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.

You're missing the point

Support Rand in what he does right, but don't just rationalize his faults. Giving Rand a free pass or a blank check is counterproductive to our goals as a movement. We need to be skeptical and objective when it comes to politicians, and that includes Rand.

I agree and as I said in an

I agree and as I said in an earlier post I am disappointed with his vote but let's face it we tend to eat our people when they aren't our version of perfect.

wolfe's picture

You may have missed this...

But apparently, Rand is only good on a few issues as well.

His decisions are driven by politics, not principles.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I would argue that he has

I would argue that he has principles but he is playing politics. Look, we need to win national elections. Sure Rand could have voted no, he could have added amendments (like he did before last year) or he could have even filibuster but it would all amount to nothing more than giving his competition ammo to paint him as a crazy, anti-American kook. You should know this, we've been through it with Ron before.

wolfe's picture

What?

"I would argue that he has principles but he is playing politics."

You cannot do both. You cannot have "secret" principles, that you never follow because they aren't politically expedient.

Ron Paul may have been marginalized, but most real people respected him for being principled, even the ones who disagreed with him/us.

What good does it do to win anything if the principles are never applied?

One lone vote, would have gone a long way to repairing his relationship with his father's base. But he has repeatedly done his best to crap on us.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Sure you can. It's called

Sure you can. It's called picking your battles. The ones who respected Ron sure as hell didn't vote for him, they didn't campaign for him and they didn't donate hard earned money to his campaign. You say his one vote would have repaired relations with the base but at what cost, the Republican primary? Face it, if Rand were to vote and do everything exactly like Ron we might gain some traction but we won't win. The media will be against him, the Republicans will be against him, the Democrats will be against him, a certain segment of the independents will be aginst him. Ron had us his base but that's it.

i'd say that avoiding a FN WORLD WAR is a worthy "battle"

This creature apparently has NO concern for the thousands of innocents who could be massacred by US "heroes" (taking their GD orders).
Makes me wanna throw up.
Ah, but we can trust him - he's a liar.

No, it is called being a

No, it is called being a liar.

Too many politicians are liars. The only reason we are all here on the site is because Ron Paul had the courage to speak truth even though it was treason in the empire of lies.

Yeah, I read the news

Yeah, I read the news yesterday, I believe the vote was 99-0. I just don't understand why rand would do it!? Forget about everybody else, because we know why they did it, but why did rand? I can't support him and this is the reason why! Can someone talk to him please! Like now...

juan maldonado

Talk to Rand?????

Somebody?????

Everybody, including you and me, should be talking to ALL politicians in their state.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul