Rand Paul: Obama 'Hypocritical' For Decision To Intervene In Libya

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says the Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya contradicts the president's campaign statements about military action without Congressional approval.

Paul told a group of Iowa College Republicans on Saturday that Obama's airstrikes in Libya are hypocritical. He pointed to Obama's pre-election statement that presidents should not unilaterally authorize military action unless an imminent threat exists.

The Kentucky Republican made similar remarks in delivering a speech on the Senate floor last week.

"We are engaging in a third war at a time when our country is struggling under an enormous debt and involved in two other wars," he said, according to The Hill. "I will be very interested to see whether other senators support the candidate Barack Obama or now the hypocritical version that has become our president."

Reuters recently reported:

Some of the loudest Republican voices of dissent over the U.S. role in the attacks on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces are from rank-and-file Republicans with support from the conservative Tea Party movement.

"We are currently involved in two wars right now and I don't think we really need to be involved in a third war," said Senator Rand Paul, a fiscal hawk and founding member of the Tea Party caucus in the Senate, referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Kentucky lawmaker said during his campaign for Senate last year that foreign policy is the issue area he finds himself most at odds with members of his own party. He raised skepticism in an interview with National Review Online about the country's military efforts in Afghanistan.

Over the weekend, Paul's remarks were part of his small-government message he took to the Hawkeye State. He has become one of the Republican Party's highest-profile senators, and his visit demonstrates changes in the Iowa party since his father ran for president in 2008.

Former state Republican Party Chairman Stewart Iverson says he thinks U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's message about reduced spending would be more accepted now by Iowa Republicans.

Comments

[Mark128]

10:51 AM on 04/08/2011

Rand is absolutely right. Whats the debate here? I'm sure even Liberals can agree this foreign policy is not what was promised during the campaign. Left Right all the same it seems

[LyleORoss]

04:15 PM on 04/04/2011

LOL - Surely you can realize that both things occurred. Both that Rand voted for Res 85, and that the action is a bad idea and Obama blew it.

Rand Voted for Res 85 in the same way that many Senators vote for such things. That the Res didn't argue that the action was a war, but defined quite clearly the actions that we've taken that Rand now is against is clear. Rand blew it by not understanding what he was voting for, or for thinking his supporters would give him a pass because it wasn't a "war."

On the other hand, that Rand is now saying it is bad is fine. The argument that it should have been voted on is irrelevant. One way or another, Presidents that want to go to war get their war and we need to stop that.

Those in the Middle East who want to get rid of brutal leaders would be better off telling America (and the world) to stop supporting them, rather than rioting. So far they've been lucky. That luck ran out in Libya.

[Soviet1]

05:19 PM on 04/04/2011

Actually, he does get a pass, because he didn't vote. And also because he's drafting legislation to actually END the conflict among others. People trying to hold him accountable for this resolution is laughable and proves most people didn't even read the thing. Let me help you: http://www­.gpo.gov/f­dsys/pkg/B­ILLS-112sr­es85ats/pd­f/BILLS-11­2sres85ats­.pdf Read that, and you'll see the the last bit looks like this:

17 (7) urges the United Nations Security Council
18 to take such further action as may be necessary to
19 protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the
20 possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan ter21
ritory;

If a unanimous, no-effect, condemnation of supporters and "support" for a "possible" imposition of a no-fly zone"... is the liberals' leap to "Rand Paul was for it before he was against it" we're in big trouble folks... but nice try and thanks for playing!

[mnmike44]

01:51 PM on 04/04/2011

March 1st 2011, S.Res.85 - A resolution strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes. Was introduced by Senator Robert Menendez
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr85/show

EVERY SENATOR VOTED YES INCLUDING RAND PAUL FOR that Resolution—which took place on March 1st—the resolution called for Gadaffi to resign, strong sanctions and the establishment of a no-fly zone—eighteen days before Obama established the no-fly zone.

Rand Paul is not a disingenuous hypocrite he is a BALD FACED LIAR.

[Soviet1]

02:11 PM on 04/04/2011

Nobody voted, @mnmike44. There was no debate on it and was largely ignored by most senators. If your read the resolution, you know why. The language actually proclaims that we "condemn" violence against the protesters over there. This in no way authorizes the war. Why you clowns would fixate on this red herring instead of hold your golden boy president accountable for perpetuating the Bush Foreign policy is beyond me.

[Eris23]

05:18 PM on 04/04/2011

For far too many people, our national policy is merely like a game of football once politicized. It doesn't matter what their team does, so long as their team wins. It's definitely weakened us as a nation, particularly when there are no real consequences for leaders going back on their word. It's truly amazed me seeing so many Obama supporters echo the exact same arguments made by Bush for his wars. What's funny is, if President Obama loses, they'll blame people like me.

[S Jacoby]

12:53 AM on 04/07/2011

UNANIMOUS CONSENT:
A Senator requests a "Unanimous Consent vote" for damn near every single bill and/or resolution.

IF: Even one Senator 'objects' to "unanimous consent"
THEN: The Bill/Resolution goes to the Floor for a "Roll Call Vote" and with unlimited Debate Time.

IF: A Bill or Resolution passes with "unanimous consent"
THEN: Every single US Senator voted "YEA" on the Bill/Resolution and there is no need for a "Roll Call Vote" because every Senator voted "yea" and did not need to, nor chose to, "debate"

RESOLUTIONS:
I don't know of any Resolution that ever passed via "unanimous consent" that was not 'law' and was not 'binding'
I can list recent "Resolutions" that are law and are binding.
- Continuing Resolution
- Iraq No-Fly Zone Resolution
- Iraq War Resolution
- Byrd Hagel Resolution
Resolutions are law and are legally binding.

[NHGranite]

02:41 PM on 04/04/2011

Some people think that what occurs in the Senate has to be like in Mr Smith goes to Washington. Same people who probably think we are a democracy and not a republic.

[zenbamboo]

01:07 PM on 04/04/2011

Courtesy of Lawrence O'Donnell on Friday night:

"He joined the Senate's unanimous consent to support the resolution backing a United Nations-enforced no-fly-zone over Libya. In fact, that Senate resolution calls for everything — everything — that President Obama has done in Libya, and it called for those actions before President Obama decided to do it. Rand Paul voted for that. He's voted for everything that the President has done in Libya — he's voted in support of it, and he voted for it in the form of a resolution introduced by liberal Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden and self-proclaimed socialist senator Bernie Sanders. That's right, Tea Party Senator Rand Paul voted with the only socialist senator to support what the President is doing in Libya before the President did anything in Libya."

[Eris23]

01:13 PM on 04/04/2011

Which resolution is that?

[mnmike44]

02:15 PM on 04/04/2011

Senate Resolution 85! Introduced by Senator Robert Menendez The Resolution called for Gadaffi to resign, strong sanctions and the establishment of a no-fly zone—eighteen days before Obama establishe d the no-fly zone.

[Mark128]

10:55 AM on 04/08/2011

nice try Paul wasnt even on the senate floor when this vote was passed with “unanimous consent”

[Soviet1]

12:39 PM on 04/04/2011

I'm sorry, but there are like a thousand posts on this thread saying that Rand voted for the war, which is preposterous because he's come out against the Libyan intervention since the very start. Last time I checked, nobody checked with congress on whether they supported it or not. THAT was the whole uproar around this mess from BOTH sides of isle. Can anybody intelligently comment on these empty accusations?

[NHGranite]

12:57 PM on 04/04/2011

Go back to school. This is tiring. Senate procedure for a unanimous vote is and has been acceptable, and was performed, and Rand flunked. Do your own research, perhaps through Senate.gov and get over it.

[Soviet1]

02:07 PM on 04/04/2011

You'll say absolutely anything to make some cheap partisan point, won't you @NHGranite? Doesn't matter if Rand Paul never voted, doesn't matter that he publicly came out against the war and is seeking legislation to end it. Doesn't matter that the golden boy of your party is embarrassingly perpetuation the Bush Foreign Policy. Have you even read the resolution in question? Go read it for yourself instead of spouting O'Donnell talking points. Disgusting.

[Eris23]

02:26 PM on 04/05/2011

I still love how, after days, you haven't been able to cite any language from the resolution that authorized war.

[juzcuz]

12:14 PM on 04/04/2011

Wow, what nerve RumpledRandy has calling anyone names - with a history and garbage-baggage like he has following him around. I suppose he doesn't remember saying that African Americans shouldn't be served lunch at Woolworth's counter either, right? This guy is totally bizarre and the fact that he got voted in as senator of Kentucky... makes me glad that UK lost in the Final Four... anyone related to Rumpled in anyway has NO credibility at all.

[JBINDM]

12:26 PM on 04/04/2011

QUO:TE: " If the world comes to an end, let me be in Kentucky....they are ten years behind". Mark Twain

[Soviet1]

12:27 PM on 04/04/2011

Except he said no such thing. He disagreed with the part of the civil rights bill that compels private sector businesses to serve everyone. This is private ownership argument that is totally valid, in spite of the claptrap the liberals spout about it.

[NHGranite]

12:58 PM on 04/04/2011

If you were a judge you'd be one of those activist ones. Law already accepted and this is the only civilized country on the planet that questions it.

[zenbamboo]

11:52 AM on 04/04/2011

How convenient it is that he lies about how he voted for it, or has his staff lie to callers asking about it. He's the hypocrite.

[Soviet1]

12:16 PM on 04/04/2011

Could you be more specific with your accusation? What did he vote for?

[mnmike44]

02:10 PM on 04/04/2011

In a previous post you said you were sorry. After having numerous posts that said Rand Paul voted for S. Res 85 which condemned Gadaffi and called for sanctions and a no-fly zone—you continue to ask the same lame question. I can only assume that what you're sorry for—is being a tool.

[Aroon]

11:36 AM on 04/04/2011

Rand, if you don't want war, then ask your party members to clearly state that opinion & to declare that they will vote against any new war. Otherwise, keep your oipnions to yourself.

[Soviet1]

12:17 PM on 04/04/2011

Rand departs from the war-hawks in his party on this issue. Remember, he aligns himself on foreign policy more with Ron Paul and the anti-interventionist position.

[mnmike44]

02:35 PM on 04/04/2011

He's another mealy mouthed opportunistic blow hard that says one thing and does another. He voted for the resolution before he spoke out against it. drink the Koolaide and shut-up!

[jahzilla]

10:50 PM on 04/04/2011

Remember, "little" Rand has no clue the consequences born of virtually all his "anti this, anti that" rhetoric. He doesn't have one plan (not drawn on the back of a napkin) to back up anything. Nada, Zip!
But, boy . . . he certainly has your little-boy head dancing with glee.
Typical libertarian contrarian narcissist. Gotta be heard, yet has nothing to say.

[sGennawey]

11:25 AM on 04/04/2011

Said the Wizard, "Just ignore what is behind the curtain." So Rand Paul voted for the war. He gave his consent. Because of his magical powers he can erase his previous actions and just say whatever he wants to say. His followers are so uncritical they will just ignore reality. Must be fun living on such a planet.

[Eris23]

12:19 PM on 04/04/2011

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres85ats/pdf/BILLS-112sres85ats.pdf

What constitutes a vote for war in that Resolution? This is a red herring logical fallacy. The most violent aspect that can be concluded to relate to war was the request for the UNSC to consider something like a no fly zone. I am thoroughly amazed that so many people who have been opposed to our wars of the pass are now considering this Resolution a valid authorization, or even support for, war.

[sGennawey]

12:38 PM on 04/04/2011

You missed the issue. He could have objected but he did not. By not objecting he gave his consent. Now he wants to have it both ways by opposing the effort. As his mentor Sarah Palin would say, "Man up" and own the vote.

[mnmike44]

02:40 PM on 04/04/2011

I'd try splain' it to ya but I be waysing my breadth! Another Michelle Bachmann home schooler!

[Patrick McGovern]

11:19 AM on 04/04/2011

Rand Paul is definitely a republican, They have no concept of videotape and or audio recording.

Sparky voted for this. Cue the tape.
If your a Republican you can change your position depending on who you are talking to.Hourly, Daily,Weekly. Spread it around , kinda like manure. Helps your position grow.

[Soviet1]

12:14 PM on 04/04/2011

Rand Paul has always been anti war. Do you have "tape" showing something different?

[Eric Brakey]

03:05 PM on 04/05/2011

Can I see the tape? Its a cute metaphor, but ultimately worthless unless you have some actual evidence to back up your calims.

[flossophy]

11:00 AM on 04/04/2011

Candidate Obama would've opposed the policies of President Obama.

[juzcuz]

12:22 PM on 04/04/2011

Candidate Obama probably wouldn't have run for office if he had known what was in store for him -
the nastiest GOP/TEA partiers ever, doing their ONE & ONLY job of obstructing & destroying anything & everything Obama and Dems have tried to do. And the crap that Georgie Porgie left for Obama at the front door of the White House was a gawd-awful mess in all respects. There is NO one on earth who could've done any better with the hell-hole GB left for the next president. Most of what we're facing today is due to 8 loooooong years of Porgie and his Pet Goats. 

[Soviet1]

12:30 PM on 04/04/2011

I can tell you're an Obama shill, but can you actually call yourself a progressive by supporting this war?

[Eric Brakey]

03:08 PM on 04/05/2011

I can understand (even though I disagree) arguments that we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan because Obama is "cleaning up Bush's mess." Libya, however, is Obama's war through and through. There's no blaming it on Bush. This was a war of choice, not necessity, and Obama has shown himself to be the "born again neocon" that Bill Kristol has embraced.

[alfo]

10:46 AM on 04/04/2011

http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/309634/#42385868

rand paul is a lying hypocrite

[alfo]

10:43 AM on 04/04/2011

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42385868

THIS COWARD VOTED FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING

[Soviet1]

12:18 PM on 04/04/2011

Your link is broken. So far, you've "proven" nothing...

[VietVet67]

10:33 AM on 04/04/2011

Didja forget how you voted on SR 85, Rand?

[Eris23]

12:20 PM on 04/04/2011

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres85ats/pdf/BILLS-112sres85ats.pdf

There's SR 85. Relevance?

[Soviet1]

12:42 PM on 04/04/2011

@VietVet67, so you consider "condemning inhumanity against protesters" a vote for the war? Big leap, isn't it? Thanks for playing...

[Totto]

10:14 AM on 04/04/2011

Go worship "Aqua Buddha", frat boy!

[Soviet1]

12:31 PM on 04/04/2011

So you bought that weak smear attempt? Can you call yourself anything else then a partisan hack after using a comment like that?

[Totto]

01:13 PM on 04/04/2011

Yep. An American Patriot, not a snivelling, whiny-@ssed wuss like Randal.