Rand Paul: Obama for stalemate in Syria
(CNN) – As President Barack Obama deliberates potential military action in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul says the administration is backing a plan that would end in stalemate for the troubled nation.
Speaking with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the Kentucky Republican said Obama's objectives weren't clear for Syria as he weighs cruise missile strikes.
"He's not going to be for regime change. For me, this sounds like we're not going to win, he's for stalemate," Paul said. "When I've had private conversations with the administration that's what I hear. They're not for victory for either side, they're for equalizing the battle and having stalemate."
The full interview with Paul airs on CNN's "The Situation Room" Friday from 5-7 p.m. ET.
READ MORE: Obama, don't rush into war in Syria
"He's not going to be for regime change. For me, this sounds like we're not going to win, he's for stalemate," Paul said.
----------------------
Win? What on earth is he talking about? Win? Well, I guess we know what the right wing war mongers want. They want another multi-trillion dollar war. For what? So that we can declare, "we won"? Won what?
BTW, hasn't Paul been on the exact opposite side of the fence regarding military foreign policy? Hasn't he advocated an isolationist policy like his father? Yup. Isn't this a major flip-flop by Paul?
"He's not going to be for regime change. For me, this sounds like we're not going to win, he's for stalemate," Paul said. "When I've had private conversations with the administration that's what I hear. They're not for victory for either side, they're for equalizing the battle and having stalemate."
Pretty irresponsible comments, Rand. If you care about your country, you'll name names when you spout off to the media. WHO said they're for stalemate?
Name names. Or are you making stuff up? I suspect the latter.
Another day, another soap box, Rand Paul?
A stalemate is actually the best possible outcome that will come out of this. Assad's not going anywhere. The elephant in the room no one is talking too much about is Russia. There are a lot of bad things that can happen if we strike. I'm almost certain if we attack, they(Syria, Hezbollah) will attack Israel.
Simply a waste of effort and tax dollars. Pure and simple.
Just who the President should be listening to..... A dentist. Go pull a tooth Curly top.
Rudy NYC
Win? What is he talking about-–
What he is saying that Obama is in a no win situation. Obama shot his mouth off and now he has Jarrett, Rice and Love huddled in the White House trying to spin this mess so they can blame the Republicans.
How do most Civil Wars end ? If one side can't wipe out the other side then it IS a stalemate. They eventually learn to co-exist. In Syria, el Quida is fighting Iran/Hezbollah. That's not all bad.
The right is gonna go after Obama for whatever he decides. The GOP has argued every decision Obama made in the last 5 years they won't stop now.
So now Paul is clairvoyant? Is certainly a talented man.
I have to agree with Rand Paul. There is never a good war. Once you start it, you might be 120% that you will win it, of which I do think so, it is only wishful thinking. War is war. It is all about killing people even those who are innocent and have nothing to do with war; or dismantling their infrastructure which was placed at the first place to be used by them.
Hammerer wrote:
What he is saying that Obama is in a no win situation. Obama shot his mouth off and now he has Jarrett, Rice and Love huddled in the White House trying to spin this mess so they can blame the Republicans.
-------------–
No, that is not what he was talking about. He was reciting neo-con dogma and advocating cowboy diplomacy and lunacy. His definition of win was a regime change that was pro-US. How middle of the 20th century thinking that is, let's create satellite states in the third world.
It was a no-win situration from the very start of the violence, anyway. You have a dictator on one side, and a civil uprising that's been hijacked by radicals and extremists on the other side.
Rand Paul The Great World Conqueror........................ We shall Destroy them with our Power and Might........... Make them Submit..................
@Rudy NYC,
"He was reciting neo-con dogma and advocating cowboy diplomacy and lunacy. "
Yes indeed. Amazing how libertarian, isolationist Rand Paul morphs into Lindsey Graham if he thinks it suits a political purpose.
Either way we go, this is not going to turn out well! Eygpt. Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria! That "red line" puts pressure on us to act. We act and we jump into something we will most likely regret. We don't act and we lose more crediblity and face! DM4O said to pray for the president. I would agree with her! None of these choices look good at all.
All the comments calling Rand Paul a neo-con are quite sad since that is the last thing in the world that he is.
He is pointing out the folly and absurdity of going to war with a country with the only plan being to bring about a stalemate – that's what our troops are sent to die and be maimed and have PTSD over now?
Rand Paul has made no comment EVER that he would support war with Syria if there was the intent of a regime change. That's not his point.
Big talk from a little twerp. Let the adults in the room make the tough decisions.
Rudy NYC
It was a no win--
NO the situation came from a "loose cannon" shooting his mouth off and then taking the advice of Valerie, Susan and Reggie trying to cover his back side.
For a man that is reported to be a second comming of Einstein he sure comes across as being an idiot.
Daniel Webster
All the comments calling Rand Paul a neo-con are quite sad since that is the last thing in the world that he is.
He is pointing out the folly and absurdity of going to war with a country with the only plan being to bring about a stalemate – that's what our troops are sent to die and be maimed and have PTSD over now?
Rand Paul has made no comment EVER that he would support war with Syria if there was the intent of a regime change. That's not his point
---------------------
"He's not going to be for regime change. For me, this sounds like we're not going to win, he's for stalemate," Paul said.
That's pretty clear to me. Paul is wants a "win", instead of a stalemate. And, a "win" means regime change. Rand Paul is pandering to the neo-cons on the right. His current words are complete 3-axis flip-flop from the isolationism that he's pushed in the past. But, who said anything about him actually meaing what he says? Not me.
Dump all these rethuglicans in Syria, come.
The nut doesn't fall far from the nut tree.
"He is pointing out the folly and absurdity of going to war with a country with the only plan being to bring about a stalemate – that's what our troops are sent to die and be maimed and have PTSD over now?"
1. He starts from the premise that it WILL be a stalemate. That's circular logic and not everyone agrees with that assessment.
2. Nobody is talking about putting our troops on the ground in Syria, least of all Obama. Putting words in his mouth so you can argue against them is cheap.
Just go away Rand. You and your buddy Cruz haveno idea what you're talking about!
I was going to say "Wake me up when Rand Paul says something that makes sense" but I don't want to become the next Rip Van Winkle, so never mind.
What exactly is Rand Paul saying about Jobs?
You people need to wake-up.
Everybody knows he hate Obama, just get on with the business of the American people, like jobs.