Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

[Donc]

By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3 at 7:07 pm

Good.All we have to do is take a look at Libya and see what has happened when we intervened in that country.No boots on the ground their huh?:2wave:

<Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate. >

<When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks. >

Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

 

[Navy Pride]

I just don't think the Dems have the votes to pull it off.

 

[Anagram]

I think there are probably the votes to break the filibuster in the senate. I'm not sure the votes to pass the House are there.

 

[Montecresto]

By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3 at 7:07 pm

Good.All we have to do is take a look at Libya and see what has happened when we intervened in that country.No boots on the ground their huh?:2wave:

<Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate. >

<When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks. >

Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

It's just amazing to me that it requires such hard work to shut down something as illegal and foolish as this is. You would think it would be a no brainer.

 

[phattonez]

Good for Rand. I don't agree with him on all things, but I'm glad he's sticking up for peace and non-intervention. This whole thing is a sham to coverup the NSA scandal, and innocent people will die because of corrupt politicians. Enough war, enough bombing, it only ever makes things worse.

 

[Donc]

Good for Rand. I don't agree with him on all things, but I'm glad he's sticking up for peace and non-intervention. This whole thing is a sham to coverup the NSA scandal, and innocent people will die because of corrupt politicians. Enough war, enough bombing, it only ever makes things worse.

I think that i read somewhere that this so-called limited action,will start out at one bill $.

 

[DaveFagan]

By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3 at 7:07 pm

Good.All we have to do is take a look at Libya and see what has happened when we intervened in that country.No boots on the ground their huh?:2wave:

<Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate. >

<When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks. >

Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

How could filibuster be a consideration in a matter of life and death. This is about determining who used chemical weapons. The participants on this board know more about the actual chemical weapon use than Congress will know after the relevant info is obfuscated and massaged for their consumption. Shameful! This should be an issue of logical discussion and human ideals.

 

[Montecresto]

I think that i read somewhere that this so-called limited action,will start out at one bill $.

Yeah, Iraq was going to be 80 bill.

 

[Donc]

Yeah, Iraq was going to be 80 bill.

"80 bill" and their oil would reimburse us that.:roll:

 

[Montecresto]

"80 bill" and their oil would reimburse us that.:roll:

You talkin blood for oil now?

 

[Donc]

You talkin blood for oil now?

NAH!better not derail my own OP.

 

[Montecresto]

NAH!better not derail my own OP.

Good idea. With any luck Rand succeeds.

 

[jamesrage]

By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3 at 7:07 pm

Good.All we have to do is take a look at Libya and see what has happened when we intervened in that country.No boots on the ground their huh?:2wave:

<Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate. >

<When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks. >

Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

Hopefully Rand Paul will not have to resort to a filibusterer. Maybe our elected officials will do the right thing by vetoing any action in Syria.

 

[a351]

The participants on this board know more about the actual chemical weapon use than Congress will know after the relevant info is obfuscated and massaged for their consumption.

:lamo

 

[Montecresto]

You'll see.

 

[Drake McHugh]

I just don't think the Dems have the votes to pull it off.

Maybe not,but NEVER discount the stupid party from saving the day and rescuing Al Quaeda.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Hopefully Rand Paul will not have to resort to a filibusterer. Maybe our elected officials will do the right thing by vetoing any action in Syria.

I'm not hopeful. Kerry and especially Hagel,who to me appears to have had a liquid lunch,were unimpressive in their arguments,bordering on being bellicose. Still,the senate is a "club"and Kerry and Hagel are former members. You also have the fact that Dems have shown 0 independence of thought when it comes to supporting Obama,to an almost North Korean level. Add in the old,tired GOp warhorses and I fear it passes. Hope I am wrong.

 

[joko104]

How could filibuster be a consideration in a matter of life and death. This is about determining who used chemical weapons. The participants on this board know more about the actual chemical weapon use than Congress will know after the relevant info is obfuscated and massaged for their consumption. Shameful! This should be an issue of logical discussion and human ideals.

No, it is not just about chemical weapons. That is a concocted faux issue. One air attack by the USA will kill more than the 336 killed by chemical weapons, which appear more likely used by the "rebels" than the Assad government - and it is refusal of the rebels to assure UN inspectors' safety that prevented timely investigation.

 

[joko104]

Maybe not,but NEVER discount the stupid party from saving the day and rescuing Al Quaeda.

I think we are going to see the pro-war side gets it's war because they always do. Partisanship doesn't have anything to do with it. The professional multi-millionaire politicians aren't going to go up against the military and war-machine complex. nor are they willing to go up against the Saudi King and Princes that want the war.

 

[joko104]

"80 bill" and their oil would reimburse us that.:roll:

The oil went to China.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not hopeful. Kerry and especially Hagel,who to me appears to have had a liquid lunch,were unimpressive in their arguments,bordering on being bellicose. Still,the senate is a "club"and Kerry and Hagel are former members. You also have the fact that Dems have shown 0 independence of thought when it comes to supporting Obama,to an almost North Korean level. Add in the old,tired GOp warhorses and I fear it passes. Hope I am wrong.

Vote against...Make that coward Obama make a decision for once in his life...Then if things go wrong he can't blame congress like he blames President Bush

 

[joko104]

But if it goes wrong it makes no difference. Libya "went wrong." Egypt "went wrong. Not of that changes who does and doesn't support Obama.

 

[Samhain]

Kerry told them straight to their face that it doesn't matter what they vote for, the administration will do what it wants.

They are being used for political cover if they vote yes, and a punching bag if they vote no.

Congress should have figured that out already, but its a shame that they are too focused on inter-party fighting to see what they've been turned into. The executive determined long before this action that Congress can be circumvented and they will not fight it.

 

[tererun]

How could filibuster be a consideration in a matter of life and death. This is about determining who used chemical weapons. The participants on this board know more about the actual chemical weapon use than Congress will know after the relevant info is obfuscated and massaged for their consumption. Shameful! This should be an issue of logical discussion and human ideals.

This has nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons. In the 1980's the US encouraged Saddam (an ally of the reagan crew) to use chemical gas weapons on Iranian troops who were about to score a massive victory over Iraq in the Iraq Iran war. We ghave Saddam the location to use the weapons, and there is a good possibility we sold him those weapons. The US has been known, since the issuance of a ban on chemical weapons, to use white phosphorus attacks on our enemies. The US has sat idly by and done absolutely nothing and even defended Isreal when they used white phosphorus on their own people in the Gaza strip. These are facts well known by the people of the middle east and muslims in that area who have been directly effected by the US and it's allies use of chemical weapions over the years, and it's lack of any negative reprocussions to people who have used those weapons. Now you expect that Syria is going to take a few missiles and say oopsie my bad that was very evil of me and I see your point and will stop immediately because it is much worse when syria does it than when iraq, isreal, and america does it? That is the message you think these people are going to get? The US is in no position to be sending any message about tolerance in regards to the use of chemical weapons for humanitarian purposes. That is even ignoring the past 10 years of massive Islamic casualties of non-combatants and rescue people. That idea the US is some sort of honorable defender or right who can do no wrong is a load of BS, and the Syrians are not going to get that message when you can barely keep it up in america anymore.

This is not about life and death or the security of the world. this is a civil war which most often we could not give a damn about as people are being brutally slaughtered, raped, and murdered in many countries. Take the fake outrage and put it in the pile of BS in the corner, and stop trying to excuse your ignorance and warmongering with patriotic ignorance and sycophantic insanity. No one is buying it any more but the most devout of the voluntarily blind.

 

[tererun]

Kerry told them straight to their face that it doesn't matter what they vote for, the administration will do what it wants.

They are being used for political cover if they vote yes, and a punching bag if they vote no.

Congress should have figured that out already, but its a shame that they are too focused on inter-party fighting to see what they've been turned into. The executive determined long before this action that Congress can be circumvented and they will not fight it.

Then congress should vote no and the reps should do what they planned and impeach obama for acting without their authority by using military force in a situation he admits was not an immediate threat to the US. They should make it blatantly obvious to him that he will abide by congressional decision since there is no threat to the US or face impeachment. That will quiet his ass down.