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?
