Rand Paul On Syria – U.S. Has No Reason To Interfere

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – A case has been made that is one that is counter to the one the president made.  As I said, I think the most powerful part of it is: I will not vote to send my son, your son, or your daughter into an unnecessary war.  Candidate Paul continues to branch out and become more of a force or more of a contender to be reckoned with.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  I want to play Senator Paul’s commentary for you in just a moment.  I thought that the highlight reel and the part of the Paul address that I thought was the most compelling was the last paragraph.  I’ll read it to you.

[reading]

This is no small question. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone’s daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war. May God help us make the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war.

[end reading]

Mike:  What exactly is wrong with that statement?  What exactly is wrong with that sentiment?  That ought to be the majority sentiment: Let’s not rush in here.  Let’s not do anything we don’t have to do.  Andrew, did you get a chance to listen to Rand Paul’s remarks?

AG:  I just read the transcript of it.

Mike:  I think we should listen to it.  It’s only four minutes long.  As I said, I think it’s as compelling as President Obama’s presentation.

[start audio file]

Senator Rand Paul: Good evening. Twelve years after we were attacked by Al Qaeda, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by Al Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with Al Qaeda. Americans, by a large majority, want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.
Some argue that American credibility is on the line, that because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons, America must act or lose credibility. I would argue that America’s credibility does not reside in one man. If our enemies wish to know if America will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. When attacked, we responded with overwhelming force and with the military objective of complete victory over our attackers.

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

The Reagan Doctrine grew out of his experience in the Middle East. Reagan’s defense secretary spelled out a systematic approach to our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts. First, the American people must be supportive – overwhelmingly supportive – but most importantly our mission must be to win. There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that “no military solution” exists. They have said the war will be “unbelievably small and limited.” To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change.

Founders TV – Syria: Just The Same Old Song And Dance

It is said that America must act to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again. But it is unknown whether attacking Assad encourages him or discourages him. It is equally likely that Assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion. It is equally likely that the bombing could de-stabilize Assad and he could lose control of the chemical weapons. The Obama Administration has indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they are prepared to do just that despite the resolution’s admonition against ground troops.

The question must be asked, “Would a U.S. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad loses control of the chemical weapons?” The same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. “Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad attacks Israel with chemical weapons?” Would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan? Just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees. Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable? Would it make it more or less likely that Iran or Russia becomes more involved? Just about any bad outcome you can imagine is made more likely by U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

In the past 24 hours, Russia has offered to broker a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control. Diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. The Syrian foreign minister has indicated an interest in the proposal. Can we trust the participants in this plan? Diplomacy is always a mixture of trust, distrust, and watchfulness. We should not be naïve, and we should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as part of any solution. As Reagan put it we must “trust, but verify.” Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table. In fact, though, Russia has been negotiating with the US for over a year to find a resolution to the Syrian civil war. The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.

But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn’t be looking at a possible solution today. The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said “slow down” allowed this possible solution to take shape.

Church Doctrine – Hey John Kerry! New Orleans Has Moral Obscenities That Need Attention Too

Will diplomacy win the day? No one can tell for certain. But on a broader issue, it is an important day, though, in the sense that a President recognized his Constitutional duty and came to seek Congressional authority for the war. If the vote occurs, I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The President has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one. The President maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. James Madison wrote that the “Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature.”

This is no small question. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone’s daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war. May God help us make the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war.

[end audio file]

Mike:  You wouldn’t have gotten that five or six years ago.  You wouldn’t have gotten that ten years ago but will get it now.  I know that Fox News ran it live because I saw it and that’s where I got it from.  I do not know if anyone else ran it live as it was delivered.  It currently has 51,000 plays on YouTube.  I would suspect that it was probably limited as to where it was aired.  It’s out there now.  A case has been made that is one that is counter to the one the president made.  As I said, I think the most powerful part of it is: I will not vote to send my son, your son, or your daughter into an unnecessary war.  Candidate Paul continues to branch out and become more of a force or more of a contender to be reckoned with.  Now that you’ve heard him speak, what did you think?

AG:  I think it’s a very simple and straightforward, not to be diminishing of it, but it’s plain, common sense.  If it were to get more widespread play on CNN, MSNBC in addition to Fox, I think it’s a popular message.  The question I would have coming out of it would be: What is Paul’s response if diplomacy doesn’t work? That would be the same question I’d have for the president after his speech.  If we give the 30 days of diplomacy to make it happen, or the two weeks, or whatever time table is laid out that Syria must turn over the chemical weapons to an international coalition for them to be monitored or destroyed, what happens if that doesn’t take place?  I don’t necessarily think the president has given any indication in terms of what his plan is, other than that very small and high-powered missile launch.  I want to know the next step from Paul.  It could be simply we don’t engage Syria and Russia at all, but I do question whether diplomacy could work or if they’re just kind of pulling our chain and going to say whatever needs to be said to avoid the military strike in the next couple days or weeks.  I think there is a follow-up to Senator Paul: What’s your plan if the diplomacy doesn’t work?

Mike Church Show Transcript – It’s Up To Congress To Make History And Do The Right Thing

Mike:  What’s plan B?

AG:  Right.  I think it’s somewhat foolish to expect the diplomacy to work as it’s being laid out into whatever degree we hope it follows in terms of checkmarks of a timeline —

Mike:  You just said something that’s on my list to talk about.  Can I pause you for just a moment?

AG:  By all means.

Mike:  I’m not harping on you but this is a great point.  You just said: What’s the probability that the diplomacy works?  You have to prepare for the event that it doesn’t work.  Let me take you up on that point.  Let’s take a walk through recent history.  Let’s go back about twelve years or so.  We have been hearing for the last twelve years that this is the year to act to stop Iran.  Hell, we’ve been hearing it since the ‘90s, that this is the year to act to stop the Iranians, that diplomacy is not going to work, that they’re going to acquire a nuke and wipe Israel off the face of the map.  Every year, you can count on it just like New Year’s Eve.  It happens every year, yet there Israel sits, yet there Tehran sits, yet there’s no nuke, no nuke strike.

Ditto that for North Korea, every year, a perennial event, we hear [mocking] “Diplomacy is not going to work here.  If it doesn’t work here, you’re going to have Kim Jong-il bombing Taiwan or bombing our ally Japan.  We’ve got to stop the proliferation of nuclear missiles in North Korea.  Diplomacy won’t do this.  We’re going to have to strike.”  Every year we hear the war card played, and every year we’re told that diplomacy probably isn’t going to work, so we have to get ready to bomb somebody back into the stone ages.  Yet every year it seems there’s another year in the offing where there hasn’t been a nuclear attack.

AG:  Is there a distinction to be made that Syria is now admitting to having these chemical weapons, whereas Iran and North Korea, aren’t we still in the development stage of them acquiring said weapons?

Mike:  I think Kim Jong-il detonated one back in 2007.

Founders TV – Kevin Gutzman on John Dickinson and the AUMF

AG:  I know he’s detonated different missile systems.  I don’t know if he’s detonated a nuclear.

Mike:  This was an underground blast.  We should Google it.  It was July 4, 2006 or 2007.  It was around the same time that we crashed our little spacecraft into that asteroid, the deep impact, I think it was called.

AG:  I just wonder if there’s a distinction between Syria admitting to having these weapons and Iran saying they’re in the development process or the world thinking they’re still in the development process of acquiring said weapons.  Maybe diplomacy changes if Iran was able to say: We do in fact have nuclear weapons.  You see that maybe there is a distinction there?

Mike:  I see the distinction.  I also see the global stratagem is that the United States must win, we have to be the victors in all these things.  Karl Rove, last night on Fox News, said that Russia is now the preeminent or the presiding superpower or the dominant force in the Middle Eastern region and that should never happen because if Russia is the dominant force that means that we’re not the dominant force, and it’s to our detriment not to be the dominant force and all that.  I’m listening to that saying: Why?  Why does the United States always have to be the dominant force?  Since we’re not supposed to be at war with the Russians — they go to the UN just like we do.  We’re supposed to have some trade with the Russians.  Isn’t it possible that the U.S. can finish second and some other country can finish first, and that the United States or the citizens of the United States do earn some benefit from that?  I would say that if the Russians prevent a war from spreading from Syria into Iran or Jordan or anywhere else, that that is a net gain for the United States because we don’t have to send our sons and daughters over there to go fight.  There’s an awful lot to talk about here.

I also have to go back and look at other events in history and look at how other great statesmen dealt with similar instances.  I found one from the administration of James Monroe, who I think was one of the best or one of the most informed statesmen of the founding generation.  He should be thought of in that manner.  His actions while he was in office as president, I think, tell that story.  I have a letter here that was written by John C. Calhoun, who was acting as the secretary of war at the time, to President Monroe, 14 October 1821.  This is a very similar circumstance.  You can read in Calhoun’s letter the point he was driving at, that we have to be prudent here.  Even though the executive needs to be reacting, the executive must have all the facts.

Mike Church Show Transcript – Justin Amash Is A Patriot For His Dissent Of War In Syria

[reading]

I enclose for your instructions a letter from Col Brooke and one from Gen’l. Brown to the Adjut. Gen’l. in relation to it. You will perceive, on the perusal, that the subject involves the extent of the military powers of the Governor of Florida, and is one of some delicacy. Gen’l. Brown seems not to be aware of the extent of the power vested in the Gov’t. and of course decides the point submitted to him without any hesitation. I also enclose a letter from Cap’t. Deloba in relation to his rank and pay with a report of the Adj’t. Gen’l. on his application. I do not think that his request can be granted on either point . . . I should be strongly inclined to think his claim well founded; but it appears to me, to establish a rule, at this time, different from the one formerly adopted, would have such extensive effects in changing the relative rank of officers . . . I am much disposed to take the same view of the occurrences in Florida with that which you have presented, tho’ I have by no means bestowed on them that minute attention, which is necessary to a satisfactory decision. The occurrence to which Mr. Jefferson refers may be of great importance in the light of a precedent, and I will not fail to look into it, without connecting it with the name of Mr. Jefferson. I am not inclined to think that an ultimate decision on the occurrences ought to be postponed longer than is necessary to obtain correct information. I have always found that much is gained by the executive coming to a definite conclusion at an early period, on all important subjects, on which it has ultimately to decide. It has great power to direct the judgement of the publick by a correct statement of facts, and a presentation of strong and just views. But whether it may be thought advisable to leave the publick, for the present, to investigate and come to a conclusion by the lights, which are already, or may be brought out on these occurrences, yet there is one view of the subject, which would seem to me to call, at least for an early decision. That conflict of power, which has already taken place must continue till the executive power determines the limits which belongs to each the Gov’t. and the judges, and should any unpleasant event hereafter occur in consequence of it, the responsibility would attach immediately to the government, if the point in controversy should be left undecided. I make these suggestions with great deference, as you appear to be disposed to take a different view.

[end reading]

Mike:  What’s going on here is Monroe is getting reports from Andrew Jackson that he needs to bomb the Seminole Indians back into the stone ages.  Study your history.  What’s happening here is Jackson wants to invade Florida and is seeking Monroe’s blessing.  Jackson ultimately does and does not get Monroe’s blessing.  Monroe has to recall him and stop him.  Here’s Calhoun saying: Dude, you’ve got to stop people from threatening to use force until you know everything there is to know about it, and then you make a wise and expedient and prudent decision.  It’s a great correspondence between Calhoun, Monroe, some of the generals, and then the hotheaded, out-of-control nut bag Andrew Jackson is exciting to read.  But here’s Calhoun cautioning: You’ve got to make a decision but you’ve got to have all the facts and they must be correct.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]