Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Saturday criticized President Trump's decision to launch a missile strike on a Syrian airfield, saying the Trump administration should have sought input from Congress first.

"You know, I guess what I've been more concerned is not the military aspects of the mission or even whether or not it will have any significance," Paul said on CNN. "My concern has been mostly that this is an inappropriate way to begin a war, that the Constitution says war begins with a vote in Congress."

Paul, whose libertarian leanings have led him to advocate for far less foreign intervention than most other members of his party, pointed to the example George W. Bush set with his decision to seek an official Authorization for Use of Military Force from lawmakers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Even George Bush, who was often treated mercilessly by the media as being so far out there, he came to Congress and asked to go to war against the Taliban and those who attacked us on 9/11," Paul said. "He also did the same in Iraq."

Congressional leaders have signaled a willingness to consider the Trump administration's request to pursue additional military actions in Syria if the president decides to put one forward, although few lawmakers have indicated that they are open to returning from their two-week recess to debate an AUMF.

"I think this is a wrongheaded notion, that we just skip the most important step, and that is whether or not we should go to war," Paul said.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul: Syria strike an 'inappropriate way to begin a war' - Washington Examiner

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) shot back at his fellow Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for demanding that President Trump ask for Congressional approval for the airstrikes he ordered on a Syrian airfield Thursday. He made the comments on CNN Friday to Wolf Blitzer.

Blitzer read Pauls statement about the airstrike to McCain and asked for his reaction: While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked. The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.

I dont really react to Senator Paul, McCain said disdainfully, were just too different, and he doesnt really have any real influence in the United States Senate.

Blitzer reminded him that many other Senators agreed with Paul, and McCain said he would talk to them but not address Pauls statement.

So you dont even want to respond to that, Blitzer tried to ask again.

Pardon me, I dont pay any attention frankly, to whatSenator Paul says, McCain reiterated his disdain.

Buttell me why you disagree with him so much, Blitzer asked.

Because hes wrong, McCain replied.

Just on this issue or a whole bunch of other issues? Blitzer responded.

Every other issue that I know of, that has to do with national security, McCain answered.

McCain said that he wasnt surprised by the attack for several reasons. I got a call before the launch from Mattis and also from Kelly, he said, but when I talked to [President Trump] the morning before, I could tell that he was deeply concerned. Now, to the point where I thought it was entirely possible that he would decide to act on the advice of his national security team.

McCain also said that if Trump followed his advice to press on against President Bashar al-Assad, that he wouldnt need Congressional approval for that either.

He does not, he said about needing approval from Congress. President Reagan didnt need it when after the bombing at a disco in Berlin that killed Americans, striking Libya. But if this is a long term campaign, then I think we oughta examine it.

But Ill tell you the practical problems, he explained. The practical problems is, and Ive dealt with this issue for a long time, and that is, its called the War Powers Act, is the president is the commander in chief. And he proposes, Congress disposes, as far as money is concerned. But as far as the actual mechanics of the war are concerned, theres never been agreement. The War Powers Act has never been challenged in the courts because every president, Republican and Democrat, has been afraid that it was going to be ruled unconstitutional.

Rand Paul has been an outspoken critic of any military action made without Constitutional approval, a position that not many members of Congress have agreed with publicly.

Trump ordered the strike on a Syrian airfield in retaliation for a chemical attack on civilians many blame on President Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of State Tillerson said there was no doubt that Assad was guilty of the chemical attacks.

Read more here:
John McCain tramples on Rand Paul's foreign policy cred TheBlaze - TheBlaze.com

Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulSen. King: Trump needs Congress to sign off on new military action Trump, OReilly have long friendship Five questions for Trump on Syria MORE (R-Ky.) said Thursday night that President Trump needs congressional authorization for military action in Syria after Trump ordered an airstrike in retaliation for a deadly chemical attack earlier this week.

"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said in a statement shortly after reports that the U.S. had launched more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airfield in Syria.

"The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different."

While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked.

The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.

Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different.

Paul expressedsimilar sentimentsearlier Thursday amid reports that the Trump administration was considering a strike. Earlier this week, President Bashar Assad's forces reportedly used chemical weapons against opponents, including civilians and children, in Syria's years-long civil war.

A number of Democrats on Thursday night alsourged caution.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)sidedwith Paul on Twitter, saying that Trump "can use military force in defense of US. But attacking#Assadregime requires congressional approval."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) also called the strike "an act of war" on Twitter,sayingthat "Congress needs to come back into session & hold a debate. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility."

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul: Trump needs Congress to authorize military action ...

The Republican from Kentucky told CNN's Michael Smerconish that without "a vote in Congress," Trump's missile strikes in Syria were an "inappropriate way to start a war."

"I think this is a wrong-handed notion that we just skipped the most important step," he said.

"That resolution specifically says Sept. 11... and if someone is gonna come on television or in any public forum and say Assad had something to do with 9/11, they're frankly just a dishonest person," he said.

"I mean, the generation of 9/11 certainly shouldn't bind us to a forever war in the Middle East. I think it's absurd," Paul added.

"We have to decide when we are going to intervene as a country, when we are going to put our young men and women, put their lives on the line. And we don't, frankly, do it for every atrocity in the world," he argued.

"It doesn't mean we don't have great sympathy, but we have to debate when and where we go to war. That's what our founding fathers asked us to do," he added.

Paul also suggested the complex situation in Syria makes it different from the Nazi concentration camps of WWII, when "it was pretty clear" there was "one bad guy."

In Syria, he told Smerconish, "there can be an endless supply of enemies."

"You have to ask yourself: who takes over next? Are they better than the current occupant? So are the radical Islamic rebels -- the radical Islamic rebels in Syria -- better than Assad? There are also two million Christians ... in Syria, being protected by Assad, and they fear the Islamic rebels taking over. So there's a complicated decision-making process as to who are the good guys in the war," Paul emphasized.

"As horrific as those attacks were, and as heart-rending as the pictures and the atrocity and the children dying are, I don't believe that there was a national security interest of the United States," he argued.

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul: Syria strikes 'not in the national interest ...

Sen. Rand Paul sounded one of the more discordant notes last week after President Trumps retaliatory missile strike against the Syrian regime, suggesting it was ill-advised and illegal, and insisting Congress needs to get involved.

But after years of gridlock, the Kentucky Republican acknowledged there is little hope that Capitol Hill will take up the issue or, if it does, that it will do any better this time. Asked what it would take, his answer was succinct: Different colleagues.

The strike against an airfield that the U.S. says was the staging point for last weeks chemical weapons attack on civilians has reignited the debate over U.S. policy in the region and over how much authority the president has to act without having to go to Congress.

A small but vocal group of lawmakers, including Mr. Paul, said Mr. Trumps missile strikes were illegal and insisted that any military action against a government that hasnt attacked the U.S. must get congressional approval first.

Having served on active duty as a JAG, I am well aware of the legal authorities for the use of military force. President Trumps unilateral decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at another countrys military which had not attacked the U.S. was unconstitutional, said Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat who is still a colonel in the Air Force Reserve and a member of the Judge Advocate Generals Corps.

But the vast majority of lawmakers on Capitol Hill said the series of strikes was a properly proportionate response to the horrific use of nerve gas agents on President Bashar Assads own people.

I thought it was very clear what this strike was about. You dont use chemical weapons without consequences. I think thats a pretty clear message, and I dont necessarily read into that a larger strategy in the area, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

Mr. Trumps decision to enforce the red line, first clumsily drawn by President Obama, took Washington by surprise. After years of warning that the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian mess, Mr. Trump said the photos of children suffering from the chemical attack were too much for the civilized world to tolerate.

Some lawmakers are worried about the next steps and appear eager to pin down the policy of a president who just days ago said he wasnt concerned about Mr. Assad.

We cannot stand by in silence as dictators murder children with chemical weapons, said Rep. Steve Russell, Oklahoma Republican, and Rep. Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Democrat, who are chairmen of the Warrior Caucus of combat veterans in Congress.

But military action without clear goals and objective gets us nowhere. We look forward to hearing the president present a plan for Syria to the American people, for Congress to agree on bipartisan action, and for America to partner with the world community to help bring this treacherous conflict to an end, the two lawmakers said.

Sen. Christopher Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, said Mr. Trump appeared to be free-styling in his approach to Syria and showed disdain for Congress war-making authorities.

If you cant get an authorization of military force from Congress to strike in Syria or another country in the Middle East, then you shouldnt do it, Mr. Murphy said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, demanded that Republicans cancel a two-week spring break and reconvene the House to debate military policy in Syria.

As heartbreaking as Assads chemical weapons attacks on his own people was, the crisis in Syria will not be resolved by one night of airstrikes, she said. The killing will not stop without a comprehensive political solution to end the violence.

The U.S. has conducted nearly 8,000 strikes against targets in Syria since Mr. Obama first committed the military to operations in the country in 2014. Those strikes were targeted at the Islamic State. Mr. Obama also committed a small number of American troops to help rebels fight the Islamic State group, and Mr. Trump last month boosted the number of those troops.

But the U.S. airstrikes were the first directed specifically against the Syrian regime, leaving a number of lawmakers to say it went beyond the powers that Congress granted in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that gave presidents the power to target al Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

First Mr. Obama and now the Trump administration argue that the Islamic State is an offshoot of an offshoot of al Qaeda.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have long disputed that assertion.

In 2015, after years of heckling from Congress, Mr. Obama wrote his own proposed AUMF for Syria and the fight against the Islamic State and sent it to Capitol Hill. Some members of Congress said it went too far, another faction said it didnt go far enough and the legislation was quickly shelved, leaving the president with a free hand to continue.

Mr. McConnell didnt seem eager to restart the AUMF debate this year and said it is up to Mr. Trump to decide if he wants more war powers.

If the president can think of some AUMF that he thinks strengthens his hand, Id be happy to take a look at it, Mr. McConnell said.

Presidents change and lawmakers come and go, but The Washington Times is always here, and FREE online. Please support our efforts.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul urges AUMF before Trump military action - Washington Times