- House passes VA reform compromise
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
Sen. Rand Paul: Obama interested in ‘saving face’ on Syria
Question of the Day
Sen. Rand Paul said Friday that President Obama appears to be interested in “saving face” when it comes to his pending decision on whether to approve U.S.-led military strikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Mr. Paul, a likely contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, said that Mr. Obama, a Democrat, painted himself into a corner by declaring in 2012 that the use of chemical weapons represented a “red line” for the United States.
“It sounds to me like saving face because he has made a promise, so he is going to follow through with his promise,” the Kentucky Republican said on “Fox and Friends.” “That’s why you ought to be very careful about drawing lines in the sand, or red lines, because now he feels that he looks weak to both his colleagues in the United States as well as his international colleagues. I don’t think that is enough reason to go to war.”
Mr. Obama said at a 2012 press conference that “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
“That would change my calculus. That would change my equation,” Mr. Obama said at the time.
Mr. Obama said this week that his administration has concluded that the Assad regime was behind the chemical weapons attack last week that killed citizens in the suburbs of Damascus and he called for an international response.
The British House of Commons, though, put a major dent in the White House’s push when it voted Thursday against getting involved in U.S.-led strikes — further isolating the Obama administration.
British lawmakers raised concerns related to the faulty intelligence that the Bush administration and former Prime Minister Tony Blair used to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“Both the president and the vice president, once upon a time, before they came into power, understood this,” Mr. Paul said. “As a senator, Barack Obama said that no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of Congress. I still believe that.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- Democrats may win at fundraising but still lose to GOP at polls
- Impeachment talks revving up Democratic base: DCCC
- Boehner says impeachment talk is Democratic fundraising ploy
- Achin' for Akin: Democrats praying for GOP Gaffes in midterms
- GOP 2014: Republican governors cite their economic stewardship
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- MSNBC's Ronan Farrow questions lack of racial diversity in emoji characters
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama vows veto of House border bill
- ISTOOK: Get ready for super-priced burgers due to NLRB decree
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world