National Review: [Rand] Paul: Congress Won’t Be Sidelined on Libya

[sailingaway]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262871/paul-congress-wont-be-sidelined-libya-robert-costa

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a leading GOP freshman and founder of the Tea Party Caucus, tells National Review Online that he will vocally oppose President Obama’s handling of the Libyan conflict once Congress returns next week.

More at link

[MRoCkEd]

Yeah, Rand!

[Agorism]

...Why does Rand have to wait until ground troops to demand a declaration of war?

He should do that immediately.

[sailingaway]

...Why does Rand have to wait until ground troops to demand a declaration of war?

He should do that immediately.

He didn't say that, he said others would agree with him at that point.

[Agorism]

“Some people can debate and caterwaul and say that a no-fly zone is not war, but there will not be many people, in and around the country, who believe that putting U.S. troops on the ground is not war,” Paul says. “I can tell you, absolutely, that I will demand a declaration of war on the Senate floor before any troops set foot in Libya.”

...Why does Rand have to wait until ground troops to demand a declaration of war?

[low preference guy]

...Why does Rand have to wait until ground troops to demand a declaration of war?

Didn't he say he is going to do it before?


“I can tell you, absolutely, that I will demand a declaration of war on the Senate floor before any troops set foot in Libya.”

[Thomas]

yes! shared on FB

[Agorism]

No fly zone would be a good reason to declare war or not declare war.

[sailingaway]

No fly zone would be a good reason to declare war or not declare war.

He made that clear that HE thought so, but that OTHERS would 'caterwaul'. We can't declare before now, because we already are in. Some will say 'too late'. He is saying there still needs to be a declaration. Why do you assume he won't say exactly what you want? He said BEFORE the UN voted for a no fly zone that they needed to bring it to congress to debate. It was in his budget press event.

[Agorism]

"He is saying there still needs to be a declaration. "


I thought he was saying there needed to be a declaration if Obama decides to put boots on the ground.

[sailingaway]

He said before Obama went in that it needed to go to the Congress. Obama went in anyhow and is already in, so it can't be before he does what he's done. Now he is saying that is wrong, and intends to quote Obama's own words (in my signature) back at him, and notes others want boots on the ground and says he will absolutely demand a declaration of war be voted on before then, because that is a new trigger point.

[Agorism]

I think he should call a vote on a declaration of war now that Obama has a no fly zone. We went to war with Japan, and then after the fact had a vote in congress.

Congress not declaring war would be like a vote of no confidence in the no fly zone.

[sailingaway]

I think he should call a vote on a declaration of war now that Obama has a no fly zone. We went to war with Japan, and then after the fact had a vote in congress.

Congress not declaring war would be like a vote of no confidence in the no fly zone.

Unfortunately, I think they will approve it because it is already done and a bunch of the SEnate wanted it and voted in committee for it etc. I'd rather he has it around his neck as an unapproved action. I think more will hesitate to go in on the ground and MAY vote against that, in which case Obama has an unapproved action we can't stop anyhow, because it has been done, and a refusal to declare war. I am sure Rand is going to point out that Obama SHOULD HAVE gotten a declaration of war.