Skip to comments.Reid, McConnell Mum on Syria as Rand Paul Calls for Debate
Posted on 08/29/2013 8:13:17 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have not yet weighed in on whether they believe Congress should have to debate and authorize military action in Syria before President Barack Obama can move forward with it.
Reids office says the Nevada Democrat has been briefed by the administration, but thats all we have to say right now. McConnell has not yet released a statement and his office would not say whether or when he might.
Reid voted to authorize both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. In 1991, only 10 out of 55 Senate Democrats voted to support the use of military force in Kuwait. McConnell is in a difficult spot because while he has traditionally supported military engagement, he now has to consider the positions of anti-war libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose continued support is essential to maintaining the conservative vote back home for his re-election in 2014.
On Wednesday, Paul released a statement urging congressional debate and emphasizing Congress role in declaring war.
The United States should condemn the use of chemical weapons. We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President, Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.rollcall.com ...
And people (like him) say you can't be whatever you want in America
Just curious... perhaps someone knows the answer:
Does McConnell have a pulse?
Pubbies.....get rid of McConnell!!! He is useless!!!
Why hasn’t Bonehead held a press conference?
Where is McConnell?
Neither one of them have to be in DC to hold a press conference.
Could it be that they both back a strike on Syria with flimsy evidence?
I think so.
And all this war-war is harshing the neutral buzz over the Worst Family hiring-on another Siamese water poodle/whatever canine prop.
Obama cant get the UN on board, nor NATO, even England voted no, guess being suckered into Iraq taught them a lesson.
His libs want no part in this either, but McCain and Grahamnesty are gung ho on it. (That is why they want amnesty, IED fodder)
So much for Obama’s line in the sand.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Hopefully in Jan 2015 Reid and McConnell will no longer be in leadership or even in the Senate and real American Conservative like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, will be leading in the Senate...
Is Clinton reaching for Jerrit’s breast?
ValJar looks too porkulent to be a Muzzie Bro.
I think she be Iranian. Clinton will hit anything that moves, if it not too fast.
She was born there to American leftist parental units.
So... according to liberal hypocrites, Bush has a “coalition of the willing”, it counts as a “unilateral attack” and “going at it alone”, but when Obama can’t even get our “staunch ally” the UK to join him in bombing Iraq, it’s still in our “best interests” to bomb them.
Its not clear that he plans on doing anything now after this slapdown, but he sure looks pathetically weak and clueless in his foreign policy, especially given his ‘line in the sand’ on Syria. And his boasting election year that he could not 'sit by and let this happen'.
He sees the polls. He sees the midterms.
I would say that GOP attacking him from both sides is justice, given they did the same to GWB,
She looks like a m****y. I would get in trouble for saying the real thing. There is no freedom of speech left in Obozo’s world.
Well, according to this thread, Obama is still planning to go into Syria after the UK slapdown: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3060393/posts
Which again, shows the hypocrisy of the left, since they claimed Bush's 30-nation coalition for the Iraq invasion was a "unilateral attack" and "going at it alone". Who's Obama got on his side, France? And what about the leftists screaming about the "rush to war"? Bush had the slowest "rush to war" I've ever seen in my life (no wonder there were no WMDs to be found by the time we FINALLY invaded). How all that stuff about how its an impeachable offensive for a President to attack another country that's not an imminent threat to us? What happened to all that preachy liberal BS from 2008 about a "more humble, less arrogant foreign policy" where America wouldn't "bully" the world?
Bottom line: Obama supporters talking points have proven to be such BS, it's not even funny. And I haven't heard a single Obama supporter denounce the guy they voted for over Syria. I'll hand it to the UK left, at least they're consistently "anti-war" whether the Tories, Labour Party, or Lib Dems are pushing for it. The US left hasn't held their own accountable since Lyndon Johnson.
>> I would say that GOP attacking him from both sides is justice, given they did the same to GWB <<
It would be delicious irony after what they did in GWB, and now have collective amnesia about when they whine about how mean Republicans are to Obama. I don't think these socialists could take it if we had anti-war protest rallies with even 1/10th of the amount of bile they spewed at GWB. I sure wish we could get a massive rally going in Washington and claim Obama is lying about chemical weapons because he has a "thirst for blood" and wants to kill "little tan people" for "oil" The left can dish out the attacks, but they sure can't take it.
I have pretty bad memories of GWB policies but you are correct, Bush at least went to congress and then he got England to share in the pain.
If Obama does neither then it shows what a hypocrite Obama is . However the libs themselves all seem to be against this from what I saw on last nights MSNBC shows, and they are skeptical of the WMD chemical reports and they want to see a UN report first.
How they react if he actually does it might be a different story.
Lsst, McCain and Grahamnesty are giving Obama some cover on this by demanding he do it.
>> However the libs themselves all seem to be against this from <<
How the politicians on the left react is one way (most of them voted FOR invading in Iraq, in contrary to the grassroots left-wing activists). On the grassroots level, I haven't seen a single person on the left (at least, the American left), oppose Obama on this one. Their general talking point seems to be that they're wary of the idea, but since their overlord Obama is in favor it, they're going to stand by him. (and I have no doubt they'd be on the streets now demanding Bush's head on a platter if he said the same stuff that Obama is saying). It's a similar herd mentality to those grassroot conservatives in the GOP who couldn't come up with a single logical reason to back Arlen Specter over a conservative in the GOP primary, but decided they had to since Bush supported him and "we must stand by our President"
>> Lsst, McCain and Grahamnesty are giving Obama some cover on this by demanding he do it. <<
Mark Kirk thinks it's a wonderful idea too. His fan club in the GOP claims this guy is a valuable asset because of his "military expertise", AFTER Kirk said 1) He was absolutely 100% sure Iraq had WMDs, and 2) He was absolutely 100% sure the surge it Iraq would NOT work. Very few people in Washington managed to be wrong on BOTH issues (Colin Powell also gets a Doofus Award for this). The only "military expertise" I've seen from Kirk is the pathological ability to lie about his service record.
” we dont know what Obamas goal is except that he says its not regime change. “
Obama wants the MB in power.Just assume the opposite of anything he says
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.