8 votes

Imporant! Why Rand's Israel Comment Means Nothing!

Rand Paul's comment about construing an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. means nothing!

I just realized this. Read it through please. Rand Paul just got done lambasting Senator Kerry about whether a president has the power to unilaterally take military action (go to war) without congressional declaration. Kerry responded by saying what we all know to be true which is past (and present) presidents have certainly done so arguing for whatever reason congressional approval is not expedient enough for the situation.

Rand Paul takes the absolutist position that you don't bend the Constitution when it's convenient. Somehow I believe that coming from him he would stay true to that as president more than a neocon or globalist Democrat.

With that in consideration think of his Israel comment. What would Rand Paul do as president if Israel was attacked? That's the important thing. His position he would have us to believe is absolutely NOTHING without congressional approval. Now, if congress gave that to him then so be it. But obviously that wouldn't happen easily, hence the reason congressional authority is required.

So his Israel comment is PURE POLITICAL theater, and brilliant! His comments are impotent and he knows it. It's no different than Bill Clinton posing for a photo-op in North Korea to get those hostages released awhile ago. It means little to nothing to us in the end!

In other words it could be "construed" as an attack, whatever that means, but it's not an ACTUAL attack on the U.S., and under his libertarian leaning presidency that makes all the difference.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't agree

Rand is pointing out that pre-emptive wars begun by Bush and carried on by Obama are not constitutional. Rand is saying that a DEFENSIVE militart is constitutional, and that it would include helping friends who asked for help, like Israel.

Not quite

No, Rand isn't talking about our invasion of Iraq. Bush correctly got congressional authorization for that (not saying I agree with that war). Also, we were undeniably attacked on 9/11/2001 and Congress gave Bush authority to go after those responsible, which took us into Afghanistan. So while I'm certainly no Bush fan, he followed the law on war correctly as far as I can see.

What Rand Paul was talking about was our military involvement in Libya which Obama authorized without congressional approval. That's unconstitutional.

Congress can declare war. That's constitutional. Also, a president has emergency power to "make" war if we are attacked directly without congressional approval.

I don't see

your point. Nothing at that link is news to me.