a wasted vote. He is hardly an expert on foreign affairs. Progressives who support his isolationist policies ought to rethink their support of this idiot. The United States cannot adopt an isolationist policy toward the rest of the world. It makes us vulnerable to manipulation by dictators and others who want to do us harm. Turning our backs on the rest of the world will not make the bad people go away. This is not a schoolyard fight. It is serious and deserves a serious approach, not the type of fear mongering led by Rand Paul. Diplomacy paired with military might is far wiser than doing nothing.

  •  Quit while you're ahead Paul (0+ / 0-)

    He came out against the war...no he should go back in his hole until the next opportunity for him to spout off.  I hope no one is fooled by this guy...he is still your average right wing nut.  

  •  Yellow Journalism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barrashee

    There is absolutely nothing in what was reported to support the title. Sen. Paul is pointing out a fact - that the U.S. is intervening in the civil war on the same side as al-Qaeda. He is not calling for Americans to ally with Assad. He is calling for us to stay out of the civil war.

    It is one thing to support a political party like this rag does (albeit it is a party of war, imperialism and corporatism), but another just to fabricate stuff to support the establishment party.

    I vehemently disagree with Sen. Paul on many things, but he is on target in being the leading spokesman against imperialist war after imperialist war.

  •  Umm... I kinda wish I hadn't read this article... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barrashee

    I clicked this article because the title surprised me; it claimed that Rand Paul was supporting partisan action in favor of Assad in this war, which seemed totally out of character for him.

    Turns out, via Kos' own link, that Rand doesn't mention siding with Assad even once. In fact, he wants to stay out of Syria, which fits the reality of his personality far better than what turned out to be Kos' rather skewed titular opinion of him.

    In fact, it turns out that in this particular instance I agree with the heart of Rand Paul's opinion that we should stay out of this war. The only healthy action we could take in this situation would be to start a Berlin Airlift-style massive military campaign to send supplies to the refugees fleeing Syria; and that is not a plan which involves siding with anyone.

    Yet even though this third, refugee-aiding option is really the only progressive one, and therefore should be supported by all true progressives, Kos decided to take it upon itself to call out Rand Paul for being too... what, rhetorical? Political? I can't even tell what the point of this article was; all I know for sure was that it expressed strong disapproval of a politician who doesn't want us in Syria.

    So I guess way to go, Kos, for making progressivism look petty by using over-the-top titular rhetoric and by refusing to actually address someone's words case-by-case and point-by-point in a logical and coherent manner.

    (Oh, actually, it just occurred to me that the title might be a play where Kos points out how ridiculous it is to pretend that Obama's trying forge an alliance with Al-Qaeda, by pretending itself that Rand Paul wants us to forge an alliance with Assad. But actually, that doesn't make me feel better; if it's true, it just means that Kos resorted to Rand's own stupid rhetorical tactic, thereby contributing to the entrenchment of that stupid way of muddying up answers that should be obvious. So it's a lose-lose, no matter what Kos intended.)

    (Then again, it also just occurred to me that perhaps the implication is that the "help no one" attitude will really help Assad. It would then follow that anyone who wants to stay out of Syria would be by definition one who wants us to help Assad. But if that's really what Kos meant, they could have just said so in the article, instead of parroting a flawed rhetorical tactic and lending it their credibility.)

  •  false choices (0+ / 0-)

    make for false articles.  Non intervention means letting other countries sort out their difficulties on their own, just as the US must do.  Not attacking Assad does not equal supporting Assad.  Attacking Assad does not mean supporting the rebels, although it would help them  And   haven't we learnt that the rebels were the source of the gas attack, which was staged to draw the US into action?  The Action is in the Reaction, the US's reaction to the use of gas.  We should be catching on by now, after the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, the long history of staging or provoking events to raise the will for war.  We really need to re-visit the '60s slogan "what if THEY gave a war and no one came?"

  •  Rand Paul (0+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul continues to be a blithering IDIOT!

  •  Rand Paul (0+ / 0-)

    Wow, you guys are as vicious and vindictive as any Republican Tea Party asshat. Could this be why I am an independent?
    Frankly, there are just as many stupid posturing buffoons in the Democratic party. The problem for me is that anyone wanting to be a politician is automatically disqualified on the grounds that they want to be a politician. The only good politician is a dead one.

    Having said that, I read Rand Paul's email rantings and tend to approximately agree with him on Syria. The sight of Obama whining about "losing credibility" was, frankly, embarrassing.

    @pollbuster; this will come as a shock to you, but most gun owners are not homicidal psychopathic rednecks, and despite what you may believe, a whole bunch of them have nothing to do with the NRA either. Almost nobody in my household has been maimed or killed by my guns with the exception of numerous targets and clay pigeons. Based on your comments however, I highly recommend that you forgo buying any weapons since you seem a little highly strung.

    Perhaps if we can dispense with the trollery (with a "T"), we could actually have some kind of dialog because it is the moderates, like me, that decide which side ultimately gets in, not the extremes of left or right (which are in actuality, extremely vocal minorities). The vast majority of Americans are moderates of one shade or another (see bell-shaped curve) and are forced to vote for "the best of the worst" time after time, regardless of which side they're on. I voted for the Green party rather than vote for Obama or Romney last time around. Two guys who haven't ever worked a real job in their entire lifetimes want to represent me? I think not.

    I am left aghast at the poisonous vitriol exuded by the left and the right. You and your right wing extremist doppelgangers in the Tea Party are the reason Congress has ceased to function. There is no longer any middle ground or compromise.

    I hold both sides in equal contempt.

    So I read both sides' spin and propaganda.
    Know your enemy.
    I also read the news on Haaretz and Al Jazeera for the same reason. Somewhere buried under the bullshit are the gems of truth I seek.  I find it somewhat ironic that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide much of the insightful piercing of the veil that most of the "News" networks lack.
    Oh, and can anyone tell me exactly when Wolf Blitzer turned into  a gaping asshole? Or was he always one and I missed it?

    Cheers,
    (Brit turned American, gun owning  atheist moderate independent financially conservative, socially paraliberal)

     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site