Rand Paul: Filibuster A Possibility On Syria Vote

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

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

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.

“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”

Paul attracted widespread attention in March when he launched a marathon filibuster over the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, winning support from some GOP colleagues and prompting criticism from others.

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.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/03/rand-paul-filibuster-a-possibility-on-syria-vote/

[Tx4obama]

1. Huh? 60 votes for a 'resolution'? Is that normal? They are NOT voting on legislation.

[HooptieWagon]

2. It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster.

[Tx4obama]

3. I know that, but filibusters are normally in regards to legislation. This is a 'resolution'

That is what I was asking about.

Since when can a 'resolution' be filibustered?

[HooptieWagon]

7. Any Senate action can be filibustered

A vote on Supreme Ct appointee, trade agreement, military alliance. Hell a vote to recess for vacation can be filibustered, though it would lose 99-1.

[PoliticAverse]

4. The resolution will be debated, and any Senator can filibuster in a debate.

Cloture (which ends a filibuster) puts a limit on a debate.

Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate:
http://tinyurl.com/plfp6ry

[Tx4obama]

21. Guess I got confused for a minute. I'm so used to 'resolutions' being passed by unanimous consent...

... so I got confused by this one

[another_liberal]

5. Oh no!

Is Democratic support for this illegal, unnecessary and pointless war really going to turn that joker into a hero of the peace movement? Has everyone gone bleating mad?

[HooptieWagon]

9. Yep, strange days.

Democrats shouting for more war, and Republicans saying enough. Even DU has gone bonkers. The idiots clamouring for war most certainly weren't in favor of Bush's wars...and I guess what happened to Bush/GOP poll numbers has escaped them.

[another_liberal]

12. It's going to be very ugly around here . . .

I'm afraid it's going to be very ugly around here in the lead-up to next years mid-term elections.

[jmowreader]

27. Well, there is this...

?w=450&h=337

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1179562!/image/1780292416.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_475/1780292416.jpg

and then there's this...

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/res/260(III)

The question is, how do we punish Assad - and we've got reports from the Germans and the French that say this is his responsibility - for committing acts of genocide without using drones or cruise missiles?

[another_liberal]

31. We punish Assad for killing his own people . . .

Great logic there, jmowreader. We punish Assad for killing his own people, by killing even more of his people. Just how cruel are you?

[jmowreader]

33. We have precision-guided weapons and snake-eaters

If, and ONLY if, we can determine exactly where this worthless bastard is, we can either (1) send in special operators to remove him, preferably in irons for delivery to The Hague, or (2) put a Tomahawk cruise missile through his bathroom window. I prefer (1). If we can't pinpoint his location, we need to work on it until we can.

What I do NOT want to see, and I know you agree, is the US sending ground troops into Syria to try finding him for seven or eight years, like Bush would have done. And I also don't want to leave the SOB in there to keep on killing his own people.

Imagine a line. On it are two marks: do nothing about Assad, and do too much. Somewhere in the middle is where we need to be - we can't just let the atrocities continue, and we can't blow away half of Syria trying to cure this particular nightmare.

[bunnies]

38. Why do you feel it necessary to post such pictures?

We've all seen them and shoving them in our faces all the time isnt going to change anyones mind.

[jmowreader]

43. Because that is the reality of the situation

French intel and German intel have good information that Assad's forces are doing this.

We know Assad holds Sarin and VX.

Can we capture Assad with minimal loss of innocent life? Since Obama managed to turn bin Laden into al-Purina Shark Chow with very minimal excess death, I think so.

[bunnies]

44. Since when is it about capturing Assad?

Thats not even our goal. We're just going to shell them with missiles, then you'll have more pics to post.

[Bandit]

45. Would you like to see all the pictures of the women and children killed by Bush* during the last

Decade? I am sure there are just as many unpleasant pictures to get up in arms over...In fact a child mutilated by US gunships is a bit more disturbing IMO..

[brooklynite]

41. Not exclusively...there's also Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz called President Barack Obama’s efforts to authorize military intervention in Syria a public relations move, saying the U.S. military shouldn’t be “Al Qaeda’s air force.”

The Texas Republican said Tuesday on TheBlaze that while he’s glad the president listened to calls from him and others to bring the issue to Congress, America shouldn’t get involved and risk helping terrorists in the rebel forces.

“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/ted-cruz-syria-update-96244.html?hp=f2

[lobodons]

6. And the next time a President comes to Congress for Military intervention

NEVER

[David__77]

8. It is sad that Rand Paul is outshining the Democrats on this issue.

There is not a single Democratic senator that has spoken out like him in opposing this.

[HooptieWagon]

11. I'm embarrassed for my Party.

They handed this to the GOP on a silver platter.

[Ohio Joe]

13. This is not opposing anything... A no vote would be oppsing it

This is teabagger bullshit.

[David__77]

15. No, doing everything to obstruct its passage.

That would be opposing it. Democrats must support the call to organize a filibuster. They should be prepared to do an actual talking filibuster for days on end.

[Ohio Joe]

17. Fuck the pauls and all their followers

teabagger bullshit leads only to fascism.

[Hayabusa]

24. Everyone, repeat after me: The Pauls are not your friends.

[Ohio Joe]

25. These days... That can not be said enough

I'd rec that if I could

[DURHAM D]

14. He is not "outshining"... he is grandstanding.

He is a ignorant pipsqueak who will say or do anything to be President and clearly a lot of DUers are buying into his carny act.

[David__77]

16. I'm not buying into it.

It tactically fits into opposing the war plans. The Democrats can and should do better. I'm saying that what is sad is that they are not doing so yet.

[bunnies]

37. Yep. You nailed it. nt

[Tx4obama]

20. Rand Paul is NOT outshining anyone. John Kerry SPANKED Rand Paul today

Jump to the 7:30 minute mark on the video below

John Kerry Scolds Rand Paul on Syria: ‘We Don’t Want to Go to War’

Article/summary here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-kerry-scolds-rand-paul-on-syria-we-dont-want-to-go-to-war/

[David__77]

22. Yucky imagery.

Don't want to think about that man spanking anyone. I disagree with your assessment. The American people also reject the hysteria.

[pampango]

36. That includes Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat, but certainly a liberal).

They are both convinced that Assad's forces are guilty of using chemical weapons. Fortunately, while neither has yet publicly announced their vote on authorizing the use of force, I am confident they will both vote "No" after the debate in the Senate. If they turn out to be "liberal interventionists" I will be surprised.

IMHO, they want to appear to be undecided in order to have more influence on the drafting of the resolution to make it as limited in scope as possible.

[giftedgirl77]

10. Fuck Rand Paul, that asshole doesn't have an

honest bone in his body. If he does choose to filibuster this vote it is only for publicity & his own personal gain. He doesn't give two shots for those of us who have deployed & have had our spouses deploy repeatedly.

I damn sure don't want don't want to deploy again nor does my husband but I don't want to be a pawn in this assholes game for his own feel good moment.

He can go fuck himself.

[Hubert Flottz]

18. Rand thinks they should gas them all and

hire the illegal Mexican refugees to bury them.

The "Rand Thinks" was the hyperbole.

[chelsea0011]

19. He welcomes the fact that the POTUS brings Congress

Into the discussion and threatens a fulloshitter because he knows a vote will not go his way.

[BlueStater]

23. Rand Paul is an opportunistic piece of shit.

This asswipe will say and do anything to become president. He is NOT on our side.

[Morganfleeman]

26. Frankly, I don't give a damn what

Rand Paul's motivations are as long as they obstruct the eventual outcome, which is a needless strike that threatens a broader conflagration in the Middle East. Democrats should be fighting just as hard, if not harder.

The fact that Eleanor Holmes Norton would say she opposes a strike but would support a resolution because of "loyalty" to the President is an absolute embarrassment. We hire our representatives to think for themselves, not to be led like lemmings off a cliff.

Let's not forget how those "targeted strikes" in Libya have left the country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

[arewenotdemo]

32. Absolutely agree.

And Libya is a case in point. A feel-good blast for the "humanitarian" interventionists like Power, Rice, Clinton, and Obama.

After the bloody climax, gruesomely welcomed by Clinton ("we came, we saw, he died&quot the humanitarians immediately lose interest and turn their focus on a new project/target state.

[dbackjon]

40. The enemy of your enemy is still your enemy

Paul causes great harm to the US.

[fujiyama]

28. I don't need to like Rand Paul

to hope that on this front he's successful - and this resolution does not pass.

I'm glad the president has asked congress to authorize the use of force. Congress should likewise use its authority and reject his proposal.

This really isn't about personalities. If not stopped, this country is about to embark on an idiotic and unnecessary path with many yet unforeseen consequences.

[barnabas63]

39. +1 nt

[jsr]

29. Rand Paul is an asshole, but he's right on this one.

I hope he succeeds.

[iamthebandfanman]

30. Somebody got their feelings hurt

at the hearing today!

poor baby!

[matt in france]

34. rand and his father are isolationists...

And anti drug war...good allies against the patriot act too....but economically n for abortion they are not my version of cool

[matt in france]

35. the pauls are our friends on some issues

Such as
1. Anti patriot acts 1 and 2
2 anti war in afghanistan iraq libya syria
3 anti drug war pro cannabis and hemp legalization
4anti domestic spying
5 pro increasing taxes on large corporations

the just dont agree woth most dems about national health care abortion and gay rights

[bitchkitty]

42. I don't give a shit who filibusters -

as long as it works.

[Erose999]

46. Rand is nuttier than squirrel shit. After he goes about 10 hours someone should play the sound of a

babbling brook or gentle rain over a lourspeaker. lol