28 votes

Senate (Including Rand Paul) Votes Unanimously Towards War With Iran

Today the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of a Lindsey Graham resolution, S.Res.65, which "[s]trongly support(s) the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urg[es] the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation."

The legislation, as expected from a Lindsey Graham product, is full of misstatements, historical revisionism, and war-drum-beating hyperbole. Particularly revolting is the distortion and lies about Iran's not being in compliance with IAEA nuclear safeguards requirements and the irony of Graham's using Iran's refusal to implement UN resolutions as evidence of its rogue status. Also deceptive is the sleight of hand claiming that Iran pursuing a "nuclear weapons capability" is the real violation, rather than an Iranian failure to uphold its agreed upon obligation to not actually divert fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. It is a unilateral lowering of the bar, which is in fact itself a US violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Most alarming, however, is that this resolution contains among the clearest legislative language to date promising that should Israel decide to attack Iran, the US would back Israel militarily. It is breathtakingly foolhardy for the US Senate to give such carte blanche permission to any foreign country to attack another nation as it sees fit with the promise of the backing of the United States military. The move will likely embolden Israel to continue recent escalation of military action in the region and will likely propel Israel closer to an attack on Iran. In economic theory this is known as "moral hazard."

The resolved clauses of the resolution must be seen to be believed, so I reproduce them here (see especially the original point (8), which was apparently even too over-the-top for the Senators -- the substitute language is just as bad but it adds a layer of vagueness as a fig leaf):

Full breakdown from Daniel McAdams of Ron Paul Institute here.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

"The liberty movement"???

This has NOTHING to do with liberty, no matter how much you try to re-define it.




Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

What does this mean? It is some language found in the resolution.

This is what Daniel McAdams, chief of RP Inst. had to say on it:



Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

This last part is Congressional weasel language, as the point was not to declare war but rather to define the circumstances under which war would be authorized. Point (8) lays down those circumstances, which is a trap for any Senator who voted for this bill. Imagine if the criteria in point (8) are satisfied by an Israeli attack on Iran claiming self-defense. Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill.

This is an important vote.

*** I 'get' that for obvious reasons, Daniel didn't particularly single out Rand, but clearly, regardless, as Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul's long time foreign policy advisor, Daniel has done excellent work, and is still doing excellent work as the head of RP Inst. for Peace and Prosperity: his commentary is spot on.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

The key word is "legitimate

The key word is "legitimate self defense".

8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

Rand would have to beleive it's "legitament" to vote for military force.


Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

This means that the resolution in no ways authorizes military force. The whole resolution is merely stating that we would stand by Israel in the event she needed to defend herself. They would still need to vote on its legitimacy to use military force.

Don't forget...in "their" world, Israel is our ally. What would a lone no vote on this resolution have gotten him?

Every single time...y'all are

Every single time...y'all are so quick to dispense him. Why not wait to see what his answer is? There is always a logical explanation and Rand ALWAYS answers back.

Or you can all be giant babies and pout about it...vote 3rd party...and indirectly elect Hitlary in 2016! Yay Hitlary!

Here we go

The "if you don't get in line and support the Randwagon lock-step, you're for Hilary!" line!

Rand has given a very poor explanation of his Iran sanctions support, touting the neocon line of Iran being a "threat"

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I have not heard his

I have not heard his statement.

Just curious....

So, who will you guys support for the next prez?

I'm not an Obama supporter, but if McCain or Romney were in there, I have very little doubt that we would be deep in war at this moment. I'm not certain what his true stance is, but he has the last call.

Adam Kokesh, except he won't be eligible for POTUS until.

10 days after inauguration day.

Everyone else talks liberty. Adam lives it.

title goading

And if he voted against it he would have gained.nothing. this is chess not a coin flip. This exact same BS antirand people were exuding before right before Rand's filibuster. The fact is he doesn't make non beneficial moves.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Thank you for pointing that

Thank you for pointing that out. It is disappointing that he voted yes but all a no vote would have earned him is street cred with us. The backlash from the establishment would follow him through the primary. Now I still say we should call his office and let him know that the vote was disappointing but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Exactly my thoughts

Also need to keep some perspective. It's not like he's on some sort of war path. Few months ago..

The US Senate voted 90-1 early Saturday on a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Voting against the resolution was Sen. Rand Paul, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war. http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

Here we go again goyim....

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, falls on the Hebrew calendar date of 10 Tishrei. Here are the coinciding secular dates for the year:

2013: September 13-14

"Give a man a gun, and he could rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he could rob the world."


last time he was able to remove some of the worst parts from the bill in exchange for his lone vote. pretty impressive. it's called politics and rand is good at it.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Rand is interviewed often on Cincinnati's 55KRC

I tweeted this link to Brian Thomas, who interviews Rand pretty regularly, asking for answers.

This should be on the front page.

But of course, the Rand worshipers on this site will never allow that. They would rather blindly believe that Rand is "infiltrating the establishment" with these votes.

Nothing to see here, move on.

If it isn't Rand then who.

If it isn't Rand then who. Give me an alternative that could possibly win the nomination in one of the two major parties in 2016?


I hope he just runs for relection for the senate in 2016, considering he's limited by law to either run for the senate or the presidency. Running for president and losing is terrible because he'd lose his senate seat as well.

Also this is short term thinking. Personally, I think the fight is against the whole of the establishment and that means getting friendly with the right and compromising on some of your principles to, in the end, lose should not be the plan.

they must want hellary


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

As a Rand supporter I am very

As a Rand supporter I am very dissapointed with his vote but I'll wait and see what he says about it. Also, as a Senator he is still the best on foreign policy at this time. Can't argue that.

Read my comment above.

Read my comment above.

Shame on all America. I hope

Shame on all America. I hope this telling moment serves to further unite the people in liberty. We can not keep letting the media and the government keep us divided by fabricated groups. Freedom is popular and liberty must be our legacy and future.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

This makes me feel sad

What a depressing way to start the morning.

I don't want war with Iran.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

There's still plenty of

There's still plenty of apologists for that guy unfortunately

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

ron paul comes to mind


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Every single Senator needs to

Every single Senator needs to be removed from office. No exceptions now.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Patiently waiting...

for the Randwagon to remind us that he's just "playing a game" and the vote didn't really matter since his lone "no" vote wouldn't make a difference.

But as McAdams point out, its an important vote. And one man standing up against the *crime* of war can make a difference, and would greatly rally the true liberty movement towards Rand.

Instead he chooses to walk the line, and coddle to neocons.

The result is that he is losing the most passionate potential supporters he would have had.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

they'll come up with some wormish defense eventually

but it will take some creativity for this one.

there's only one RP.
all the rest are snakes - every damned one of them.

Okay then please tell me who

Okay then please tell me who is more pro-liberty in the Senate than Rand? It doesn't take creativity, it's a fact: Rand is the only pro-liberty Senator we have. There are a few allies (Cruz, Lee, Sanders) but they are only good on a few issues.

if a restaurant served nothing but variations of sh$t, . . .

many here would apparently characterize the least smelly as the "best in the house".

if we value our precious "liberty" over the massacre of yet-another million foreigners, then that's a brand of "liberty" that i want no part of.