Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-6:30pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-6:30pm ET on CNN.

June 21st, 2011
09:58 PM ET

Sen. Rand Paul introduces Libya resolution

Washington (CNN) - On the eve of President Barack Obama's major speech Wednesday night where he will reveal the scope of the initial troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, freshman Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul criticized the president’s use of the War Powers Act.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room," the Kentucky senator said he plans to introduce a Libya resolution that says Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.

"I don't think Libya is in our national security interests and I don't think we can afford to be in a third war. I will have a resolution to replace it,” Paul said. “In my resolution I'll the say the president is in violation of the War Powers Act and he should obey the War Powers Act and disengage."

The Obama administration has been criticized for failing to seek a vote of congressional approval before the start of the campaign as required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The law gives the president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end combat. The combined 90-day period ended this past Sunday.

A resolution already introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain authorizes limited use of U.S. forces for one year.

"I believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster," McCain said. "I believe we will find a strong, bipartisan majority that is in favor of authorizing our current military operations in Libya and seeing this mission through to success."

Paul disagrees with the senators, however, and says, "It's sort of a proposition that's a day late and a dollar short. The Constitution implied and said basically that foreign policy would be a shared responsibility between the Congress and the president."

Post by:
Filed under: Libya • Sen. Rand Paul
soundoff (119 Responses)
  1. mark

    Ron Paul stands for freedom and basic rights of the individual. He believes in less government less taxes and free capital markets. Lees government, wars, etc. lowers costs for businesses via lower taxes making companies more competitive and permits them to sell more goods and thereby employ more people. Big government costs and regulations stifle businesses. People we are competing with emerging markets with low costs. Government subsidies such as ethanol lead to poor capital allocation to businesses which are not economically viable. Ron Paul wants the Fed Reserve audited. The reason is because we don't know debts and loans federal reserve holds. It likely holds alot of bad loans such as mortgages, foreign loans, financial company loans, etc. Do you want big government and taxes, social programs, government control and less personal rights or do you want personel freedom and rights, small government and less tax. The people attacking the Paul's need to specify exactly what they don't like about them and the basis of their oposition to have any merit. Ron Paul understands our constitution, rights and financial system to much much greater extent them Obama. Our budget problems will become Greece like in near future. Sometime in near future world markets will gradually demand higher interest rates for our debt. At 5% interest we pay 700 billion interest with 2.1 trillion government revenue. Our alternative is to print money which Greece cannot do which will lead to devaluing of our currency and inflation. Please educate yourself because we are near the cliff and on path for long depression more severe than previous. Obama policies are all politically motivated. His stimulus bill has been a disaster and did virtually nothing to create permanent jobs via helping businesses. Immigration policy is crippling state finances. Obamacare will lead to higher costs for businesses and middle class and less jobs. His medicare policy of reviewing costs by a designated panel as they got to exorbident was voted down 97-0. He now wants to increase taxes during a recession on businesses and high worth individuals who create jobs to fund his bigger government. He has little chance of re-election due to financial condition of the government and no job growth. Our government costs must be reduced significantly to bring back industry to this country. Ou economy was fueled from 2000-2007 by low interest mortgages, construction and financial businesses. Less government and wars are the answer and a revamping of health care via a transition to natural health care, less pharmaceuticals and a free market health care not controlled by special interests and big medical companies. health care in this country is archaic and harmful in many instances.

    June 29, 2011 at 3:54 am |
  2. Chuck

    Too many double standards, the WPR has been ignored in the past by Presidents from both political parties. The reason we hear so many complaints now is because there are lots of folks out there that want Obama to fail.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:18 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Yes. If a President wants to lie, cheat, steal, and get us until illegal wars, he should be able to do it, by God, because that's what all President's have done. So let's just ignore 'em, and let them get away with it. I mean, he's only the most powerful man in the world; why would we need to restrain his power? What's the worst that could happen...right?

      June 27, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  3. Charles

    I really hope his dad, Ron Paul wins the nomination. Obama has been a disaster.

    June 26, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
  4. samwitwicky

    Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn’t send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that’s a revolution.

    Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

    Read more:

    http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

    June 24, 2011 at 8:59 am |
  5. Chris

    Thats right Ron Paul will set it right in 2012

    June 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
  6. rhumba

    Again, why is this freshman senator getting so much attention? Who cares what he says or what he thinks? You're giving him far too much attention and far too much credit. He doesn't know much about these things that he spouts off about all the time.

    June 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Rhumba,

      There is a reason why he gets the attention he does: he's one if the very few Senators willing to challenge both Democrats and Republicans, as opposed to just following the status quo. He did this when the Patriot Act was up for reauthorization. He did this when the budget cuts offered were too small to be considered serious. And now he is standing against warmongers like McCain and Graham. That's what is called courage. None of the three items I listed will get him big money contributions or the support of his party's apparatus. But he did it anyway because of principle.

      Peace be with you.

      June 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Chris

      Wow if you even knew anything you would be dangerous. Ron Paul has been in congress for 12 terms. Get an education before you look anymore stupid, if that were possible. Ron Paul 2012 Power to the people.

      June 23, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Ellen Sherman

      Freshman or not – this young man was raised in the political arena. I would pull the plug on funding too. – I hope it passes today. – we have no business committing foreign murders when there are so many here in the US to commit!

      June 24, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • mgc florida

      Agree 100%

      June 24, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • wallybob

      chris is getting the pauls confused.

      June 26, 2011 at 8:12 am |
  7. David

    Sen. Paul, wake up to the 21st century. No, the President should not break the law. But he should also be given more legal wiggle room to tackle 21st century problems outside of our 18th century political/legal system box. And in response to Sen. Paul's (and his father's) line "we're going broke", maybe solving our dependence on foreign oil and reforming our health care system will in fact help alleviate rising fuel and health care costs which weigh heavily on our economy. Then again, would following those seemingly logical steps be constitutional???

    June 23, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • kevin

      There is a reason why we state we are a nation of law but..if you want wiggle room...and i want wiggle room...and we each want wiggle room in different parts of the constitution...then what have we. When you feel you need protection or you have been wronged and wish to argue your case...to what standard will you argue...yours, mine or a host of others. And to which standard should a decision be made? Bottom line is the man took an oath to protect our constitution and barzenly disregards it...would you want that in a spouse, emploer and anyone else you count on? Honestly I mean.

      June 23, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Actually David, perhaps you should wake up to the 18th century. Views like yours were what were used by kings to get their subjects involved in vainglorious wars. It was one of Madison's proudest achievements that no longer would wars be started on the will of one person. It is incredibly ironic that we would support the use if dictatorial powers to remove a dictator, ostensibly for the purpose of democracy!

      However another genius of the Constitution was that it could be amended. If you feel the president needs even more powers, I'm certain John Yoo can draw up an amendment that can be voted upon.

      Peace be with you.

      June 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • wallybob

      right you are. the paul family lives in the past. why don't they ride up to the statehouse on a horse with a coonskin cap on their heads?

      June 26, 2011 at 8:19 am |
  8. IanJ

    The debate on if we should have intervened or not, or if we can afford involvement or not, are entirely mute without congressional approval. If these are "hostilities", we are in violation of the war powers act and constitution. If they are not "hostilities", we are using military grade weapons for a police action, and all deaths are "killings", and civilian collateral damage is illegal, often charged as murder in international courts. Either way, we are in an incredibly dangerous path for our Republic.

    June 22, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  9. fayse

    @hwepaderples, really ? We weren't in Korea and Vietnam for more than 60 days? Try years and we still have troops in South Korea.

    June 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • ShouldbeObvious

      The War Powers Act of 1973, I loled at your comment, those were before the legislation in question, and the legislation was created as a response to the Vietnam war, so your credible examples don't make much sense:(

      June 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  10. mark

    We need to leave. We are going broke.

    June 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  11. Marine4RonPaul

    lol, so many paid people on here to talk crap about Rand Paul, it's pathetic. Don't believe everything you read people, do your own DD.

    June 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  12. fuzzface

    Rand Paul is right on. We don't need another war, we cannot afford it, and its bankrupting us. Both the GOP and the Democrats need to wake up. Funny how liberals can sit by and watch Obama bring us more into morewar, and justify it cause "their man" is in the White House. GWB did the same thing too, and the neoconservatives justified it under "axis of evil" . where are the anti-war protesters???? Why aren't they protesting this????

    June 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  13. herpaderples

    They say a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So what do you call sending hundreds of cruise missiles over to a country? If it is not war, what is it?

    June 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • fayse

      There are no boots on the ground. Our soldiers are not facing enemy fire. The US is the leader of the free World, We belong to NATO. This was a joint endeavor. France and other Countries are taking the initiative now. I don't like war either but, if we abandoned our pledge to NATO we would be shirking our duties. France and Great Britian came to our aid during other conflicts.

      June 22, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        Our pledge to NATO Is to defend them if they are attacked, and they will defend us if we are attacked...nothing more nothing less. I don't recall Libya attacking anyone prior to this 'Odyssey'?

        Besides, the alliance has outlived its usefulness anyway. It is a Cold War relic that needs to go the way of the Berlin Wall.

        Peace be with you.

        June 23, 2011 at 5:23 am |
      • kevin

        Yes...we are on the path to committing attrocities that history books may someday wonder how such a people could have been mislead by their government and why that people did nothing to prevent that government from commiting the attorcities it did. Is that the path we would rather follow than demanding that those who pledged to uphold our constitution actually do as they pledged? Demand from our leaders that we remain as you believe we are...don't simply spout words to cover up the fact that what we are doing is contrary to what we claim to be.

        June 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  14. jd

    Obama made the right move, obviously this Rand Paul didnt major in history or common sense..if we stand by and do nothing then we are doomed to repeat the past..and as a soldier myself, i dont need family to ask the president what THEY want, because it was my choice to join the military and fight for whats right for our country and the world.

    June 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Obama's actions are in direct violation of the Constitution that you, as a soldier, swore an oath to uphold and protect. Even if the actions are justify based on some ambiguous humanitarian grounds, they are not legal.

      Peace be with you.

      June 23, 2011 at 5:29 am |
      • KingPellinore

        We are members of NATO and are...wait for it...constitutionally bound to assist in NATO operations.

        This military action is not unconstitutional.

        June 26, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
      • cfountain72

        @kingpellinore "We are members of NATO and are...wait for it...constitutionally bound to assist in NATO operations. This military action is not unconstitutional."

        'Constitutionally bound' to assist NATO? Really? No, not really. Our treaty obligations are to defend other members if they are attacked, much like other members came to help us attack Afghanistan after we were attacked on 9/11. Nothing more, nothing less. If what you were saying was true, please explain why Germany or Poland aren't similar 'constitutionally obligated to attack Libya as well?

        From someone far better spoken than I...

        "As far as the North Atlantic Treaty goes, this is false. The North Atlantic Treaty has nothing to do with what is taking place in Libya. The war is not being fought to fulfill obligations under that treaty, and NATO is not participating in the Libyan war because of the treaty. Indeed, there is no way that a treaty that created a defensive alliance could be used to authorize an attack on a state that did not attack any member of the alliance. At best, NATO is acting as the institution through which member governments are enforcing a Security Council resolution." -Daniel Larison

        Peace be with you.

        ps. Even his own lawyers told him he needed to go to Congress.

        June 27, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  15. damienportrey

    The president should ask the people what they want to do. It is our family members going to war, or dropping bombs. Not his! People like Rand keep the Pres. on his toes, if it wasnt for people like him questioning the pres. who would? remember Libya didnt attack anyone and what about the Sudan?

    June 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
    • Sickofpoliticians

      Wow, first republicans wanted to say dissenters are unamerican for being against iraq and afghanistan...now its unamerican to be for helping libya?? Double standard phonies. I am a lifeling repub, but enough of games..

      June 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        Rand Paul is not a double-standard phony. If you know anything about his past, you know that he would've been against this same war even if W was prosecuting it.

        June 23, 2011 at 5:36 am |
    • Howard

      HERE IS OBAMA'S RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO REQUIRE THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES.

      "Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained. "Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute.." "I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country, "Obama continued "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit.. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."

      June 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  16. Wowseriously

    All I see here is a bunch of party line armchair politicians talking about matters they clearly do not understand. The blind dogmatism here is sickening and I shudder to think that some of you might actually vote, or worse yet, procreate...

    June 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
  17. Nicky 6

    It is painfully obvious that so many of the comments disparaging Paul or supporting Obama are paid shills. Rand Paul is out of touch with the common man???

    Yes the common man needs missiles being sent to Libya much more than he needs jobs, or lower taxes, or freedom.

    I about died laughing when I read that since McCain and Graham and Kerry support this fiasco, that somehow that justifies it?? Are you seriously that in the dark about how the world works?

    For those that wish to be educated, and at least understand where some of us are coming from, watch the movie "Freedom to Fascism" and optionally read "The Revolution, A Manifesto", by Ron Paul.

    I am convinced that the especially hatred comments are either from fake commenter, or severely delusional low grade morons.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • Adam

      The most basic flaw in your argument however is that the US is not sending missles to Libya. The US is providing logistical support and refuling services for NATO aircraft. Any missles or bombs that are used in the conflict that have been manufactured in the US need to be purchased by the NATO alliance (which of course includes the US) which helps offset that cost as well. I am actually on the fence with regard to Libya as I don't know who these people fighting Gidafi really are...? But let's get our facts correct with regard to our involvement there.

      June 22, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        Hmm...maybe you missed the opening salvo of cruise missiles shot from US warships? Fact is, none of that even matters. The President broke the law and needs to be reigned in.

        Peace be with you.

        June 23, 2011 at 5:34 am |
    • fayse

      Nobody paid me. Mr. Paul may be a descent man but, his ideas are backward. We cannot turn the clock back, we live in 2011 not 1945. He may win straw polls as he has in the past but, he is not Presidential material.

      June 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        "We live in 2011 not 1945."

        So what? What does that even mean? That it's ok to attack nations that haven't attacked us? To break our own laws in the process?

        Peace be with you.

        June 23, 2011 at 5:45 am |
  18. veteran

    You "americans"make me sick to the stomache! All you guys ever do is complain but never act! Your fore fathers would be turning in their graves! How dare anybody say its ok to send u.s. troops to spill there young 18 19 year old blood over seas! You want to speak humanitarian!? You guys keep being fat and watching your sports you imbeciles you guys lost all roots being "american" stupid slaves.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  19. Brad

    Omg. I'm a republican and this is crap. Everyone is for it then against it. Respect to Obama for staying strong

    June 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Staying strong? How is it strong to break the law by using other people's money to send other people's sons and daughters to kill still other people's sons and daughters?

      Peace be with you.

      June 23, 2011 at 5:40 am |
    • Janess

      So true. Honesty and evertihyng recognized.

      October 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
  20. Robert from L.A.

    If this was Bush doing the same exact thing Obama is doing by engaging in Lybia, every liberal media source and individual would be screaming and crying a river of tears calling Him a tyrant bent on getting oil. But since it's "The Anointed One", all is forgiven and everything is OK. Talk about a liberal bias.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:22 pm |
  21. damienprtrey

    All of u knocking the Pauls are the nuts! why dont u read the constitution and come to the realization that obama should cange his name to "Dick Tator"!

    June 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
  22. juan chavez

    R.paul what a joke! Vote all these repubs out. So quick to say yea we gota invade iraq. So quick to say yea lets give rich ppl tax breaks.........bottom line if pres. Obama says the sky is blue they say no. ....

    June 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Rand Paul is not a double-standard phony. If you know anything about his past, you know that he would’ve been against this same war even if W was prosecuting it.

      June 23, 2011 at 5:48 am |
  23. Dug

    So, if there is an uprising in the usa, lets say to over throw our government, then russia and china comes in to help the uprising help overthrow our senate, the house, the judicial system etc. Because thier people and governments feel liberalism or conservatism is bad, Thats ok according to the liberals mind set above. Liberals will allways think like, that wait a minute they allready let china have the deed to our country.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
  24. Brian in ME

    America to the Paul family: Go away

    June 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Interesting. Actually the country has been moving in their direction, especially on foreign policy, for several years now. Get on the bus now while there's still time!

      June 23, 2011 at 5:51 am |
  25. Steve

    Looks like Mr Paul here doesnt actually know what is in the War Powers act, specifically section 8. Nor do a vast number of people attempting to use said act to halt the action...laughable.

    I wish we could get some actually intelligent candidates anymore.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      Do tell. How does that apply? What about Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution? That would seem to outweigh the WPR.

      June 23, 2011 at 5:59 am |
  26. swede.mn

    Constitutional or unconstitutional who cares the point is we don't need to be involving ourselves in crap like this its a waste of money, if the un wants to get involved let them spend other countries money for once how about we balance the budget and create a few jobs Mr president

    June 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
  27. James

    While I'm not 100% behind what Obama has done so far in his presidency, he's still the lesser of evils when compared to any GOP candidate. Rand Paul doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. You'd think he'd at least have advisers that do. Ideally, I'd still like to see the majority party, independents, actually vote their party so we can finally get someone in the oval office who isn't affiliated with either corrupt party. But everyone is always worried their vote won't count if they don't either vote R or D, so we keep getting the lesser of 2 evils and occasionally the greater of 2 evils, which Paul would most definitely be.

    June 22, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Cfountain72

      What specifically are you referring to, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

      June 23, 2011 at 6:00 am |
  28. its all about the benz

    GM. GW was a fascist

    June 22, 2011 at 11:43 am |
  29. jae

    first to nelson, evidence of racism is that u are trying to embarrass the potus with a lie.war powers act, we are not at war with libya.again, we are not at war with libya.
    Second to dgeneric, your for fathers were murders, rapist,

    June 22, 2011 at 11:36 am |
  30. L. R. Long

    Mr Paul is just shouting, first, and asking questions, later. We are not TECHNICALLY in a recession, we are feeling the effects of one. Look up the definition of recession.. Now, we are not TECHNICALLY in a war with Libya. I am anti-war and still support the campaign to bring down a man who has literally, and successfully, ordered the murder of American citizens – Ghadafi. The main reason I support this is because Obama has not put a single American troop in Libya and has promised not to. Yes our involvement with Libya costs money, but so does the implementation of the GOP plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system... The Bush tax cuts cost money, too, GOP ain't crying about that... I'll tell ya why they want Obama out of Libya, because it's gonna be hard to beat him in 2012 if he can say he brought down Osama bin Laden AND Ghadafi!

    June 22, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Antiwar? Really? So if we can attack another nation and kill their citizens without putting our troops in danger, everything's cool? Wow. So if we'd have attacked Iraq using similar means, you'd have been in favor of that war? You're not antiwar...you're anti-Bush-war.

      June 23, 2011 at 6:07 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Oh and if China were to invade the US, and Russia was just providing 'logistics and support' you wouldn't consider Russia as being at war with us. Wow.

      TECHNICALLY, the President is in violation of the Constitution.

      June 23, 2011 at 6:10 am |
  31. its all about the benz

    Come on everyone. If you can't see through all of this you're an idiot. The reason that we are in this is bc of money. When it all started, gas prices soared. Since we have been there they've dropped. Our economy is crucial to our national security. Logistics and transportation of goods especially. Don't be a dunder head. We are not in a war with libya. We could give a damn about the libyan ppl. Which personally. Let them kill theirselves I really don't care anymore. And for that to come from this humanitarian democrat is a statement. They have something we need. Period!

    June 22, 2011 at 10:58 am |
  32. Jordan

    Doesn't Section 8 of the War Powers Act explicitly state that action taken with foreign militaries due to treaties prior to its enactment (such as NATO) does not require Congressional authorization?

    June 22, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • James

      You should ask Paul that question directly, since it's clear he doesn't know the answer.

      June 22, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Steve

      Thank you Jordan...yes it does. All treaties America entered into prior to the enactment of the War Powers act are still viable and we are bound to act upon those treaties before any consideration of the war powers act.

      The inclusion of such a clause was in just such a situation where we are supporting NATO...which precludes the war powers act. Such a shame the general public as well as a number of our leaders are pretty ignorant on this very important and non-negotiable clause.

      June 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        The Constitution outweighs the NATO agreement. NATO might apply if an ally had been attacked, but that is clearly it the case here.

        June 23, 2011 at 6:15 am |
      • Cfountain72

        Excuse me: Clearly NOT the case here.

        June 23, 2011 at 6:17 am |
  33. Russ

    Let's see, Kerry, McCain, Graham to name of a few of the most senoir Senators that agree with Obama being in Lybia and a rookie hillbilly from the hills of Kentucky doesn't. Whom should we go with?

    June 22, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • Nelson

      Probably the Rookie, the others are just insiders who are looking for a deal of some kind.

      June 22, 2011 at 10:42 am |
    • GMartine

      I always wondered when I was younger and studying history how anybody could go along with the Nazis and other war mongering and evil governments. I thought there is no way this stuff could happen again because people are smarter and more good than in the past. From reading most of these comments I guess I can now see how facism prevails in societies.

      June 22, 2011 at 10:46 am |
      • Fascism already been here

        Gmartine,
        Wake up. We've had fascist states in US under Wilson, Roosevelt, etc. It's a tried and true progressive mantra.

        June 22, 2011 at 11:27 am |
    • duethemath

      Why just ask any tea bagger and they'll tell you to believe the runny-nosed red-neck freshman.

      June 22, 2011 at 10:50 am |
    • amy

      Last I checked, most senators were with Kerry, McCain, et al. The media should start doing their job and call out those seeking self-publicity by grandstanding for what it actually is.

      June 22, 2011 at 11:13 am |
      • Cfountain72

        Don't worry Amy. They were on all the Sunday shows spouting their pro-any-war rhetoric.

        June 23, 2011 at 6:32 am |
    • wbl

      This could have been a good question. But you lost me at hillbilly. Stereotypical jerk.

      June 22, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Hey Russ. They were also in favor of us invading and occupying Iraq. Rand Paul was against it. I'm with the 'hillbilly.'

      June 23, 2011 at 6:25 am |
  34. Buck

    Rand Paul is 100% correct.

    June 22, 2011 at 9:42 am |
    • Brad

      Rand Paul is an idiot that has no idea what he is doing.

      June 22, 2011 at 11:16 am |
  35. Seattle Sue

    Rand Paul is every bit a radical racist as his father Ron Paul.

    June 22, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • Nelson

      What is your evidence of racism?

      June 22, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • Calvin

        She has none. Other than the fact that by bringing our troops home, less minorities (the bulk of the military actually doing the fighting) will die. So maybe she is implying Paul is racist towards whites.

        June 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
      • Just Saying

        how about the fact that he said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. in his mind, or what passes for one, it is OK to refuse to provide service to someone just because you don't like his race. he may justify his position on some warped idea of what freedom means, but it is just camoflague for what it ireally is – a belief that racist action in public accommodations is justified as a freedom. and while I am here, the Civil War was fought over slavery – nothing else – just the State Right to let some of its inhabitants to claim chattle ownership over other of its inhabitants, and to steal their work.

        June 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • fayse

        I remember an interview when Rand Paul was asked if he thought that it was ok for business should have the right to refuse to serve someone based on their color. He said well, I believe that a business owner should have the right to decide that for themselves.
        Rand Paul is an idiot and his father thinks that we are still living in the 1940's.

        June 22, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Name

      Yes please explain.

      June 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
  36. BinFL

    The Repub/TeaBagger whiners just kill me. When the Libyan people were about to get slaughtered by Ghadafi they were all screaming that Pres Obama wasn't moving fast enough, wasn't aware, didn't care, etc. Of course, this wasn't the truth as Obama was making sure the Americans were out of Libya before NATO went in which was a very measured and responsible response. Now that we went in assisting NATO they are screaming that he didn't have the right to go in and that he broke the law....whine, whine, whine, that's all they ever do. Now if President Obama completely pulls out of Afghanistan as many of the flip-flop Repubs are calling for, they'll turn around again and say Obama lost the war!!!

    June 22, 2011 at 9:18 am |
    • Calvin

      Rand Paul and his father are obviously much smarter than you.

      The reason why they want to pull out is because our WELL INTENTIONED foreign policy, has always given us extremely bad long term side effects. From Carter and Reagan and ever since.. every president has empowered or helped one faction which later comes to bite us in the future.

      There are enough data points for a reasonable person to see a pattern.

      June 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
  37. Delusioned Liberal

    "We are not at war with Libya, period."

    Yeah, sure, those bombs and missiles don't mean a thing. Sure, it is costing us a BILLION DOLLARS, but really, what's a little cash to the Democrats these days when you can just tax your way out of it.

    Should we have gone into Libya? Perhaps. The stupid thing is that if Obama had just laid it all out and asked Congress for permission to continue, he would have likely received it. Instead Obama is blatantly ignoring the act and thumbing his nose AND the Justice Dept, who also said he needed approval, to buzz off. Obama has failed miserably here.

    June 22, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • James

      Since I believe we should have gone into Libya, and we did, the only thing you can argue as failure is semantics. Should he have applied to congress? Perhaps. But does congress ever make a decision based purely on right and wrong? Hell no. It most likely would have turned into political bickering and grandstanding and we might still be awaiting their response today. Anytime congress can be avoided, it should be, because it doesn't work when filled with this level of partisanship and corruption. The president felt he had the power to act without congress, so he did. Good for him. If he was wrong, the GOP will make him pay for it. I think he'll win this fight based on my knowledge of the laws involved.

      June 22, 2011 at 11:59 am |
      • Cfountain72

        Actually James, we are supposed live under the Rule of Law. Part of that rule of law is that declarations of war must be made by Congress. I suppose you think Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, etc., those are just 'semantics' too?

        June 23, 2011 at 6:22 am |
      • Cfountain72

        "Anytime congress can be avoided, it should be, because it doesn’t work when filled with this level of partisanship and corruption."

        Wow. Just wow.

        June 23, 2011 at 6:30 am |
  38. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    At this point, I believe the Senate needs to adopt a rule that says Freshman Senators from Kentucky who have never held political office before are not allowed to introduce or co-sponsor legislation. At this point, even Mitch (Senator No Junior) McConnell would probably support it, as Rand Paul has become somewhat of an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He should go back to doing what he knows best, like treating glaucoma and cataracts and leaving the legislating to the professionals who actually have read and understand the Constitution.

    June 22, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • Nelson

      Yes, only let certain people introduce legislation that would be democratic. Oh my god, you people should just scrap the constitution, the rule of law, and declare martial law. Hugo Chavez should become your leader.

      June 22, 2011 at 10:52 am |
  39. Stephen

    No matter how many legal opinions come out saying Obama is right in what he's doing, commenters here and the silly tea party opthamologist from Kentucky think they know better than the experts. The President is trying...and succeeding, to my own opinion...to make the R's look even more foolish than they already do.

    June 22, 2011 at 8:07 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Actually, his own advisors told him he needed Congressional approval. He ignored them, too.

      June 23, 2011 at 6:35 am |
  40. TEE

    Another teaparty taliban looking for attention.....

    June 22, 2011 at 8:03 am |
  41. Capnn. Kirk

    @ANTI....President Obama started a War? Do you mean in Libya? You're saying President Obama started that conflict? Now who is telling lies and spreading false allegations? Civilians in Libya came out in protest of their current government. The Libyan's govenrment response was to use military force to silence the mostly unarmed protestors. How did President Obama start that?

    June 22, 2011 at 7:58 am |
  42. Bob from bridgeport

    This a U.N action surpported by the US Government and nothing more. You want to stop a war -well you have two to choose from and one was started based on lies. Only to fill the pockets of the maggets that feed of the our dead soldiers. You want to do something positive – creat jobs or go home and take that dumb kid with you.

    June 22, 2011 at 7:53 am |
  43. rhumba

    The media is giving this freshman senator far too much coverage. You're making him think that he's smarter and more important than he actually is.

    June 22, 2011 at 7:19 am |
  44. DGeneric

    It seems to me and alot of Americans, that if we would just look to the Constitution, that alot of , if not most of the problems we face as a Nation could have been avoided! The respect and admiration once given to our founding fathers dedication to provide a very basic set of rules, our Constitution, that would have allowed us to forego most of the errors other great empires found to be the end all, has been treated like it is irrelevent to todays society. It however in my opinion more pertinant than ever, especially considering that for the last 100 years has not been followed.

    June 22, 2011 at 7:17 am |
  45. johnmenacherjr

    So what does paul want anyways. There is no JOB develoment, nothing new except more negativety and whining. Now there is a problem with Libya. Its as obvious as the scowell on every republicans face they are the only ones who are with no direction and not a new idea ever. What would any of these dumb bell republicans have done that has'nt already been tried. its so easy for them to sit and complain and do absolutely NOTHING!

    June 22, 2011 at 6:19 am |
    • Cfountain72

      Actually, he's trying to reign in an out of control government. He's trying to stop a war that 'candidate' Obama would have been against. He also tried to overturn the Patriot Act...you know, the one that democrats used to be against?

      June 23, 2011 at 9:25 am |
  46. Moe NY

    Rand Paul, in my opinion is just another teabag/right wing nut. Cannot believe the crap he spews. Forget about bringing down our POTUS...you do not even come close to POTUS material. Not even a good try on your part...just sad. You have nothing to offer America except a buch of religious right wing lies and hatedred. Go away please...American does not need or want your kind.

    June 22, 2011 at 6:05 am |
    • Marry

      Well said!!!!

      June 22, 2011 at 8:39 am |
      • Nelson

        Actually not well said. The idea that we should quell anyone's views is what is Un-American. Senator Paul has as much right to express himself as you or I. The day that we suppress speech and opposition is a sad day for America. It is more American to be able to appreciate opposing views. If you would like to live a different way, then I suggest moving to a country like Venezuela.

        June 22, 2011 at 10:48 am |
      • James

        Well said, Moe. Thankfully, the Constitution protects your right to want people to go away even if it protects their right to not go away. A bit of a catch 22, there. Maybe we should amend it.

        June 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Cfountain72

      "You have nothing to offer America except a buch of religious right wing lies and hatedred."
      Can you point to an example of this, as it relates to the interview above? I must have missed it.

      June 23, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
  47. Doyle Wiley, MI

    We are not at war with Libya, period.

    June 22, 2011 at 5:24 am |
    • Name

      So what do bombs and cruise missiles being dropped on Libya qualify as?

      June 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
  48. ITALIAN NONNO

    This guy Paul,.. is a snotty nosed whiner, trying to impress his old man. ..and he's also a bigoted racist.

    June 22, 2011 at 2:24 am |
    • Barfy Spewsalot

      Well look at who hos father is... If Ron Paul had been President he would have surrendered to Bin Ladin & quickly handed the nation over to him.

      June 22, 2011 at 8:39 am |
  49. Mike D

    Two words "THE BALKANS". We had no strategic interest either.

    June 22, 2011 at 1:32 am |
  50. Averagejoetexas

    I don't even have to agree, the Constitution was written way before I was born, and I stand beside it a Proud American. Rand Paul is just protecting the oath he took. One, of so many that are not.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:08 am |
  51. A keen observer

    Just a typical teabagger trying to bring down President Obama. Remember this clown supports business owner's right to descriminate.

    June 22, 2011 at 12:07 am |
    • Moe NY

      So true keen observer. Notice CNN is not allowing anti Rand Paul comments. Rand Paul is what is wrong with America...totally right wing nut. How can anyone take him serious? Suggest he retreats to his country club...good place for him...totally out of touch with normal people.

      June 22, 2011 at 6:49 am |
      • Cfountain72

        Really? Looks like it's about 50/50 pro/anti-Paul to me.

        June 23, 2011 at 9:19 am |
  52. Anti

    He come the lies and false alligations about Rand. Because everyone knows it's OK for Obama to start a war, he had too. I sure somehow W made him do it.

    June 21, 2011 at 11:50 pm |
    • Barfy Spewsalot

      Cite please what War did Obama start? The first airstrikes where started by the FRENCH & BRITISH. Also the President has the right to use what is called a "Police action" (Korea & Vietnam) Did you forget Ronald Reagan invading Grenada? George HW Bush invading Panama? Why yes you did.

      June 22, 2011 at 8:44 am |
      • herpaderples

        We weren't there for more than 60 days, Barfy. You know not what you speak of.

        June 22, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
      • Cfountain72

        Actually, no, the President doesn't have the right to 'use what is called a police action.' I'm curious where you got such a notion? The fact that Reagan or Truman did such and such does not make it legal.

        Peace be with you.

        June 23, 2011 at 9:16 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.